Related items

"Gold-plating" of EU legislation has become a structural challenge for companies operating across the Single Market. While Member States are often permitted to introduce additional national measures when implementing EU law, these divergences frequently create fragmented compliance requirements, administrative burdens and increased costs for businesses.

Drawing on examples from AmCham EU member companies across digital policy, cybersecurity, data protection, telecommunications, environmental regulation, consumer protection, tax transparency and labour law, the paper shows how national additions to EU rules can result in parallel compliance systems, duplicate reporting obligations, country-specific product adaptations and barriers to cross-border operations.

The paper highlights four key findings:

• Divergence between Member States is often a bigger cost driver than any single regulatory requirement.

• Fragmentation extends beyond directive transposition and also arises through opening clauses, national guidance, administrative practices and regional measures.

• Minimum-harmonisation legislation can still create significant Single Market fragmentation.

• Gold-plating occurs at both national and sub-national levels.

The European Commission should address these issues through greater consistency in implementation, increased transparency around national additions, reduced duplication in reporting and registration requirements, stronger implementation dialogue and the use of Single Market enforcement tools where appropriate. The objective is not to remove legitimate national discretion, but to prevent unnecessary regulatory barriers within the Single Market.

On Tuesday, 22 September, AmCham EU hosted Dragoș Tudorache, Member of the Cabinet of Executive Vice-President Stéphane Séjourné, European Commission, for a fireside chat. Moderated by Malte Lohan, CEO, AmCham EU, the conversation explored the growing role of economic security in Europe’s trade agenda and external relations. The exchange examined how this shift is shaping the EU’s engagement with trading partners and its position globally. Attention also turned to the choices facing Europe in a changing geo-strategic landscape, including how to reinforce resilience and strengthen competitiveness.

The European Commission’s forthcoming guidance on the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CS3D) should:

• allow companies to voluntarily prioritise chains of activities with a meaningful connection, which should be further defined in the guidance, to the EU or based on a global risk-based approach in cases where companies have global integrated supply chains;

• recognise that companies may face conflicting or overlapping legal requirements between EU and third-country legislation, particularly in relation to information gathering, audits, data transfers, supplier disengagement and cooperation with authorities;

• clarify how companies should document and manage circumstances in which third-country law restricts or prevents a due diligence measure;

• recognise interactions with competent local authorities, regulatory inspections, permits, licences and other official approvals as potentially relevant sources of due diligence information; and

• protect companies from liability where they have followed a reasonable, documented and good-faith process, including where another stakeholder might have prioritised risks or selected due diligence measures differently.

• If these measures are included in the guidance, they would help the CS3D deliver meaningful and effective due diligence, rather than an exhaustive mapping of every global business relationship. Flexibility, proportionality and legal certainty can help companies progressively develop credible global systems while directing resources towards the most significant risks and the areas where they have the greatest ability to achieve positive outcomes.

Learn more in our contribution and paper.