OpenLobby.EU
Explore

ECTU - European Shippers' Council

ESC

Representing the interests of cargo owners, transport users/shippers, importers and exporters in logistics and transportation.

Lobbying Activity

Response to Evaluation of EU Rules of Origin

20 Aug 2025

The European Shippers' Council (ESC), established in 1963, is a non-profit European organization representing cargo ownersi.e. the freight transport interests of around 100,000 companies across Europe, including manufacturers, retailers, and wholesalers (importers and exporters, intercontinental). Collectively, they are referred to as shippers, understood as neutral users of all modes of transport (air, road, rail, and waterborne). Rules of origin are becoming increasingly important, a trend highlighted by the recent use of customs tariffs by the United States. The general rules of origin were originally established within the World Trade Organization (WTO). Broadly speaking, there is only one definition for any transformation: Goods whose production involved more than one country shall be deemed to originate in the country where they underwent their last, substantial, economically justified processing or working in an undertaking equipped for that purpose, resulting in the manufacture of a new product or representing an important stage of manufacture. The advantage of this definition is that it can be applied by all WTO members. However, because it allows for different interpretations, some harmonisation is lost. Chambers of Commerce, when issuing certificates, should take into account the interpretation in the country of destination, but in practice this happens only to a limited extent. As a result, companies often need to hire local expertise in the country of destination to ensure correct interpretation of the rules of originan approach that leads to high costs. Greater guidance in the processsimilar to preferential rules of origin, where the operations conferring origin are listedwould provide much-needed clarity. In the case of preferential rules, additional measures also ensure that interpretations remain consistent between contracting parties. However, such a system would require all WTO members to agree on common lists, which does not appear realistic at present. A second-best solution could be the establishment of a methodology under which all countries set out their interpretation of the non-preferential rules of origin. This would provide issuing authorities and exporting companies with greater legal certainty about how the rules are applied in destination countries. For enforcement, a panel of experts could be set up to determine, at the request of interested parties, whether a given interpretation is compatible with the non-preferential definition of origin. The European Shippers Council (ESC) advocates for policies and practices that strengthen the competitiveness of European shippers while promoting sustainable and efficient trade flows. ESC works to ensure that the perspectives of exporters, importers, and manufacturers are fully integrated into strategic discussions about Europes future.
Read full response

Response to EU Ports Strategy

25 Jul 2025

The European Shippers' Council, established in 1963, is a non-profit European organization representing cargo owners i.e. freight transport interests of around 100.000 companies throughout Europe, whether manufacturers, retailers, wholesalers (import and export, intercontinental). Collectively they are referred to as shippers as neutral user of transport (all modes: air; road, rail, waterborne). We have summarized our position in the attached file. Crucial points are : 1. Enhancing Competitiveness Prioritize Hinterland Connectivity: Establish an Investigative Complaints Unit within DG COMP Ensure Transparent Surcharge Practices 2. Streamlined Data Governance Digitize and Harmonize: Apply the "Data-for-Data" Principle: Develop a European Port Performance 3. Secure Port Infrastructure Strengthen EU-Wide Crime Prevention Enhance Interagency Cooperation Accelerate Cybersecurity Implementation: Mandate Secure and Trusted Technologies 4. Ports as Hubs for the Energy Transition 5. Harmonized Approach to Third-Country Investment I
Read full response

Meeting with Beatriz Yordi (Director Climate Action) and European Sea Ports Organisation and

26 Jun 2025 · ETS extension to maritime & IMO developments

Meeting with Fotini Ioannidou (Director Mobility and Transport) and

14 Mar 2025 · Exchange of views on European Ports Strategy and Industrial Maritime Strategy

Meeting with Dirk Gotink (Member of the European Parliament, Rapporteur) and Ecommerce Europe

27 Jan 2025 · EU customs legislation, e-commerce

Response to Environmental Implementation Review 2025

4 Jul 2024

Significant regulations impacting businesses include the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) to price carbon emissions for foreign products, the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) to standardize and make transparent sustainability metrics, the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) to ensure supply chains are free from negative ESG impacts, the EU Deforestation-free Regulation (EUDR) to prevent deforestation origin goods from entering the EU, and the Forced Labour Product Ban (FLPB) to prevent products made with forced labour from entering the EU. These regulations require companies to introduce new requirements into their supply chains, which are traditionally optimized for efficiency and cost-effectiveness, necessitating detailed information retrieval and implementation of due diligence principles. The European Shippers' Council (ESC) and its members support sustainability legislation but are concerned about potential negative impacts on EU competitiveness. Introducing these regulations retroactively into existing supply chains is complex and burdensome, potentially leading to inflationary effects for EU consumers. Notable negative effects include an increased regulatory burden leading to higher overhead costs and price increases, companies avoiding sourcing from regions where due diligence is cumbersome, impacting local smallholders and adding unnecessary links in supply chains, foreign suppliers preferring non-EU customers to avoid EU red tape, creating scarcity and increasing prices, and increased dependency on Customs to enforce legislation, potentially leading to delays. Implementation challenges for EU companies include preparation time for complex supply chains, digital platform readiness, different approaches to the burden of proof in EUDR and FLPB, legal uncertainty due to vague descriptions of due diligence duties, and lack of coherence and coordination among different pieces of legislation. Practical boundaries to due diligence involve issues with supply chain partners lacking the knowledge or ability to fulfill administrative requests, and the impracticality of separating compliant and non-compliant bulk goods as required by EUDR. Proposed design principles for future legislation include minimizing negative impacts on EU business by having regulatory bodies thoroughly understand supply chain management, using best-in-class digital solutions to avoid hampering EU competitiveness, staggering implementation dates to allow for full operational readiness of digital tools and guidelines, providing clear guidelines with practical steps for compliance, using a phased introduction of legislation, adopting a risk-based approach to due diligence data requirements, performing customs checks inland to avoid port congestion, focusing on preventing future non-compliant shipments rather than costly recalls, allowing administrative linking of compliant goods to proof of compliance for bulk goods, ensuring all legislation adheres to globally accepted due diligence principles and is consistent across the EU, and promoting uniform sustainability regulations across Europe for consistent implementation.
Read full response

Response to European Sustainability Reporting Standards

23 Jun 2023

For the European Shippers' Council it is important to use an as restricted number of reporting tools as possible. As the EU has already decided on a reporting tool on CountEmissions it would for us be logical to duplicate this for other applications such as social responsability. If shippers have to report against different tools this would enhance the administrative burden. As DG Move is also working on the eFTI standardised data-set and platforms it would be advisable explore if eFTI also can be used for reporting on social responsbility.
Read full response

Meeting with Axel Voss (Member of the European Parliament, Shadow rapporteur) and BUSINESSEUROPE and

8 Mar 2023 · Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence

Response to Evaluation and revision of the Weights and Dimensions Directive

18 Feb 2022

Sustainability is a very important topic globally and in the EU. In the Fit for 55 programme the Commission outlines all measures to reach the goals for 2030. These goals are ambitious, but it is important for all of us to keep the global warming within the famous lines of 1,5 degree warming. The use of LONGER AND HEAVIER VEHICLES can be seen as an innovation which is directly applicable as a measure. Generally, the reduction of CO2 emissions will be around 20%. Road transport can, using longer and heavier vehicles, improve its efficiency quite a lot. Saying this, we should continue developing such innovations like ELECTRIC VEHICLES, HYDROGEN, and other propulsion systems. However, allowing longer and heavier vehicles on the road will safeguard a first important step in emissions reduction. Until now, the use of longer and heavier vehicles has been quite successful. Even in densely populated areas like the Netherlands the combinations have proved to be completely safe. Drivers were undergoing an additional training and as a result the percentage of accidents became lower than for conventional trucks. What is still lacking in the EU is a CLEAR REGULATION ON BORDER CROSSING. Legislation on gross weights in the EU is a patchwork of different national legislations. Harmonization here could be a large step forward. A workable solution could be an inclusion of a MINIMUM LEVEL OF 44 TONS. Member States should be FREE TO APPLY HIGHER LEVELS. Cross-border operations should be possible under the rule of THE (LARGEST) POSSIBLE COMMON DENOMINATOR. It should be forbidden to keep the national weight down artificially (e.g., a low national weight with exception only on national territory). Nowadays, the situation where we still follow a letter of former Commissioner Kallas is much too restricted. There should be also A CLEAR LINK between WEIGHTS AND DIMENSIONS and the NEW PROPOSAL ON MULTIMODAL TRANSPORT. Using longer and heavier vehicles can result in even higher efficiency. As shippers, we strongly believe that we must use INNOVATION. So, carriers would release their reservations resulting from the fear of losing market share. Research has shown that the introduction of longer and heavier vehicles is mainly affecting the road freight industry as such and doesn’t have much impact on the modal shift. We strongly believe that a SHIFT TO INLAND SHIPPING AND RAIL can contribute to emissions reduction. At the same time, we can identify that the rail mode specifically has capacity issues and cannot accommodate a large new cargo influx. Many opponents also bring up the issue of the infrastructure damage. The larger and heavier vehicles can potentially be problematic on part of the network. However, if we look at air or maritime transport, we do not close European airspace for widebody airplanes because they are not able to land in certain airports or mega vessels because they cannot call at all ports. CLEAR REGULATION ALLOWING THE OPERATION OF LONGER AND HEAVIER VEHICLES should be a solution. As currently Member States are regulating the use of larger and heavier vehicles differently, HARMONISATION is necessary. A European system should be put in place. The same applies to TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS. We see that certain technical requirements differ even in neighbouring countries or regions (for instance, Flanders, Wallonia, and the Netherlands). We often refer to longer and heavier vehicles. In many cases we see that vehicles are only longer and not heavier. Here harmonisation is also Important (EMS). This would allow more flexibility. Another important feature is the lack of drivers. This challenge will increase in the years to come. If we can TRANSPORT GOODS WITH FEWER DRIVERS, this will be an important step forward. It will be difficult to get a sufficient influx of drivers replacing those retiring. To conclude, shippers support a wider use of longer and heavier vehicles under the conditions stated above.
Read full response

Response to Updating the EU Emissions Trading System

8 Nov 2021

On 14 July, the European Commission presented a legislative package to achieve the stricter target of a 55% CO2 reduction compared to 1999 by 2030 and, thus, contribute to solving the climate problem. As a business organisation for trade and logistics, ESC takes the view that the client of a transport mode must be able to make a well-informed, transparent, uniform, and fair assessment between the various possibilities and their ecological and economic impact. COHERENT VIEW The proposed package contains 13 legislative proposals, including the extension of the ETS for aviation and maritime transport, the introduction of a separate ETS for road transport, the levying of excise duties on marine fuel and kerosene and increasing the blending obligation for renewable fuels. While understanding the need to manage CO2 emissions, ESC members are committed to drastically reduce CO2. We believe that the proposals are a good starting point for making the reduction targets achievable. At the same time, the currently proposed instruments are far from perfect, the coherence is sometimes lacking, and the proposals are too sector-specific instead of taking a more integrated approach when traders, producers, as well as transport users, and all transport activities including transshipment activities can make a better comparison between modalities and, thus, a better sustainability assessment. TRANSPARENT As far as ESC is concerned, steering on CO2 performance must be done in a transparent manner. In the proposals of the European Commission, work is being done on a separate emissions trading system. Only road transport and aviation are being brought under the regular emissions trading system. Such modalities as rail transport and inland barging are not directly included, while this also involves CO2 emissions. This jeopardizes the level playing field between modalities and makes the comparison and, thus, the consideration of the modality choice diffused. For entrepreneurs who want to reduce the CO2 emissions in their logistics processes, it is important that a fair comparison can be made between the different modalities and the associated emissions. Only in this way can they make a decision based on the emissions. However, when the use of different systems leads to different CO2 prices, there is a difference in the calculation of CO2 performance within different modalities. FAIR The introduction of additional measures to manage CO2 must be also done fairly. Double taxation must be avoided. When a system of tradable CO2 rights is introduced, it is important to examine the relationship with the current CO2-related taxes. Through excise legislation, Member States have the option of introducing a tax based on CO2 emissions. The plans for maritime and aviation also announce an introduction of excise duty on fuel, in addition to an ETS. With the use of an ETS there is a danger of double taxation on freight transport. This must be prevented at all costs. In the context of a level playing field, it is important that the level of the excise duty is coordinated as much as possible with neighboring countries. Otherwise, there is a possibility of a carbon leakage effect, whereby economic activity disappears from Member States, but the sustainability challenge for the EU remains. There is also a risk that CO2 avoidance in shipping and aviation takes place outside the EU, both with the ETS and with excise duties on marine fuels and kerosene. This can lead to the phenomenon of refueling ships and aircraft with duty-free fuel just outside the EU. In the elaboration of the proposals, more emphasis must be placed on combating CO2 avoidance and maintaining a level playing field in the international aviation and shipping market. PERSPECTIVE ESC is convinced that managing CO2 emissions can be a method to achieve the reduction targets if there are actual low-emission or zero-emission alternatives a
Read full response

Response to Prolongation of the Consortia Block Exemption Regulation

23 Dec 2019

This legal analysis highlights by reference to evidence in the Commission files that many flaws in the SWD render highly questionable the arguments put forth by the Commission in support of its present proposal for a 4 year extension of the BER. These flaws relate to many issues - missing data which could have been provided, one-sided assumptions on efficiency gains disregarding non-rate related parameters, lack of a proper definition of relevant geographic markets to assess market shares and complete failure to identify remaining benefits for small consortia if no BER applies. Background The crux issue which completely blurs any consideration on the impact of the BER remains unresolved. There is a complete lack of clarity on whether or not the 3 global Alliances are exempted by the BER from the application of the standard competition law of the EU. This issue has not been assessed in a clear-cut way by the Commission, even though many facts converge to the point where they should be considered as not exempted as even the Alliances themselves claim to be. It is shocking for European shippers to have to consider that these global Alliances, the set-up and the partners of which have been triggering all the market modifications and disturbances fully analyzed by both parties, are left in an ambiguous situation of a potential legal shelter by an extended BER without modification. A clarification should be made through an extension for 1 year only of the present BER in order to carry out the following further investigation and consultation: -Measurement of the actual market shares of the 3 main global Alliances, on an ongoing basis for the next ten years for at least two of them, assessed on relevant markets and conclusions drawn on the much smaller part of the EU market where they are less dominant, competition restricting and price makers. -Official information of their non-exemption from standard competition law if data proves this to be a fact or otherwise decision to lower the threshold triggering the non- exemption to 20% market share -Identification of (1) the true benefits brought by the BER on the remaining part of the market outside these major trade lanes where 2 or 3 of the Alliances exceed the threshold; (2) the benefits to the smaller consortia which operate in such trade lanes in terms of legal certainty and lower administrative costs; and (3) the benefits for the shippers in terms of higher efficiency and gains passed to them Motivation The Commission erroneously concluded in the SWD that lack of service quality concerns are only directed at the two large Alliances that allegedly operate outside the BER scope. The Commission erroneously focused on freight rate developments and disregarded the emergence of a plethora of non-transparent surcharges that impede price comparisons for users and keep the final total prices payable by users at much higher levels. The Commission confirmed that most if not all of the BER eligibility criteria are not complied with by consortia - thus the BER may not credibly contribute to legal certainty. The Commission has no reliable information on Consortia Market Shares and Relevant Markets. No meaningful conclusions may be drawn from the scarce information available to the Commission. Conclusions ESC categorically objects to the Commission proposal for an extension of the BER without amendments for another 4 years. ESC continues to favor the revocation of the BER and its replacement by an amended BER with precise definitions of relevant markets and shares by reference to capacities; compliance on the transfer of benefits to the European economy; and ensuring that the benefit of the BER is restricted to smaller liners. If all these conditions are not met, ESC prefers the BER to be completely discontinued. ESC is prepared to agree to an extension of the BER for one-year, conditional upon the conduct of a consultation on the issues raised by the present Position.
Read full response

Response to European Partnership for Clean Aviation

14 Aug 2019

For the European Shippers' Council the gain of efficiency is a key issue. More efficient management in airspace will result in more capacity. For air freight transport this is very important. It is for that reason that we miss any reference to air freight and only find references to passenger transport. Especially at airports the lack of sufficient slots for freight flights is becoming more and more an issue. A sound system to reallocate the capacity gained by better ATM is very important. As air freight is often used for healthcare materials which are lifesaving. The societal value of aircargo should in that respact not been underestimated. For the scenario's we do not feel to be in a position to make a choice.
Read full response

Meeting with Henrik Hololei (Director-General Mobility and Transport)

6 Oct 2017 · Maritime, rail transport and digitalisation