Cosmetics manufacturers are prepared to contribute financially to cleaning the water that reaches treatment plants in major European cities. However, they refuse to be scapegoated in a political negotiation that lets the main polluters off the hook.
In parallel with a similar initiative by the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA), Cosmetics Europe—the industry’s leading trade body—filed a complaint with the European General Court on March 7, challenging specific provisions of the new Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive. [1]
The core issue? The new Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) outlined in the directive, which is due to come into force in 2027. It mandates that the pharmaceutical and cosmetics industries cover 80% of the costs for treating chemical micropollutants—a process known as "quaternary treatment" among experts—while the remaining 20% will be funded by Member States.
Industry representatives argue that this cost distribution contradicts the "polluter pays" principle—a cornerstone of European environmental law—as it fails to address the primary sources of micro pollution in urban waters.
Inconsistent and misguided sectoral contributions
Micropollutants are defined as substances that, due to their toxicity, persistence, or bioaccumulation, can harm living organisms even at extremely low concentrations.
According to Brussels, pharmaceuticals account for 59% of the micropollutants reaching wastewater treatment plants, while cosmetics contribute 14%. However, Cosmetics Europe points to the only publicly available study—initially conducted by experts from the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre—which estimated the cosmetics sector’s contribution at just 1%!
"We cannot account for this discrepancy, as we have no information on the calculation method used. The final figure is all the more surprising given that the targeted pollutants are rarely found in cosmetics," explained Stéphanie Lumbers, Director of Environmental Affairs at the French Federation of Beauty Companies (FEBEA), in an interview with Premium Beauty News.
While the directive targets all water collected by treatment plants—from bathrooms, kitchens, garages, and even some small industries—the European Commission has, according to the FEBEA, systematically ignored the variety of pollution sources and targeted only a few. Stakeholders see this narrow focus on a few select industries as arbitrary and disproportionate.
Underestimated costs?
The European Commission has estimated the annual cost of quaternary treatment at EUR 1.2 billion per year for the entire EU. Industry representatives believe this cost is significantly underestimated, with initial estimates at the national level suggesting actual costs could be at least four times higher.
“With every passing week, it is becoming apparent that the total cost of water treatment upgrades was woefully underestimated,” said John Chave, Director-General of Cosmetics Europe in a statement.
“To be clear, the cosmetics sector is ready to pay our fair share. We believe in the importance of clean water in Europe; we believe in the ’polluter pays’ principle. Where we strongly object to is the significant miscalculations in the Impact Assessment; the hesitancy of policymakers to go back and recheck these; and the disproportionate burden placed on our industry while other sectors pay nothing. It is illogical that we’re being asked to pay a staggeringly higher amount than our fair share to cover the pollution of others,” he added.
For a substance-based approach
Instead of allocating costs by industry, the cosmetics sector advocates for a substance-based approach. This method would ensure that all stakeholders marketing the relevant substances share responsibility, rather than placing the financial burden on specific industries for pollution they did not solely cause.
"It’s a far more operational approach. In fact, the logic of the directive itself makes it inevitable, as it includes an exemption for emitters of less than one tonne. At some point, a list of the relevant substances will have to be established," added FEBEA’s Director of Environmental Affairs.
Legal action
While the implementation of the EPR is scheduled for December 31, 2028, and the start of quaternary treatments for 2033, the cosmetics industry has chosen to present its arguments before the Court of Justice of the European Union.
"This directive is fundamentally flawed—the impact assessment was rushed, and the proposed EPR is both ineffective and impractical. We see no clear path for its implementation, and it contradicts the polluter-pays principle," concluded Lumbers.
