The European Parliament's ENVI committee on 23 June 2026 debated the future EU Circular Economy Act, exposing divisions over binding targets, cost implications, and trade openness. The Act, due later this year, aims to link circularity with competitiveness, resilience, and strategic autonomy.
Pierfrancesco Maran (S&D) framed the Act as a response to geopolitical shocks and supply risks, urging harmonised rules, demand for recyclates, and digital product passports. Janez Potocnik (UNEP) pushed for upstream material footprint reduction over recycling targets, while Marike Hoffmann (Environmental Action Germany) backed binding targets for primary resource use. Sara Matthieu (Greens/EFA) supported footprint targets to reduce import dependence.
In contrast, Anna Zalewska (ECR) demanded cost analysis and warned against new taxes harming competitiveness. Josep Puxeu (Ecoembes) argued more rules do not guarantee efficiency. On single market fragmentation, Carsten Wachholz (Ellen MacArthur Foundation) pressed for harmonised definitions and interoperable digital systems, echoed by Pascal Arimont (EPP) and Ana Vasconcelos (Renew). Marie Castelli (Back Market) argued the Act risks becoming a recycling act, urging support for reuse and repair. Emmanuel Katrakis (Galloo Group) defended recycling targets and called for EU-wide end-of-waste criteria.
On extended producer responsibility (EPR), Hoffmann urged financing for prevention and repair, while Castelli warned against producer control. Trade diverged between European preference (Maran, Annalisa Corrado S&D) and open alignment (Wachholz). Financing gaps were highlighted by Hilde Sijbring (Dutch Banking Association) and the European Commission Representative, who noted an annual investment gap above EUR 82 billion.
Recyclers and refurbishers face potential shifts in support between recycling and reuse; producers may face new EPR costs; banks see investment opportunities but also regulatory risks; member states confront harmonisation vs. national flexibility.