EUDR and Organic Certification: Shouldn’t Sustainability Be Simpler? (Edition 473)

The European Union’s Deforestation Regulation (EUDR) is a powerful step towards protecting the planet. It ensures that key products like wood, palm oil, soy, coffee, cacao, and beef are produced without contributing to deforestation. On paper, it’s exactly what the world needs—clear accountability for industries driving environmental harm. But in practice, it’s raising eyebrows and questions.

For those already involved in organic certification, EUDR feels like a missed opportunity to simplify and strengthen existing frameworks. Instead of building on the robust EU Organic Certification, which already promotes sustainability and environmental balance, EUDR has been launched as a separate certification with its own processes, audits, and costs. And this is where the frustration begins.

The Struggles Operators Face

Let’s put ourselves in the shoes of a farmer, a coffee producer, or a cacao exporter. For years, they’ve invested heavily in organic certification—revamping processes, welcoming auditors, and ensuring compliance with every standard. It’s a commitment not just to the label but to the environment.

Now, along comes the EUDR. It asks them to prove, separately, that their products are deforestation-free. That means new certifications, new audits, and of course, new fees. For small and medium-sized businesses especially, this feels like an additional hurdle, not an opportunity. Instead of encouraging sustainable practices, this dual certification system risks overwhelming those who are already trying to do the right thing.

A Missed Opportunity to Integrate

Here’s the thing: the EUDR and EU Organic Certification have the same goal at their core—protecting nature and promoting sustainability. So why weren’t the two combined? Imagine if EUDR’s criteria had simply been included as part of the organic certification process.

Such integration could have:

• Reduced Costs: One certification means one audit, fewer fees, and a more streamlined process.
• Simplified Compliance: Farmers and businesses wouldn’t have to navigate two separate systems for what is essentially the same objective.
• Increased Participation: Lower barriers could encourage more businesses to adopt sustainable practices.

Instead, the choice to keep them separate feels like a missed chance to create a unified and practical approach to sustainability.

Is This the Right Balance?

For a regulation to succeed, it needs to be more than just ambitious—it needs to be workable. Right now, the EUDR feels like it’s asking too much of stakeholders who are already under financial and logistical pressure. Yes, protecting forests is critical. But so is ensuring that the businesses supporting sustainability can survive and thrive.

"Wouldn’t it have been more logical to fold EUDR requirements into the organic certification process or existing certification schemes to be validated? The systems, auditors, and standards are already in place. Why not strengthen what exists rather than create something new?" (Anil M V, Founder, Organil Services)

A Call to Action

To the policymakers behind the EUDR: Is this really the most effective way forward? Could we revisit the idea of integration, making sustainability more accessible for everyone involved? Because at the end of the day, protecting the environment should unite us, not burden those who are already committed to doing better.

What’s Your Take?

Should EUDR have been included in organic certification? Or do you think a separate certification is the right way to go? Share your thoughts—let’s discuss how we can make sustainability a win-win for businesses and the planet.