Anyone who needs to log in to four different platforms for product safety, packaging, accessibility and personal data often chooses convenience: the same password everywhere, perhaps with a number added. That is the most common mistake with multiple compliance portals. The problem is not that the password is weak, the problem is that it is the same everywhere: if it leaks from one platform, the door is open at all four.
That risk grows as more accounts are added. An installation company that starts with a product safety file often expands within a year to packaging and personal data. Each platform requires its own login, and with each new account comes the temptation to reuse the familiar password. This creates, without anyone consciously deciding it, one weak link for the entire administration.
What goes wrong
It rarely goes wrong because someone guesses the password. It goes wrong through a breach at one of the platforms themselves, through phishing that exploits login details, or through an old account that no one uses anymore but is still active. In all three cases, it is not the strength of the password that determines the risk, but its reuse. One leaked password that also works elsewhere immediately opens a second door.
There is something else that is often overlooked in smaller companies: who actually logs in. An account under the name of one employee, but whose password is shared with colleagues because it is easier, no longer shows who made which change. When that employee leaves, nothing often changes, and an account remains in existence where no one is quite sure who still has access to it.
Why this happens more often than expected
It is not carelessness on the part of the entrepreneur, it is a logical consequence of how compliance is currently organized. Four platforms means remembering four passwords, setting up four two-factor authentications, managing four accounts when someone leaves the company. With this accumulation, almost everyone eventually chooses repetition, simply because it feels easier. So it is not so much an individual mistake as a structural consequence of too many separate logins.
What a stronger pattern looks like
The core is not complicated: each account gets its own password, preferably with a password manager that remembers it for you, and where possible two-factor authentication is enabled. It also helps to regularly check which accounts are still active and whose name they are under, especially after staff changes. This is not a legal obligation that follows from a specific regulation, it is simply good account management, like with any other business system.
What does make a difference is the number of accounts itself. Fewer separate logins means fewer places where things can go wrong. With reglia, you arrange this with one business account, linked to your KvK and VAT number instead of a single personal email address, from which you access the connected platforms. How to set up and manage that account is explained at creating a business account.
What reglia does and does not solve in this
Fewer logins is not the same as less responsibility. Reglia does not replace the security of the connected platforms, and says nothing about how those platforms themselves handle passwords or access. What reglia does do, and where it stops, is described on what reglia does and does not do with your data. For those who want to know exactly how reglia itself handles your data and security, there is the page on how reglia handles your data.
A password mistake is usually not an incident but a habit that develops unnoticed. By reducing the number of accounts and giving each account its own, unique password, that habit is easy to break. Curious which platforms come together behind a single business account? Check out which platforms there are and what they do.