COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT Accompanying the document Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) 2019/1009 as regards the digital labelling of EU fertilising products
Date: 2023-02-27
Institutions: Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs, European Commission
Subjects: EC conformity marking, EU environmental policy, digital transformation, digitisation, fertiliser, fertiliser industry, harmonisation of standards, labelling, market approval, single market

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 27.2.2023  SWD(2023) 50 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT  Accompanying the document Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council  amending Regulation (EU) 2019/1009 as regards the digital labelling of EU fertilising products    {COM(2023) 98 final} - {SEC(2023) 99 final} - {SWD(2023) 48 final} - {SWD(2023) 49 final}  
 
 
Executive Summary Sheet 

Impact  assessment  on  a  proposal  for  a  Regulation  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  amending 
Regulation (EU) 2019/1009 EU Fertilising Products Regulation  

What is the problem and why is it a problem at EU level? 

A. Need for action 

The Fertilising Products Regulation (FPR) applies as of 16 July 2022 and  lays down rules on making available 
EU fertilising products on the internal market. In the EU, manufacturers of fertilising products may choose freely 
to either place their products on the market as ‘harmonised products’ (products that comply with the FPR), and 
such  products  move  freely  in  the  internal  market;  or  as  ‘non-harmonised  products’  (products  that  comply  with 
national rules applicable in each EU country). This impact assessment concerns the digitisation of the labelling 
of EU fertilising products (i.e. placed on the market under the FPR).  

Under  the  FPR,  the  labelling  requirements,  when  compared  to  the  previous  Regulation,  have  substantially 
increased.  There  are  also  no  rules  regarding  the  voluntary  digitisation  of  the  labels,  so  there  are  no  minimum 
standards to ensure the quality of information, currently provided digitally on a voluntary basis.  

These  issues  lead  to  the  first  problem,  i.e.  the  labels  on  EU  fertilising  products  are  difficult  to  read  for 
users. 

Further, the extensive labelling requirements under the FPR take a lot of space, which can serve as a barrier to 
effective  free  movement  of  products,  as  considerable  label  space  is  needed  to  accommodate  multi-language 
labels.  Further  to  this,  some  labelling  information  changes  frequently.  For  instance,  for  organic  fertilisers,  the 
content  of  the  various  forms  of  nutrients  may  vary  from  one  batch  to  another,  depending  on  the  quality  of  the 
input materials used.  

In addition, within the industry, some economic operators remake the labels before the product reaches the end-
users, because the products are either blended, repackaged or rebranded. In parallel, products sold in bulk need 
leaflets  personalised  for  each  customer,  which  involves  an  unjustified  administrative  burden,  given  also  the 
specific nature of bulk sales.  

These  issues  lead  to  the  second  problem,  i.e.  EU  fertilising  product  labels  are  difficult  to  manage  for 
manufacturers. 

What should be achieved?  

This initiative should help achieve a high level of protection for human, animal and plant health, safety and the 
environment,  as  well  as  ensuring  the  effective  functioning  of  the  internal  market  in  fertilising  products  through 
alignment  of  the  rules  across  the  EU-27.  More  specifically,  this  initiative  should  improve  the  readability  of  the 
labels of EU fertilising products and help economic operators to manage labels properly. 

What is the value added of action at the EU level (subsidiarity)? 

EU countries could tackle part of the problem nationally, by adopting their own rules on minimum standards for 
digitising the labels, given that this issue is not yet covered in the FPR itself.  

However,  this  would  not  address  the  first  problem  identified,  as  the  same  information  will  be  provided  on  the 
physical labels, without any change. Such an approach would unavoidably lead to different practices all over the 
EU and create obstacles to the functioning of the internal market. It could lead to inequalities in terms of potential 
cost  savings  and  communication  of  information.  It  would  also  increase  costs  for  industry,  having  to  adapt  to 
divergent digital labelling requirements in different EU countries.  

By contrast, introducing the conditions for the digital label at EU level has the added value of aligning the various 
practices. By creating a level playing field, such an initiative would improve the functioning of the internal market, 
while ensuring the high standard of protection sought by the FPR. 

The added value of EU action also lies in the existence of potential economies of scale in the fertilising products 
industry. Aligning digital labelling requirements across the EU could facilitate the use of multilingual labels and 
thus support the distribution of products with the same label in more than one EU country. 

B. Solutions 

1 

 
 
What are the various options to achieve the objectives? Is there a preferred option or not? If not, why? 

In  addition  to  the  baseline  scenario  of  no  action,  the  impact  assessment  identifies  3  policy  options  (POs). 
Options can be combined; 

  PO1 proposes the development of a guidance document by the Commission on digital labelling. 

  PO2 can be divided into five separate options (2a – 2e), which allow various amounts of information to be 

provided on a digital label.  

Under all options introducing digital labelling, the option to label the selected information physically on a 
product or under a digital label remains optional. Any option introducing digital labelling further triggers some 
fundamental principles, to protect end-users and ensure the accessibility, availability and quality of digital 
information.  

Finally, some of the options below make a distinction between professional and non-professional users. 
Such options have been included as the impact assessment found that what information product users find 
essential, as well as how they use the label depends on the user group (where non-professional users, i.e. 
hobby gardeners, acting outside the scope of an economic activity, often do not understand technical label 
information, and professional users rely less on labels overall). 
o  PO2a would allow some label information to be provided only digitally. 
o  PO2b  would  allow  some  label  information  to  be  provided  only  digitally,  with  a  distinction  between 

professional and non-professional users.  

o  PO2c would allow most of the label information to be provided only digitally. 
o  PO2d would allow most of the label information to be provided only digitally, with a distinction between 

professional and non-professional users.  

o  PO2e would allow some of the label information to be provided only digitally for non-professional users, 

and most of the label information to be provided only digitally for professional users. 

  PO3  allows  all  of  the  label  information  to  be  provided  digitally  for  products  sold  in  bulk  (without  product 
packaging) and products not sold to end-users (e.g. used by industrial users, such as blenders, packagers, 
repackagers).  

The preferred option is PO2a together with PO3. While PO2a is the most cautious in terms of the scope of the 
information to be provided only digitally, PO3 further considerably contributes to the effectiveness of solving the 
two problems by targeting certain segments of the market where digital labelling can be implemented at low risk, 
with  high  impact.  This  preferred  package  ensures  the  most  balanced  approach  in  terms  of  costs  and  benefits 
while most taking into account the digital divide1.  

What are different stakeholders' views? Who supports which option? 

The consultation activities have confirmed broad support for digitising some label information. Overall, the slight 
preference among industry stakeholders was for PO2a and PO2d (PO2d allows for the highest amount of label 
information to be moved to a digital label). The difference in preference for these two options may be explained 
by  the  different  level  of  digitalisation  in  different  companies  (74%  of  respondents  to  the  public  consultation 
indicated they already provide product information digitally). 

For  the  overall  digitisation  of  EU  fertilising  product  labels,  the  general  preference  of  public  authorities  was  for 
PO2a  and  PO2b, and particularly  as a model for transition (i.e. to  gradually shift to more digital labelling once 
confidence is gained). In terms of PO2b, there was some disagreement between national authorities in terms of 
the feasibility of applying a distinction between professional and non-professional users.  

PO3 is widely accepted by all stakeholders (including industry, public authorities and product users).  

1 The digital divide refers to the distinction between those who have internet access and are able to make use of 
new services offered on the internet, and those who are excluded from these services. 

2 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
What are the benefits of the preferred option (if any, otherwise main ones)? 

C. Impacts of the preferred option 

The  impact  assessment  considers  the  total  accruing  annual  benefits  for  companies  under  the  preferred  policy 
option  package  to  be  €6,857  for  SMEs  and  €62,833  for  large  companies.  Savings  offset  the  costs  identified 
below,  and  cost  savings  are  expected  to  increase  in  the  longer  term.  The  possibility  of  providing  certain 
information only digitally under PO2a, and all information digitally for products sold to economic operators under 
PO3, would lead to cost savings for the industry because: 

 

the manufacturers, including SMEs, remain free to decide whether to use the digital labelling. Consequently, 
such a decision would be taken by those manufacturers who estimate costs savings  in at least the medium 
or long term;  

  digital labels are less expensive to update, so in the long term some savings could be expected due to less 

frequent reprinting of labels. 

Therefore, the preferred option package will reduce labelling costs and will create a level playing field between 
economic operators. The labelling costs will be reduced both by including more languages on the label and by 
avoiding  reprinting  due  to  label  changes.  The  impact  assessment  confirms  that  the  more  label  information  is 
allowed  to  be  provided  digitally  (and  in  particular  fast-changing  information),  the  greater  the  cost  savings  for 
industry. This is particularly why PO3 would provide substantial benefits.  

Secondly,  under  PO2a,  all  the  safety-related  information  on  the  physical  label  is  kept.  By  reducing  the 
information to be included on the physical label, safety information will become more visible thus contributing to 
the objective of protecting health and the environment. Due to the specific nature of products covered by PO3 
(i.e.  bulk  products  without  packaging,  or  products  designed  to  be  combined  and  blended  before  reaching  an 
end-user), providing all product information in digital form, including safety information, is considered acceptable 
in this case.  

Lastly,  this  preferred  package  of  options  is  easier  to  apply  and  enforce,  as  no  distinction  is  made  between 
professional and non-professional users. Such a distinction does not exist in the FPR itself. It would have implied 
both  that the manufacturers would have had to target their products to one  or other of the  two categories and 
that  the  enforcement  authorities  would  have  had  to  check  that  products  for  professional  users  are  not  sold  to 
non-professional users.    

What are the costs of the preferred option (if any, otherwise main ones)? 

The  impact  assessment  assumes  that  the  costs  of  providing  information  in  digital  format  for  any  specific 
business would be more or less identical across PO2a-PO2e, and PO3.  

Despite  incurring  one-off  costs  (e.g.  costs  for  purchasing  equipment  reading  QR  codes,  redesigning  labels; 
estimated  at  €14,998  for  large  companies  and  €1,796  for  SMEs)  and  ongoing  costs  (e.g.  re-training  staff, 
equipment depreciation and maintenance of software and web pages; estimated at €2,700 for large companies, 
and  €1,170  for  SMEs),  PO2a  combined  with  PO3  is  expected  to  lead  to  costs  savings  (as  explained  in  the 
previous section). 

What are the impacts on SMEs and competitiveness? 

Policy  options  disproportionality  disadvantaging  SMEs,  for  instance  options  proposing  mandatory  digital 
labelling, were discarded at an early stage of the screening process.  

PO2a together with PO3 will allow SMEs to reap the benefits of the digital age and will result in potential burden 
reduction,  in  the  same  way  as  for  larger  companies.  However,  it  must  be  noted  that  compared  to  large 
companies,  SMEs  are  found  to  be  less  likely  to  provide  information  about  their  products  online,  but  not  by 
significant amounts. Based on the results of the public consultation, 70% of the SMEs compared to 79% of large 
companies already provide information about their products  digitally. This illustrates that benefits as a result of 
introducing voluntary digital labelling would be very likely for SMEs. 

Allowing  label  information  to  move  from  a  physical  label  to  a  digital  label  will  support  the  competitiveness  of 
those  companies  that  have  challenges  regarding  space  constraints  of  labels.    Reducing  the  amount  of 
information required on the physical label can improve the free movement of fertilising products across all 27 EU 

3 

 
 
countries.  

Being able to include more languages on the physical labels, by moving some information under a digital label, 
would  mean  that  it  is  more  cost-effective  to  distribute  products  to  multiple  EU  countries,  which  supports 
increased investment and economies of scale.  

Will there be significant impacts on national budgets and administrations? 

No,  although  EU  countries  may  face  some  adaptation  costs  to  adjust  to  the  new  Regulation.  However,  since 
they already have digital literacy and deal with digital devices within their professional capacity, this will not be a 
significant impact/burden. 

Will there be other significant impacts? 

No other significant impacts have been identified. 

Proportionality? 

The preferred option complies with the proportionality principle. It does not exceed what it is needed to achieve 
the objectives followed. Digitising the labels will remain optional. Whenever it is used, it will be accompanied by 
the  general  principles  of  digital  labelling,  to  ensure  the  quality  and  accessibility  of  the  information  provided 
digitally.  

Consistent  with  the  approach  that  will  be  taken  on  digital  labelling  for  chemicals  (CLP  Regulation)  and 
detergents,  as  experience  and  confidence  is  gained  in  digital  labelling,  it  could  be  possible  to  increase  the 
amount of information available digitally in the future, which may further increase the simplification potential for 
industry. 

When will the policy be reviewed? 

D. Follow up 

The new regulation will be evaluated as part of the overall evaluation of the functioning of the FPR in 2026. 

4