Substantiated concern
Also known as: Article 31
A duly reasoned claim based on objective, verifiable information — it reopens full due diligence for affected goods and can end Article 13 simplification.
What it means
A substantiated concern is not a rumour. In the Commission’s framing it is a duly reasoned claim based on objective and verifiable information — from an NGO, a competent authority, a journalist, a whistleblower, or your own monitoring.
In the regulation
Under Article 31, any natural or legal person can submit a substantiated concern to a competent authority or to the operator. Where it goes to the operator, the operator is expected to inform the authority and of any mitigation taken. Once one exists for low-risk sourcing, simplified due diligence closes and full Articles 10 and 11 resume for the affected goods.
Downstream operators who become aware of a substantiated concern must act rather than rely in good faith on the upstream statement alone.
How ERWAY treats it
The obligation matrix and risk-assessment articles on this site treat substantiated concerns as a step-change for low-risk programmes and as an independent route to a check outside the 1%/3%/9% sampling floors.
Related terms
- Risk & benchmarking
Simplified due diligence
Article 13 path that switches off risk assessment and mitigation when every plot is low-risk and mixing/circumvention risks are negligible — it never switches off geolocation, the DDS, or Article 12.
- Risk & benchmarkingLow risk (country)
Low risk
Country benchmarking tier covering roughly 140 countries: Article 9 geolocation and the DDS still apply; Articles 10 and 11 may be skipped only under Article 13’s conditions; authorities check at least 1% of operators.
- Roles & obligations
Downstream operator
Places on the market a product already covered by upstream diligence — retains the reference number, registers if not an SME, and must act if aware of a substantiated concern.
- Filing & enforcement
Competent authority
The national authority that checks operators, can order interim measures, and applies Article 25 penalties — with minimum check rates of 1% / 3% / 9% by country risk tier.
Keep reading
Risk & benchmarkingEUDR country risk classification: which obligations change, tier by tier
A complete tier-by-tier comparison of EUDR obligations: information collection, due diligence systems, risk assessment, mitigation, mixing rules, substantiated concerns and authority check rates.
6 min read
Risk & benchmarkingRisk assessment and mitigation: building an evidence file that holds up
What EUDR risk assessment has to cover, what 'negligible risk' and 'substantiated concern' mean in practice, and how to document mitigation so it survives a competent authority check.
6 min read
Risk & benchmarkingCountry benchmarking: what the risk tiers change, and what they don't
How EUDR country benchmarking works, what Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1093 classified, what simplified due diligence actually removes, and why the Parliament's objection changed nothing.
6 min read