Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive (EU) 2019/633 on unfair trading practices in business-to-business relationships in the agricultural and food supply chain
Date: 2026-04-17
Institutions: Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, European Commission
Subjects: common agricultural policy, rural development

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

DIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT 

Factual Summary report on the public consultation on the 

Revision of EU rules on business-to-business unfair 
trading practices in the food supply chain 

Disclaimer: This document should be regarded solely as a summary of the contributions 
made  by  stakeholders  in  the  open  public  consultation  on  the  revision  of  EU  rules  on 
business-to-business  unfair  trading  practices  in  the  food  supply  chain.  It  cannot  in  any 
circumstances  be  regarded  as  the  official  position  of  the  Commission  or  its  services. 
Contributions to public consultations cannot be considered as a representative sample of 
the views of the EU population. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1.  Introduction 

The EU Directive 2019/633 on unfair trading practices  (UTP) in the agricultural and 
food  supply  chain  (‘the  Directive’)  was  adopted  by  the  European  Parliament  and 
Council on 17 April 2019. EU countries were required to transpose it into national law 
by 1 May 2021 and apply it six months later. The Directive prohibits 16 unfair trading 
practices  (‘UTPs’)  in  business-to-business  relationships  and  is  designed  to  protect 
small suppliers when they deal with significantly larger buyers. Ten of these practices 
are prohibited (blacklist) while six are allowed only if agreed previously by the parties 
(the  ‘grey  list’).    Currently,  the  UTP  Directive  covers  suppliers  with  a  maximum 
turnover threshold of EUR 350 million.  

The  public  consultation  aimed  to  collect  experiences  of  stakeholders  with  UTPs  and 
gather  views  on  a  possible  future  revision  of  the  Directive.  The  consultation  period 
lasted 12 weeks (5 December 2025 to 27 February 2026). The public consultation was 
carried out in in parallel with the call for evidence document.  

This report summarises the replies to the public consultation questionnaire, while the 
positions papers and results of the call for evidence will be summarised and discussed 
at a later stage. 

2. 

Contributions received  

2.1. Overview  

The public consultation questionnaire consisted of closed and open questions, with the 
possibility to  add comments and upload additional position papers. The participants 
were  also  offered  the  option  to  publish  their  contributions  with  either  with  their 
personal data or anonymously.  

The questionnaire included questions related to: 

•  the identification of respondents, 
•  past experience with UTPs and the Directive, and  
•  possible areas for revision.  

2.2.  Respondents 

The Commission received 158 replies and 39 position papers. The results were checked 
for  duplicates1).  Only  54  respondents  (34.2%)  opted  for  the  publication  of  the 
contribution  with  their  personal  data,  such  as  the  name  of  the  organisation.  89 
respondents (62%) requested that their name is not published.   

(1)  The checks revealed that the Commission received three  replies from the same organisation, and two 
from another, with almost identical results. Given the low statistical importance of these duplications, it 
was decided not to remove the extra replies.  

2 

 
 
 
Most respondents contributed to the public consultation either as business associations 
(61; 38.6%) or as companies/businesses (60; 38%). The Commission also received 
10 contributions from NGOs, 9 from public authorities, 6 from individual citizens and 
2 from consumer organisations and trade unions each. 

Regarding  organisation  size,  large  organisations  with  250  employees  or  more 
represented  34%  of  all  replies  (54),  medium  organisations  (50  to  249  employees) 
17.7%  (28  replies),  while  small  organisations  (10  to  49  employees)  and  micro 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
organisations (1 to 9 employees) represented 20.9% and 23.4% of replies respectively 
(33 and 37 replies). 

As regards their role in the supply chain, 55 out of 158 respondents (34.8%) act both 
as buyers and suppliers, while 47 (29.7%) are only suppliers and 18 (11.4%) are only 
buyers.  

The public  consultation  also  enquired  about the capacity in which respondents   had 
experience of unfair trading practices: 41 out of 158 respondents (25.6%) are farmers 
or  producer  associations  and  cooperatives,  58  (36.7%)  are  processors  of  processor 
associations,  41  (25.6%)  are  retailers  or  retailer  associations,  33  (14.6%)  are 
wholesalers  or  wholesaler  associations,  and  17  (10.8%)  are  consumers,  consumer 
associations or civil society organisations including NGOs.  

3.  Results  

Apart  from  the  questions  relating  to  the  identification  of  each  respondent,  the 
substantive questions in the public consultation were related to two main categories: 
the first one on the experience of stakeholders with UTPs and the Directive, and the 
second on possible areas for revision. 

4 

 
 
 
3.1 

Experience with UTPs and the Directive 

For this category the public consultation contained four closed and two open questions. 
In  the  open  questions  of  the  consultation,  regarding  awareness,  some  respondents 
reported that retailers and wholesalers falling under the scope of national and EU UTP 
rules have complied with the new rules, adapted their contracts, and trained their staff 
on  the  new  obligations.  A  few  respondents  noted  that  the  lack  of  strong  EU 
harmonization creates fragmentation, and more protection and information is needed 
for  non-EU  suppliers  to  address  unfair  practices  in  cross-border  transactions.  Some 
respondents mentioned that they have been in touch with relevant national and EU 
authorities to obtain further guidance and support in implementing the UTP rules. 

On  the  existence  of  unfair  practices,  the  respondents  mentioned  in  their  replies  to 
open questions that unfair trading practices by buyers, such as charging suppliers for 
storage, shelf placement, or listing costs as a condition for market access, abuse of 
confidential  information,  and  unilateral  contractual  changes,  are  widespread  among 
food and drink manufacturers. The majority of respondents in open questions reported 
that  the  main  deterrent  for  suppliers  including  manufacturers  to  act  against  unfair 
trading practices is the fear of retaliation, including commercial sanctions. 

The main results in the closed questions can be found in the graphs below. Whereas 
most  economic  operators  (89.2%)  are  aware  of  the  existence  of  the  Directive  a 
considerable percentage of participants (103 respondents or 65.2% indicated at least 
one  unfair  UTP)  observed  illegal  behaviour  in  their  supply  chain.  At  the  same  time 
5.7% of respondents indicated that they have submitted formal complaints.  

Q: Are you aware of the UTP Directive and the rights and obligations for suppliers and 
buyers under it?  

Q:  Have  you  observed  as  an  economic  operator  in  the  supply  chain  or  experienced 
any of the following practices in the last 3 years? (2) 

(2)  Multiple answers were possible to this question.  

5 

 
 
 
 
Main Replies 

Answers 

Unilateral changes to contract terms by the buyer 

Retaliation or threats of retaliation against the  supplier exercising its 
rights 

Payments not related to a specific transaction 

Forcing the supplier to pay for the buyer’s marketing 

Charging the supplier for stocking, displaying, or listing their products 

76 

66 

62 

61 

61 

Q: If you experienced a UTP, did you: 

Replies 

% of Answers 

No answer  

Try to resolve it directly with the buyer  

Prefer not to say  

Take no action  

File a complaint with a national enforcement authority  

53.8% 

25.3% 

12.7% 

10.1% 

5.7% 

Q: Have you ever been accused by a supplier of engaging in an UTP? 

6 

 
 
 
 
 
3.2  

Possible areas for revision  

For  this  category  the  public  consultation  contained  seven  closed  and  seven  open 
questions.  In  the  open  questions  of  the  consultation  regarding  the  existence  of 
turnover thresholds many respondents called for their removal arguing that they do 
not accurately reflect economic dependence and bargaining power. A few respondents 
expressed  concern  that  expanding  the  scope  beyond  small  farmers  and  producers 
would  contradict  the  original  intention  of  the  UTP  Directive  to  protect  the  most 
vulnerable  operators.  Approximately  half  of  the  respondents  noted  that  turnover-
based  thresholds  fail  to  capture  the  realities  of  highly  concentrated  markets  at  the 
buyers’ level, where economic dependence and access to shelves/end consumer are 
more important factors than company size.  

On the scope of the protection provided by the Directive most respondents emphasized 
the need to protect small farmers, cooperatives, and producer organisations, as they 
are  often  the  weakest  actors  in  the  supply  chain  and  most  vulnerable  to  unfair 
practices.   

On  UTPs  not  covered  by  the  Directive  the  majority  of  respondents  suggested 
expanding the blacklist of 10 prohibited practices to include additional unfair practices, 
such  as  unjustified  self-referencing  of  private  label  products,  significant  contractual 
imbalances,  abrupt  termination  without  notice,  unjustified  logistics  penalties, 
unilateral deductions, and imposed promotional costs. Some respondents emphasised 
the need to better protect suppliers, especially small and medium-sized enterprises, 
against retaliation (e.g. through delisting threats). 

On the need to prevent farmers from being forced to systematically sell below their 
production  costs  the  majority  reported  that  the  directive  should  focus  on  stopping 
systematic pressure from buyers to force suppliers to sell below their production costs 
due to imbalances in bargaining power, rather than an outright EU-wide ban on below-
cost selling. Some respondents reported that farmers and suppliers should retain the 
freedom to sell below production costs in certain circumstances, such as to avoid waste 
or  manage  short-term  market  imbalances,  and  that  a  general  prohibition  could  be 
problematic by limiting flexibility and increasing losses. 

The  main  results  for  the  closed  questions  can  be  found  in  the  graphs  below.    19 
respondents (12%) see the turnover thresholds as broadly adequate. As concerns the 
upper threshold of EUR 350 million 15 respondents (9.5%) say that it should remain 
unchanged. 65.2% of respondents would like the Directive to include more prohibited 
practices. Regarding the issue of systematically selling below cost, 29.7% would not 
like  the  Directive  to  cover  this  matter  while  37.3%  believe  it  should.  54.5%  of 
respondents have experienced challenges from differences in prohibited UTPs between 
Member States, either frequently or occasionally.  

Q:  Do  you  think  the  current  turnover  thresholds  (based  on  relative  size)  are  still 
appropriate to determine which suppliers deserve protection? 

7 

 
Q: Do you think the upper threshold of €350 million for supplier protection should 
be adjusted? 

Q: Do you think that certain types of operators and organisations (e.g. producer 
organisations / cooperatives) should benefit from more tailored protection under 
the Directive? 

8 

 
 
 
 
Q. Based on your experience, are there any unfair trading practices not currently 
covered by the Directive that you believe should be prohibited? 

Q. Based on your experience, should the Directive include more explicit safeguards 
to  prevent  that  farmers  are  forced  to  systematically  sell  below  their  production 
costs? 

9 

 
 
 
 
Q. Have you experienced situations where differences in prohibited UTPs between 
Member States have created challenges for your business or organisation? 

10