Second edition of the PPWR FAQ: What the European Commission (did not) clarifiy on July 31

On 31 July 2026, the European Commission published the second edition of its FAQs on the PPWR. The document runs to 20 chapters and 155 questions; compared with the first edition of 30 March 2026, 26 entries are new and seven have been updated, including an entirely new chapter on enforcement from the date of application.

The FAQs complement the Commission's guidance document (Commission Notice C/2026/3084, OJ C of 10 June 2026). Neither document is legally binding – binding interpretation of the PPWR rests with the Court of Justice of the European Union alone. For national enforcement authorities, both serve as a point of reference.

This article summarizes the clarifications most relevant to implementation and sets out where interpretations diverge and which follow-on questions remain open.

The manufacturer role: name and trademark as the criterion

The Commission clarifies that the branding criterion applies across all packaging types. Where packaging bears a name or a trademark, the economic operator behind it is the manufacturer – even where another company physically produces or fills it. Name and trademark carry equal weight. The Commission bases this on the general definition in Article 3(1)(13) PPWR and on contractual decision-making power: the brand owner determines the characteristics of the packaging, even where it merely selects a standardized option without requesting design changes.

Where there is no branding, the decisive question is who places the order and who sets the design specification. For generic standard products, that is usually the company physically manufacturing the packaging. For custom-developed packaging, it is the ordering company, because packaging developed around a specific product reflects the buyer's decision-making power.

Where the line between standardized and custom-made runs, the FAQs do not define. Selecting a standard size from a catalogue, ordering a standard format in non-standard dimensions, and having packaging developed around a specific part are in practice gradations of the same process. The allocation therefore remains a case-by-case decision, to be taken per packaging item and documented together with the criteria applied – in particular the extent of the specifications provided, involvement in development, and whether the packaging could also be sold to third parties.

On shipping labels, the Commission holds that applying a shipping sticker does not confer manufacturer status. The Zentrale Stelle Verpackungsregister (ZSVR), which operates the German packaging register LUCID and publishes its own interpretative guidance, takes the opposite view: on its reading, retailers become manufacturers by applying the shipping label. This also renders ineffective the relief for micro enterprises, under which the supplier is treated as the manufacturer. The German retail association Händlerbund takes a different position and is pursuing the question legally.

On retailer private labels, the positions converge: the brand owner is the manufacturer, even where another company packs or fills the product. The ZSVR relies here on the coordinated legal position within the network of European packaging registers and on a response from the Commission to the German Federal Environment Ministry dated 16 June 2026. In July 2026, several industry associations called for a clear and publicly communicated interpretation of the manufacturer and producer roles for private-label packaging.

Transport packaging: the Commission's interpretation, diverging positions and open questions

The new entries on transport packaging cut deepest into existing implementation decisions – and they are also the area in which interpretations diverge most widely. They are therefore set out together here.

The Commission's interpretation

On the Commission's view, the manufacturer of transport packaging is the company that supplies the empty packaging in its final form. Final form means the packaging can be used as transport packaging without any further parts or aids. Who fills or ships it afterwards is not decisive for the manufacturer role.

The Commission distinguishes between combining packaging items and a genuine assembly or transformation operation. Using a box, tape, strapping, stretch film and a pallet together does not mean that a new packaging item comes into being. A flat-packed box is considered already to be in its final form. Stretch film counts as packaging once it is sold on the roll; the fact that it is cut at the packing station does not change this. Manufacturing within the meaning of the Regulation occurs where packaging is moulded on site or where a packaging item is created from components that do not themselves perform a packaging function.

It follows that a single shipment can contain packaging from several manufacturers, each requiring its own technical documentation and its own declaration of conformity. For fillers and shippers, the manufacturer role therefore moves upstream to their suppliers; on this reading, they themselves are left with the distributor obligations under Article 19 PPWR.

The producer role and EPR

For the producer role under extended producer responsibility, a case-by-case assessment continues to apply. A company selling unbranded boxes domestically is typically the producer there. If a buyer fills them in another Member State, that buyer becomes the producer there. Where sales packaging also performs a transport function, it remains sales packaging for this purpose; the producer is the operator that fills it and first makes the packaged product available in the Member State concerned.

For intra-group movements: packaging a company produces itself and uses to move parts between its own sites has not been the subject of a transaction and is therefore not placed on the market. For third-party sourced transport packaging used for the same purpose, the Regulation applies.

Diverging classification by EUNR and ZSVR

On the question of when packaging reaches its final form, other bodies arrive at a different result. The European National Registers (EUNR) network was founded in September 2024 on the initiative of the ZSVR; authorities and registers from 16 Member States currently work within it on coordinated interpretations, with the ZSVR holding the presidency.

The EUNR analysis document on identifying the EPR-responsible producer in the Member State, dated 25 June 2026 (PDF), distinguishes between rigid and flexible packaging: for rigid transport packaging the supply chain begins with the complete empty packaging, whereas flexible film packaging regularly reaches its final form only upon filling – only then is it complete packaging. Under the document, the producer of flexible transport packaging is the first economic operator in the domestic supply chain at that point. The document deals directly with the producer role for EPR purposes, but it applies the same final-form criterion that the Commission uses to identify the manufacturer. The ZSVR arrives at a comparable assessment and treats films on rolls, wraps and strapping as finished packaging only at the point of application.

In practice this means that for films and other flexible materials the allocation differs – to the upstream supplier under the Commission's interpretation, and to the applying company under the interpretation of the EUNR and the ZSVR. For rigid transport packaging, the results largely coincide.

Open follow-up questions

The Commission's interpretation is assessed controversially in the professional debate. The objections concern less the interpretation itself than the questions it raises downstream.

Relationship to sales packaging. For sales packaging, the guidance document treats the filler as the manufacturer as a rule: whoever carries out the final processing steps and fills the packaging with their product is the manufacturer, and an empty bottle is not yet finished sales packaging. For transport packaging, by contrast, the empty item is said already to be finished. Both are packaging within the meaning of Article 3(1)(1) PPWR, which is why the different treatment is regarded as requiring justification.

Component or standalone packaging. For conformity assessment, the relevant unit is the packaging unit under Article 3(1)(45) PPWR, that is, the unit of integrated or separate parts that together fulfil a packaging function. For sales packaging, closure and label are treated as components of that unit. For transport packaging, box, tape, film and pallet are said not to form a common unit but a combination of several packaging items from different manufacturers. Exactly where the line runs between a component within the meaning of Article 3(1)(43) and (44) PPWR and a standalone packaging unit is therefore not conclusively answered – and that line determines how and to what extent companies have to draw up declarations of conformity.

Marking of flexible materials. If each packaging material counts as finished transport packaging in its own right, the marking obligations under Article 15 PPWR also apply to tapes, strapping and shrink films – including an identification feature and the manufacturer's contact details. Such products are barely available on the market to date. This matters for distributors, because they have a verification duty under Article 19 PPWR and may not make packaging available without the required information pursuant to Article 19(3) PPWR.

Assessments that presuppose product knowledge. Packaging minimization under Article 10 PPWR can only be assessed in relation to packaging and packed goods. A producer of flat-packed boxes does not know the later contents, and a producer of roll stock knows even less – in many companies such materials are not used exclusively for packaging purposes. The position is comparable for recyclability under Article 6 PPWR, which has to be expressed on a weighted basis per packaging unit as part of the conformity assessment, and for the material marking under Article 12 PPWR, whose requirements depend on whether the packaging is later used in e-commerce.

EPR mechanics. Under the guidance document, the EPR obligation is intended to arise in the Member State in which the packaging is likely to become waste. If the supply of a flat-packed box domestically already triggers the producer obligation, it arises there while the waste occurs in the country of destination – with the risk of double allocation and with reimbursement procedures as the only compensating mechanism. Two German specifics add to this: whether transport packaging is subject to system participation depends on the intended use, which is determined not by the box producer but by the filler. And filling material is a part of the packaging rather than standalone packaging, so if obligations shift to upstream suppliers, it remains open who covers it.

Conversely, it is argued against the filler logic that it would largely hollow out the manufacturer principle for transport packaging: anyone merely combining standard packaging on an individual basis would then have to draw up a separate declaration of conformity for each combination – whether when packaging large plant components with numerous units and lashing straps, or for reusable packaging into which users insert bubble wrap or fleece, which would result in the manufacturer role changing continuously. A more differentiated objection is that the classification varies by box type: a standard box only acquires its function once it is taped, whereas crash-lock bottoms or mailing bags with pre-applied adhesive strips are usable without any further step.

Imports and Transit

From 12 August 2026, the importer must ensure that the third-country manufacturer has carried out the conformity assessment procedure under Article 38 PPWR, that the identification and contact details under Article 15(5) and (6) PPWR are in place, and that the required documents accompany the packaging. In addition, under Article 18(3) PPWR the importer must indicate its own name, registered trade name or trademark, its postal address and, where available, electronic contact details on the packaging, in a standardized data carrier or on an accompanying document.

Goods not declared for release for free circulation that merely transit the EU en route to a third country are not placed on the EU market; the PPWR does not apply to them. The same holds for goods imported and re-exported without being placed on the market. The Commission notes that release for free circulation and placing on the market do not always coincide – in distance selling, placing on the market can precede release.

Delegation, technical documentation and declaration of conformity

The conformity assessment may be carried out on the manufacturer's behalf, for instance by a laboratory or a certification scheme. The EU declaration of conformity may be drawn up by an authorized representative under a written mandate. Compiling the technical documentation cannot be delegated. The manufacturer remains the sole economic operator bearing legal responsibility; contractual indemnities allocate financial risk but do not move the regulatory obligation.

Further points from this chapter:

The technical documentation must be retained for five years, and for ten years in the case of reusable packaging. It must include the conceptual design, manufacturing drawings and details of the materials of the components. Retention by the supplier alone is not sufficient.

The declaration of conformity is drawn up for the packaging unit as a whole rather than per component, and in the language of each Member State supplied. For a unit consisting of bottle, closure and label, a single assessment and a single declaration covering the unit suffice, provided the declaration includes information on all components.

The existing harmonized standards no longer confer a presumption of conformity. The standards on packaging minimisation are excepted and remain usable until the end of 2029. As a reference for Article 5(1), the Commission points to Annex C of EN 13428:2004, and for the heavy metals limit of 100 mg/kg to CEN report CR 13695-1/2000.

Labelling under the Food Information to Consumers Regulation does not discharge the identification obligations under the PPWR, since the responsible food business operator and the manufacturer of the packaging need not be the same person.

Existing stock and traceability

Packaging produced before 12 August 2026 but not yet placed on the market need not be destroyed, remanufactured or re-labelled. The information under Article 15(5) and (6) may be supplied by means of an accompanying document. Packaging already placed on the market before that date may remain on the market even if it does not meet the requirements of the PPWR.

For packaging produced after 12 August, an accompanying document is only permissible where affixing the information is not possible. Identification may operate at the level of type, model or production batch, provided the packaging can be clearly linked to the technical documentation and the declaration of conformity. Marking one component of a packaging unit is sufficient: for a yoghurt pot consisting of cup, lid and label, the information on one of the three components is enough.

Enforcement from 12 August 2026

The new chapter on enforcement states that products should not be removed from the EU market simply because their packaging is non-compliant on the date of application. Under Article 62 PPWR, an authority that becomes aware of non-compliance must first require the economic operator to bring it to an end. Only where the non-compliance persists do prohibition, recall or withdrawal come into consideration. Market surveillance authorities are encouraged to work with awareness-raising, requests for information and reasonable timelines for corrective action. Enforcement should not disrupt trade flows, supply chains or consumer access to goods.

How strictly enforcement plays out is decided nationally. In Germany, the Packaging Law Implementation Act (VerpackDG) enters into force on 12 August 2026 alongside the PPWR; it was promulgated in the Federal Law Gazette on 17 July 2026 and replaces the previous Packaging Act (VerpackG). It governs the responsibilities of the Federal Environment Agency, the ZSVR and the state authorities, the procedural link to LUCID, and the schedule of fines: breaches of the obligations set out there can be sanctioned with fines of up to EUR 200,000. The competent market surveillance authorities are designated by state law, and notification of the Commission and the other Member States in cases of non-compliance runs through the Federal Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. The EU declaration of conformity may be drawn up in German or English; a translation must be provided on request by the authority. Independently of this, the market surveillance powers under the PPWR – prohibition, withdrawal and recall – apply directly from 12 August 2026.

The obligations themselves are not deferred by any of this. What matters is whether a company can demonstrate that it is actively implementing the requirements and addressing remaining gaps. Since the FAQs are not binding, enforcement may be stricter in individual Member States.

Open points at EU level

On the harmonised method for demonstrating compliance with the PFAS limits under Article 5(5), the second edition again says nothing. The three-step approach described in the June guidance document – total fluorine screening, pyrolysis GC/MS, TOP analysis – remains without a harmonized standard and without a defined conformity assessment procedure. Article 5(5) applies from 12 August 2026 to the food-contact packaging categories set out in that provision. The Commission confirms that the restriction covers both intentionally added and unintentionally present PFAS, and notes that according to the analyses available, only packaging with intentionally added PFAS exceeds the limit values in practice.

Further implementing acts, delegated acts and standardization requests are announced for the coming two to three years.

What this means for implementation

• Differentiate the role allocation for transport packaging by packaging type – aligning the classification with the physical producer and involving legal advice in unclear cases; for flexible materials, document both interpretations.
• Apply the name and trademark criterion across the entire portfolio, including unbranded and custom-made packaging, and give reasons for the classification per packaging item.
• Draw a clear line at 12 August 2026 for existing stock and document when each packaging item was placed on the market.
• Follow up with suppliers wherever the manufacturer role now sits with an upstream supplier under the new interpretation.
• Assess the EPR allocation separately from the manufacturer question, particularly for cross-border supplies and for the system participation requirement for transport packaging in Germany.