For years, 12 August 2026 was just a number in the countdown on the packaging journal website. Now it is here, bringing with it the EU Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR) and the German Packaging Implementation Act. The day preparation turns into reality.
Those who listened to the live talk hosted by the packaging journal editorial team to mark the start of the regulation quickly realised, however, that this deadline does not signal an end, but rather the beginning of a long clarification phase. More than eleven hundred registrations and a flood of questions submitted in advance showed just how much was still uncertain even on the day it came into force.
Germany has a lead that many do not have
Amid all the uncertainty, there was also some good news on that day, and it came from the registration authority itself. Germany is one of the few EU member states that completed its national implementation in time for the deadline. Gunda Rachut, Executive Board member of the ZSVR, turned this into a tangible advantage for local businesses. While implementing legislation was still missing in many member states, German companies were already in a position to plan with legal certainty. They knew what they had to prepare for, whereas elsewhere this foundation had not yet been laid.
„As Germany, we are one of the few nations that are on time through the bottleneck. Our Companies have already Legal certainty and knowing what they be able to prepare.“
(Gunda Rachut, ZSVR)
That does not alter the fact that the regulation itself still leaves gaps. The PPWR does apply in terms of definitions and certain conformity issues, according to Rachut, but numerous secondary legislative acts are still missing. They are scheduled, but simply not yet in force, and only when they are available can much be conclusively assessed. Rachut therefore does not expect a reliable initial assessment after the first hundred days so often invoked by politicians, but only in 2030.
Until then, the work of her authority remains a constant translation between the wording of the law and operational reality. They collect the countless case constellations from practice, not just from the supermarket shelf, but also from the often overlooked engine room of transport, commercial and industrial packaging, and examine for each one which interpretation corresponds to the wording and is at the same time workable. It is precisely in this tension, Rachut said, that the true art lies. As a foundation, the Central Agency is in close contact with companies, and this exchange is crucial in order to feed reality into the interpretation and to work together with the EU Commission on viable solutions.
The crucial question is: Who is the father?
If you single out one topic from this morning, it is this one. From the Packaging Institute and the associations to the lawyers, the same question kept coming up: who is actually the producer, who is merely the supplier, and who is the distributor. Natalie Brandenburg from the German Packaging Institute cited questions regarding these roles as one of the two major clusters of issues preoccupying her members.
The European Commission's latest guidance document has even added fuel to these questions because, while it provided clarity in some places, it raised new uncertainties, particularly regarding transport packaging. The second cluster concerned the data for compliance work, and very specifically the question of the minimum set of required information per requirement. Brandenburg advocated not answering this question solely with regard to today's deadline, but also taking upcoming delegated acts into account and working step-by-step towards an open industry standard.
„Actually, not all that much is changing today. It is the starting gun for a long transition period, but with a high symbolic character.“
(Dr Natalie Brandenburg, German Packaging Institute)
The legal clarification was provided by the two specialist lawyers from Cattwyk. Franziska Kaiser dispelled a widespread misconception according to which the role of manufacturer can be passed on contractually. This role arises from the text of the regulation and from certain circumstances defined by the regulation, not from an agreement between business partners. Help may certainly be obtained, for instance with the execution of the conformity assessment procedure by commissioned companies or appointed authorised representatives. The role as such, however, Kaiser emphasised, can hardly be shifted by mere contract.
How this looks in everyday practice was made clear by Julia Hörnig using the frequently submitted case of contract fillers and contract packers. Crucially, the initial factor is who manufactures the packaged product. However, the definition also expressly names the party who has something manufactured or produced. In the case of traditional contract manufacturing, where the client specifies the criteria for the packaging and influences the design, this client is generally the producer. The contract packer, who literally lays hands on the packaging, is then usually only the supplier.
How much influence the client actually exerts decides the classification, which is why it ultimately remains a question to be decided on a case-by-case basis. One principle, however, is certain for Kaiser and was emphasised again later in the talk: there can only be one producer for each packaging. Even neutral, unbranded packaging has one, which simply has to be determined. The reference to neutrality merely serves to distinguish it from packaging sold under a company's brand.
„The role arises from the text of the regulation, from certain circumstances that make someone a producer or not. A shift in roles by mere contract is likely to be difficult.“
(Franziska Kaiser, Solicitor, Cattwyk)
How far the burden of proof extends into the supply chain
Closely linked to the question of roles is a second point of contention troubling many companies. Do proofs have to be issued to customers, or is it sufficient to submit them to the authority? Using the example of the EU Declaration of Conformity, Franziska Kaiser showed how vague the regulation remains on this point. An explicit statement from the Commission is lacking, but a clear legal opinion can be derived from the wording. The pivot and focal point is the movement of the packaging through the supply chain. Distributors are subject to a verification obligation that relates to certain circumstances, such as the manufacturer being registered and the producer data appearing on the packaging.
Regarding conformity itself, a distributor must not make the packaging available if they have reason to believe that it is not conformant. However, such a reason only exists in the presence of specific indications, such as incriminating information or negative reports about a supplier. Compared to the stricter obligations of the importer, who must ensure that the conformity assessment procedure has been carried out and have the documentation submitted to them for this purpose, it is entirely justifiable to require the declaration of conformity to be handed over to the distributor only when such indications are present.
What has concretely been on the table since the qualifying date
While looking at all the open questions, the talk did not lose sight of what has actually been in force since 12 August. Julia Hörnig sorted through the provisions of Article 5 that take effect immediately. Its first paragraph generally requires minimising substances of concern contained in packaging and providing evidence of this in the technical documentation, without specifying a fixed limit. The fourth paragraph, on the other hand, contains concrete heavy metal limits that apply to all packaging. Those who manufacture packaging in contact with food must additionally observe the fifth paragraph on PFAS. For substances of concern, therefore, there is no limit, but an obligation to minimise, whereas for heavy metals there is a clear limit.
Similarly practically, Hörnig answered the frequently asked question of when packaging is actually packaging and not a product that falls outside the scope of application. A takeaway coffee cup, for example, is bought as the product one wishes to use, and is not exhausted by being disposed of after a single use. For differentiation, she advised orienting towards Annex I and the functions mentioned in Article 3, and distinguishing between sales and transport packaging. In many cases, the classification is clear-cut, while in others, particularly in business-to-business transactions, it remains a case-by-case decision.
Franziska Kaiser also made a clear statement regarding labelling. The obligation for producer labelling under Article 15 does not refer to a specific type of packaging, but applies to all, with transport packaging explicitly included. Things only become tricky with the question of what actually has to be labelled in the case of transport packaging. This is because it is disputed whether the overall structure of the pallet, stretch wrap and strapping band forms the packaging, or already the individual, finished stretch film on the roll. On the substance of the matter, however, the answer is clear that all types of packaging must be labelled. On the much-requested new recycling symbols, by contrast, Hörnig put people off until later. Uniform pictograms will exist EU-wide, the Commission's Joint Research Centre has already presented first drafts, but they will only be definitively established through delegated acts.
Light and shade for small and medium-sized enterprises
The two association representatives made it clear just how far apart regulatory theory and operational reality can drift. Karsten Hunger, who represents the interests of the paper and plastic packaging industry and, more recently, the Solid Board Packaging Association (Verband Vollpappe Kartonagen), spoke of both the light and the shade of the PPWR. He rated the political incentives positively, but was equally clear about the downsides. He sees these in the somewhat panicked reactions of small online retailers and in the frustration of many member companies regarding short-notice changes, queries and misinterpretations. He had not made as many phone calls in his nine years with the association as he had in the past few months.
„Better just do something first and document that you’ve done it. There’s no need to stop producing or selling now. It’ll be fine.“
(Karsten Hunger, Industrial Association for Paper and Plastic Packaging)
The recent interpretation guidelines lack practical application, Hunger criticised. They are written very much from a legal perspective, and as soon as one takes these texts into operational reality, the limitations quickly become apparent. He sees his association as a translator between politics and business, but expressly wishes for this translation to work in the opposite direction too, because precisely this voice from practical application is missing in the PPWR.
For the heavily SME-dominated sector, the situation is a burden because businesses would much prefer to produce and sell rather than tying up multiple people permanently with bureaucracy. At the same time, Hunger admitted that the required data collection would benefit companies in the medium term, because only those who know their processes can control them. His advice to a company that might have heard of the PPWR for the very first time only this morning was correspondingly pragmatic. They should draw up a checklist, take care of the central points such as the declaration of conformity and producer labelling, proceed with care and, above all, document that they are taking action. No one has to stop production or sales, there is still some time left, and much of it will have to bed down anyway.
„A whole load of loopholes for the member states have been inserted into the legislative process, especially regarding bans and reuse obligations. That is a problem.“
(Dr. Martin Engelmann, IK Industrievereinigung Kunststoffverpackungen)
A similar message came from online retail. Eva Behling from the German E-Commerce and Distance Selling Trade Association (bevh) summed up the mood using an image provided by a member company. Unlike the solar eclipse earlier that day, the sun would not simply rise again the next morning with the PPWR; the regulation was here to stay. Behling also shared the objectives, but pointed to the many unresolved legal questions and the considerable administrative burden, which sometimes caused the actual goal to be lost from sight.
She was not yet ready to make a final assessment as to whether the recent guidance might simplify the shipping label in online retail. With ten days to go before it comes into force, it would be a tall order to overhaul entire processes, especially since such changes would have to be coordinated with the entire supply chain. Addressing the perennial issue of packaging minimisation, she ultimately pointed to a structural problem in online retail. Out of self-interest alone, retailers ensured they used as little material as possible, because it hit them in the pocket and took up storage space. Yet because no two orders are alike in shipping, businesses are inevitably forced to work with standard sizes. Even with the right box, an item like a football still results in an empty space ratio of forty-eight percent – a figure that demonstrates how difficult the goal of minimisation is to implement in everyday operations.
