This paper examines practical and regulatory implications, including both costs and benefits, resulting from implementation of EPPO's new resistance risk analysis guideline. Crop-protection companies operating in Europe are preparing risk analyses and management strategies, and are monitoring for resistance. However, this is a complex and expensive process involving technical, commercial and regulatory functions. The actual cost of filling these data gaps is consequently greater than many would have anticipated. The agrochemical industry has a vested interest in managing resistance and is committed to maintaining the essential contribution of crop-protection products to sustainable agriculture. However, with increasing regulatory costs, it is important that regulatory authorities concentrate requirements for resistance risk analyses, management strategies and monitoring where these are most needed. Should these requirements be applied indiscriminately, crop-protection companies will have to consider whether or not it is economically justifiable to make these investments, or whether to remove less profitable uses from product labels. In such situations, minor crops stand to be disproportionately effected. One year after publication, it is too early to measure the guideline's impact on selection pressure. It is already clear that the guideline represents an unprecedented step forward in the regulation and harmonisation of resistance management. There are, however, valid arguments against regulation of resistance management. One of the most important criticisms that is levelled against the latter approach is that, with the best motivation and with appropriate use restrictions on labels, these actions alone do not solve the problem. It is critical that all stakeholders in the crop protection process are made aware of the importance of resistance management and of complying with prescribed strategies.