Only a few months ago, proposals to curb multi-level subcontracting clearly divided trade unions and parts of the business community. The European Transport Workers’ Federation (ETF) and UETR, which represents around 70,000 small and medium-sized road transport companies, are now taking a joint position against abuse in subcontracting chains.
At a meeting held in the European Parliament on 29 September, the two organisations stressed that subcontracting itself is not the problem. Their concern is how long and opaque chains are structured. Representatives of workers, businesses, the European Labour Authority and the European Commission took part in the discussion.
A proposed two-tier limit
ETF’s most specific demand is a limit of no more than two subcontracting tiers. The federation argues that long chains make it harder to identify who is responsible and can encourage cost-cutting at the expense of workers.
ETF is also calling for joint liability throughout the chain, from the client and main contractor to successive subcontractors. This would go beyond responsibility for wage payments. The federation also wants it to cover social security contributions, taxes, occupational health and safety, and rights arising from collective agreements.
ETF is seeking tougher EU rules for labour intermediaries and greater transparency in business relationships. Drivers should be able to identify the principal contractor, see which companies are part of the chain and understand the true nature of their employment relationship. ETF believes regulators need access to the same information so they can establish responsibility in complex cross-border cases.
ETF General Secretary Livia Spera said that decent working conditions in road transport cannot be guaranteed without transparency and clearly assigned responsibility.
There can be no quality jobs in road transport without fair subcontracting. Workers need transparency, accountability and a clear allocation of responsibility throughout the supply chain.
UETR President Alexis Gibergues expressed a similar view. He pointed out that operating costs and risks often fall on the smallest carrier at the bottom of the chain, even though that company has little influence over the rate it receives.
The problem is not subcontracting, but a lack of transparency. When the smallest carrier provides the truck, driver and fuel, carries the risk and is paid last, everyone loses.
According to UETR and ETF, the answer is to make the entire chain traceable, from the principal client to the company actually carrying out the transport operation. Responsibility for pay, working conditions and compliance with the law must also be clearly assigned.
A Swedish case highlights the problem
During the debate, Swedish MEP Johan Danielsson, author of a parliamentary report on subcontracting, referred to a case involving illegal cabotage in Sweden.
According to information presented at the meeting, a roadside check prompted by irregularities in the paperwork uncovered a subcontracting chain that began with logistics operator Kuehne+Nagel and ended with a Latvian carrier. The driver was subsequently dismissed and left to deal with the consequences of the case alone.
ETF sees the case as an example of how responsibility for a transport operation can become dispersed among several companies when subcontracting involves multiple tiers.
Danielsson identified three areas requiring action: preventing business models built on abuse, improving inspections and enforcement, and introducing penalties that genuinely deter companies from breaking the rules.
Parliament has already backed change
The latest discussion is part of a wider EU debate that gained momentum after a vote in the European Parliament in February.
In February 2026, MEPs backed a report calling on the European Commission to prepare stronger rules on subcontracting and labour intermediaries as part of the planned Quality Jobs Act. A total of 332 lawmakers voted in favour, 209 against and 33 abstained.
Parliament argued that extensive subcontracting chains can blur accountability, drive down pay, weaken safety standards and create less stable employment. Joint liability across the chain and stronger rules for labour intermediaries were among the options under consideration.
Road transport has become a central part of the debate because subcontracting plays a major role in the sector and its operations frequently cross national borders.
Commission and ELA signal tougher action
At the September meeting in the European Parliament, European Commission Executive Vice-President Roxana Mînzatu addressed the ongoing work on the Quality Jobs Act and the fair labour mobility package.
She highlighted the need for transparency, accountability and more effective enforcement. She also said mobile sectors such as road transport should not be excluded from rules designed to protect workers and promote fair mobility in the labour market.
Cosmin Boiangiu, Executive Director of the European Labour Authority, identified road transport as a sector particularly exposed to labour-law violations. He cited false self-employment, improper posting of workers and complex subcontracting chains among the main risks.
ELA plans, among other measures, to strengthen cooperation between national enforcement authorities, improve training and make greater use of digital tools to identify complex cross-border cases involving labour intermediaries and major operators.
The transport industry remains divided
The joint position of ETF and UETR does not mean that Europe’s transport industry speaks with one voice. At the same time, support for new limits is no longer coming only from trade unions.
The Spanish carrier organisation FENADISMER has also backed the initiative supported by UETR and ETF. It argues that excessively long subcontracting chains harm not only drivers’ working conditions but also the financial position of small and medium-sized companies, which account for around 95% of businesses in the sector, according to the organisation.
FENADISMER supports limiting the number of intermediaries involved in a single transport operation, improving visibility across the chain and introducing joint liability when irregularities or non-payment occur. It also wants national authorities to carry out stronger checks in cooperation with the European Labour Authority.
Spanish carriers also point to the economic impact of excessive intermediation. Each additional link can reduce the share of the rate that ultimately reaches the company actually performing the transport. FENADISMER argues that small businesses and owner-operators should not have to compete with business models that cut costs by worsening working conditions.
Germany’s freight forwarding and logistics association DSLV takes a very different view of statutory limits on subcontracting.
The organisation has previously warned against restricting companies’ ability to outsource services to specialised partners. It says subcontracting is a structural part of logistics, while international supply chains often require cooperation among companies handling customs clearance, warehousing, transshipment and different modes of transport.
In DSLV’s view, capping the number of subcontracting tiers could interfere with the freedom to provide services, increase operating costs and encourage market concentration.
The German organisation has also criticised the idea of broad joint liability. It argues that such a system would require companies to monitor entire, sometimes global, supply chains and would create additional administrative burdens.
DSLV believes violations should primarily be addressed through more effective enforcement of existing rules, including the provisions of the Mobility Package.
The dispute now moves to the new legislation
The key question is which demands from Parliament, ETF and UETR will appear in the European Commission’s final proposal.
Compared with the start of the year, the joint position of trade unions and part of the carrier community is particularly significant. UETR argues that tackling abuse does not have to create a conflict between workers and businesses. It also presents long and opaque chains as an economic problem for the smallest companies, which perform the transport, bear the costs and risks, yet have the least influence over rates and payment terms.
At the same time, the DSLV position shows that the fundamental disagreement remains unresolved. The issue is no longer simply whether abuse should be tackled, but whether new limits should govern the structure of subcontracting chains or whether enforcement of the rules already in force should be the priority.
For road transport, the outcome could directly affect how operators organise shipments, work with subcontractors and allocate responsibility among principal contractors.
