Europe's new circular-economy rules need competitors to build shared systems together. A €458 million cartel fine shows how easily that cooperation crosses a line few can see, and why fear of the line has become the real constraint.
In April 2025 the European Commission fined fifteen car manufacturers and their industry association around €458 million. On its surface the conduct looked like an environmental programme, an arrangement for recycling end-of-life vehicles. Underneath, the Commission found a cartel. That distance between surface and substance is where the difficulty now sits for every business Europe is asking to cooperate on sustainability.
The pressure to cooperate is not incidental. A wave of circular-economy law, the Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation and the End-of-Life Vehicles Regulation among it, became applicable in August 2026, and it pushes competitors to build shared return systems, align on technical standards and exchange data. The moment they sit down to plan any of this, Article 101 walks into the room. Preliminary discussions and the exchange of commercially sensitive information can themselves amount to a hardcore restriction of competition. Europe asks industries to act together and treats the act of sitting down together as a hazard.
A little over a decade ago the injustice ran the other way, and more cleanly. Dutch supermarkets, farmers and processors agreed to move the whole market to a higher-welfare bird they called the Chicken of Tomorrow. The competition authority blocked it, because the price rise for shoppers was not offset by benefits it was willing to count. The law asked whether the buyer at the till was compensated and could not see the value spread thinly across everyone else. The authorities learned from it. Later guidance made room for benefits to society as a whole, and even beyond the national border, and the Commission built a route for genuine sustainability cooperation into its 2023 Horizontal Guidelines. On the old question of whether the balance was wrong, the answer is that it was, and that it has largely been put right.
Which is what makes the car case the corrected regime at work, and here intellectual honesty matters. The fine did not punish a sustainability initiative. The manufacturers had agreed among themselves not to pay dismantlers for recycling, agreed not to advertise how recyclable their vehicles were or how much recycled material they contained, and exchanged commercially sensitive information, for more than fifteen years. Take away the environmental wrapper and what remains is cost coordination, a suppressed dimension of quality competition and an information cartel. The law did its job.
The warning the case carries is quieter, and it cuts deeper. These were companies with serious compliance processes. Nobody sat down intending to run a cartel. They drifted, from legitimate joint lobbying on the recycling directive into commercial-strategy territory that no competitor should ever share, and not one of those compliance systems caught the moment the line was crossed. The failure was systemic. When the boundary between lawful sustainability cooperation and hardcore restriction is invisible from inside the room, good intentions and good processes will not, on their own, keep a company on the right side of it.
Here is where the balance still tilts wrong, in a place you would not first think to look. The €458 million headline shapes behaviour more powerfully than any guideline. It teaches the honest majority one lesson above all, which is to stay away from the table. That lesson arrives at the exact moment the new regulations need those same firms at the table, building the shared infrastructure the law now demands of them. Fear becomes the binding constraint, and fear is indiscriminate. It deters the cautious good actor and leaves the determined drifter untouched.
The deterrent is heavier than the law itself warrants, because the law increasingly says yes. Over the past two years national authorities have cleared a reusable-pallet return system, a textile-sector alliance on labour standards and transparency, a sustainability payment for accredited fruit and vegetable growers, a reusable plant-tray scheme and a sustainable-cocoa initiative. Each turned on the same short list of safeguards, voluntary participation, freedom to exceed the standard, and no sharing of commercially sensitive data. Green does mean go. One fine is simply louder than a dozen approvals.
There is a further reason the Commission should tread carefully. The market is already drifting away from sustainability without any regulatory help. WorldCC's Most Negotiated Terms research, which records what companies actually fight over when they close a deal, finds sustainability barely registering, and sliding down the agenda even as the regulation around it multiplies. Across the table, risk and price still dominate the discussion, and green commitments tend to sit in the recitals while the binding terms pass them by. A regulator whose most visible act is a very large fine on something that wore a green label is travelling in the same direction as the market's own retreat. It should be pulling the other way.
Which returns us to the instrument. The fine is ex-post, close to binary, and blunt, and it is the loudest signal the regime sends. The regime holds a quieter and better instrument that it underuses. Move the assessment to the design stage, before competitors discuss any substance. Set down which competitive parameters the project could touch, why cooperation between rivals is genuinely necessary, and what information it actually requires. Where the question is hard or novel, take it to a regulator for informal guidance, as the Dutch authority, the French Autorité and the Commission all now invite companies to do. An audit of real impact, before the fact and after it, can tell the genuine article from a cartel in a green coat. A fine can do the same only years later, and at ruinous cost.
Competition law does not need dismantling. On the facts of the car case it worked as intended. Competition is a real public good, and it serves the public interest without standing above it. The task is narrower than loosening the rules. It is to change what the regime is loudest about. Make the design-stage test and the guidance letter as visible, and as consequential, as the fine, and the honest majority will come back to the table that Europe has asked them to build.
The WorldCC Foundation provides free tools and resources to empower professionals in making a real impact through sustainable contracting practices.
From our incredible annual cohorts of Inspiring Women, and World Sustainable Contracting Hub events, to our Commercial Awareness, and Sustainability Clause Library resources - we are uniquely positioned to foster collaboration across the entire contracting landscape, creating a truly global learning environment where everyone can contribute to meaningful change.
Find out more about what we do and join us on our journey toward sustainable and inclusive contracting at www.worldcc.foundation.