The EU packaging regulation and the product data you will need

What the PPWR replaced

Before 2025, packaging rules came from the directive 94/62/EC. A directive sets an objective and leaves each member state to write its own law. As a result, a single yoghurt pot sold in France and Germany faced national requirements that differed from those in Spain and Poland. That meant four sets of national definitions and four label schemes, while interpretations of what counted as recyclable also differed across the four markets.

Regulation (EU) 2025/40 removes that layer. It applies directly in all 27 member states, with no transposition step and far less room for national variation. It entered into force on 11 February 2025 and applies from 12 August 2026.

For a manufacturer, the practical change is the level of proof. The directive asked for essential requirements that were mostly self-declared against European standards. The regulation asks for measurable performance per pack and traceable back to the materials your suppliers delivered. Member states keep their own extended producer responsibility schemes and deposit systems, so national registration duties continue on top of the EU rules.

When it applied

Regulation (EU) 2025/40 is phased. The general application date is 12 August 2026, but the obligations that change packaging design land later, once the Commission publishes the delegated and implementing acts that define how each one is measured.

From a PPWR readiness perspective, C+P recommends treating each future date as a data readiness checkpoint. The first task is to identify which packaging records lack a declared material grade or a reliable component weight. The next task is to confirm that supplier evidence refers to the exact version used in production. This creates a defensible baseline before the delegated acts settle the final calculation methods.

The same approach helps with portfolio prioritisation. A pack with a plastic component, a food-contact use, or a complex label may need evidence from several parts of the technical file. Reviewing those records early gives the design team time to test alternatives before a change affects the stock. It also gives procurement a clear request when a supplier certificate does not cover the required material or production site.

EU packaging requirements

What the regulation requires from manufacturers falls into two groups: how a pack is designed, and what you can prove about it. Design rules set recyclability and recycled-content requirements for plastic parts. They also require minimisation of weight and volume while imposing the outright bans in Annex V. Proof means a technical file and a declaration of conformity for every pack unit.

Article 10 applies from 12 August 2026 and is the one most food and beverage manufacturers should not underestimate. Packaging must meet the performance criteria in Annex IV at the minimum weight and volume its function allows. Double walls and false bottoms are prohibited.

Until the Commission's methodology arrives, substantiation is based on the standard EN 13428. A separate numerical cap follows under Article 24 and applies from 1 January 2030 to e-commerce packaging as well as grouped and transport packaging. Such packaging may contain at most 50% empty space. Void fill such as air pillows or crumpled paper counts toward empty space and is excluded from product volume.

For food manufacturers, every pack needs a recyclability grade and a recycled-content figure. It also requires a minimisation justification and a substance declaration, which makes disciplined packaging specification management the foundation of the whole exercise.

The record should show which component creates each obligation. A bottle body may determine the recycled-content calculation, while a cap or sleeve may affect the recyclability assessment. A food-contact layer may require separate test evidence even when it represents a small share of total pack weight. Separating those parts prevents a declaration from relying on an average composition that does not describe the finished unit.

PPWR labelling requirements

Labelling under Articles 12 and 13 becomes mandatory from 12 August 2028, or two years after the relevant implementing act, whichever falls later. Each pack must carry harmonised marking on material composition to support consumer sorting, and matching pictograms appear on waste receptacles so the symbol on the pot matches the symbol on the bin.

In its technical proposal on harmonised waste, The Commission's Joint Research Centre suggested new sorting labels. If the proposal is adopted broadly as drafted, national recycling labels will be withdrawn by 2028, which would end the country-by-country artwork variants European brands have carried for decades.

Reusable packaging would get its own label plus a QR code linking to reuse and return information. Packaging covered by a deposit and return scheme must be marked accordingly. Harmonised criteria replace in-house wording for labels stating recycled content or bio-based content. Claims that suggest an environmental benefit the pack does not deliver are prohibited.

Artwork is where compliance gets expensive late. A label change that arrives after plates are cut requires new plate time and a re-approval cycle, while existing stock may need to be written off. The label data therefore needs to be governed alongside the specification.

A controlled artwork process should link the approved label to the active packaging version. When a material or format changes, the system can identify whether the label needs review before the revised pack reaches production. The approval record should also preserve the evidence used for any regulated claim, so a later artwork change does not separate the wording from its supporting specification.

PPWR in the UK

The regulation does not apply to packaging placed on the Great Britain market. It does apply in Northern Ireland, which continues to follow EU packaging law under the Windsor Framework, so a manufacturer shipping into Belfast and Birmingham from the same line is working on two rulebooks at once.

Great Britain runs its own regime. Extended producer responsibility for packaging shifts the full net cost of household packaging waste onto producers, with fees modulated by recyclability assessment, and a deposit return scheme for drinks containers is scheduled for 2027. The EU set uses different definitions and categories, with its own thresholds.

For a European manufacturer selling into the UK the workaround is to build one packaging record deep enough to serve both regimes. Hold component weights and material grades at the level each regime asks for. Store recycled content with supplier evidence at the same level, then map outputs per market.

A field within the record should make any stricter or different UK requirement visible and replace email threads between the packaging technologist and the compliance manager.

Does PPWR apply to exporters?

Yes, the regulation covers all packaging placed on the EU market regardless of where it was made, so manufacturers in Switzerland and the United Kingdom carry the same design and documentation obligations as a producer in Belgium. The same applies to manufacturers in Türkiye and the United States. Origin is irrelevant, and so is material.

Duties follow the role. If you are established outside the EU and sell to an EU importer, the importer becomes the economic operator who must check that the technical file and the declaration of conformity exist before the goods go on the market. If you sell directly to EU consumers online, you need an authorised representative established in the Union for extended producer responsibility purposes, registered in each member state where you sell.

That distinction decides who chases whom for data. Because liability sits with them, importers require documentation before accepting shipments, and a non-EU supplier who cannot produce component-level composition loses the order. Treating this as part of regulatory compliance in product development is crucial, because a shipping formality is what keeps the packaging file current when a supplier switches a barrier layer mid-year.

Article 5: substances of concern

Article 5 governs what packaging is allowed to contain. The rule most manufacturers already know carries over from the old directive and limits the combined concentration of four heavy metals. It covers lead and cadmium. Mercury and hexavalent chromium contribute to the same combined limit, which must not exceed 100 mg/kg and applies to all packaging materials. Under the regulation, market surveillance around it is considerably more active.

Beyond heavy metals, Article 5 requires that substances of concern in packaging be minimised, with particular attention to anything that hinders reuse or high-quality recycling. Printing inks and adhesives come into scope. Coatings and pigments are also covered. The inclusion of additives pushes the question back to your suppliers and their suppliers.

From 1 January 2030 the presence of substances of concern must be communicated through standardised, open digital technologies, which in practice requires a machine-readable record per pack and leaves PDFs in shared folders obsolete.

The hard part is provenance. A grease-resistant coating three tiers up your supply chain is invisible unless someone asked for it in writing and stored the answer against the component. That is why the substance question belongs in the specification record, tied to the supplier and component for the version in use.

A useful supplier declaration should identify the material or formulation covered, its production site, and the period for which the statement is valid. The record should preserve the source document with its approval date. If the supplier changes a resin, ink, coating, or adhesive, the change can then trigger a targeted review instead of forcing the team to rebuild the entire file from memory.

PFAS limits for food-contact packaging

From 12 August 2026, food-contact packaging cannot be placed on the EU market at or above three cumulative thresholds. Article 5(5) permits the intentional use of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) below total-content caps. The caps are low enough that unintentional contamination can fail them.

All three limits apply together, so passing the individual-substance test proves nothing on its own. The scope reaches grease-resistant paper and board coatings. Bakery wrap and fast-food sleeves are therefore caught, as are pet-food liners and moulded fibre bowls.

In most laboratories, testing starts with total fluorine screening before pyrolysis gas chromatography. Targeted liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry then provides identification. Screening alone gives you only a number, so keep the certificates against the component and re-test when a supplier changes a coating.

Test evidence also needs a clear relationship to the finished packaging. A certificate for a supplier's general product range may not cover the grade, coating weight, or manufacturing site used in the pack under review. The technical file should state which component the result covers and record any limits on the laboratory's method. That connection makes a failed result actionable because the affected pack versions can be isolated quickly.

Declaration of conformity

Every pack needs an EU declaration of conformity, drawn up by the manufacturer of the packaging and backed by technical documentation prepared to Annex VII. The declaration is a single document per packaging unit that states which requirements the pack meets and takes legal responsibility for that statement.

The technical file records material composition and weights per component. It includes the minimisation assessment against Annex IV performance criteria and the recyclability evidence.

The file also contains the recycled-content calculation and test reports for heavy metals. Where food contact applies, it includes PFAS test reports. It gives the reasoning wherever a derogation is claimed. Authorities can ask for it, and importers ask for it routinely before they accept a shipment.

Two things can go wrong. The first is scope: manufacturers write one declaration for a pack family when the components vary by plant or by supplier, so the document describes a pack nobody ships. The second is currency. A file assembled once during an audit is stale within a quarter because bottles get lightweighted and films get resourced.

Generate the declaration from the live specification. When the component record changes, the file changes with it.

The declaration should have a defined owner and an approval route that matches the company's product-change process. A change to a packaging component should place the declaration under review before the revised version receives release approval. That review can confirm whether the existing evidence still applies or whether a new test or calculation is necessary.

Version control matters at shipment level. The file should identify the pack format, the relevant component versions, and the market for which the declaration was issued. This prevents an old declaration from being attached to a new supplier part simply because both parts share a commercial description. It also gives customer service and import teams a reliable answer when a trading partner asks for proof.

Recyclability by 2030

From 1 January 2030, or 24 months after the relevant delegated acts enter into force, packaging placed on the EU market must achieve recyclability performance grade A, B or C, subject to limited exemptions such as certain medical and safety-critical applications. The grades come from a harmonised assessment of design-for-recycling performance, and the criteria behind them are due by 1 January 2028.

Grade drives cost as well as market access. Extended producer responsibility fees are modulated against recyclability, so a grade C pack pays more than a grade A pack for the same tonnage. Minimum recycled content in plastic parts arrives on the same 2030 date, set by packaging type and format, with a second tier of targets in 2040.

Counting the packs reveals how tight a two-year redesign window is. A mid-sized food manufacturer with several hundred SKUs across multiple plants needs composition data at component level before it can even sort which packs are at risk. Some of that data sits in artwork files and supplier emails. The rest sits in a legacy specification system that never held polymer grades.

Turning PPWR into product data

Almost every PPWR obligation ultimately depends on having reliable, component level packaging data that has the evidence behind it. The regulatory deadlines may appear distant, but the data and process work needs to start much earlier, particularly where packaging records were never designed to capture material grades, component weights, recycled content or supplier evidence.

For manufacturers, this makes PPWR more than a regulatory compliance exercise. It is also a product data and governance challenge. Packaging specifications, supplier evidence, artwork, compliance documentation and change processes need to remain connected as materials, suppliers and pack designs evolve.

This is where C+P Consulting supports CPG and FMCG manufacturers. We help companies identify gaps in their packaging data, establish the component level information required for PPWR, and put in place the governance and processes needed to keep that information accurate over time. This can include bringing together data currently dispersed across artwork files, supplier documentation and legacy specification systems into a governed product record that supports compliance activities such as declarations of conformity.

The objective is to create a reliable packaging data foundation that allows regulatory, packaging, procurement and product teams to understand what is compliant, what requires further evidence and where action is needed when a specification or supplier changes.

If you want to understand how ready your packaging data and processes are for PPWR, C+P can help you assess the current state, identify the most important gaps and define the practical steps towards compliance.

If you are trying to work out how far off your own records are, start a conversation. Half an hour is usually enough to tell whether you have a data problem or a process one.

FAQ

More articles