Europe’s packaging industry says clarity still needed on definitions in PPWR guidance

Chemical Watch News

PACKAGING PLUS: Interpretations differ for shipping, assembly and primary packaging categories

France
Netherlands
Belgium
Luxembourg
Personal care
Retail
Food & drink
EPR for packaging materials
Packaging materials
EU
Packaging Plus

Packaging - pallets in a warehouse © Siwakorn1933 stock.adobe.com

Europe’s packaging industry is seeking further clarification on the definitions of ‘manufacturer’ and ‘producer’ in the European Commission's guidance for the Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR), which takes effect on 12 August.

On 5 June, the Commission released its final guidance for the PPWR with only minor changes to the draft released on 30 March.

Under the PPWR, a manufacturer and producer have different roles and obligations. A manufacturer has to provide evidence that the packaging is compliant, and a producer must fulfil extended producer responsibility (EPR) requirements, including reporting waste volumes and paying fees.

But on 2 June, the Dutch producer responsibility organisation (PRO) Verpact, along with producer organisations from Belgium, France and Luxembourg, wrote to the Commission stating that the guidance had raised new questions on these definitions as applied to transport packaging, service packaging (filled at point of sale) and primary production packaging.

Need for harmonised interpretations

The PROs said there are differing interpretations of the term ‘manufacturer’ among member states, creating uncertainty about who is responsible for certain obligations and costs.

"Our understanding is that the PPWR maintains the principle that the manufacturer is the entity that places the packaging on the market in its final form, including where several elements are assembled. However, certain elements [of the guidance] appear to contradict or deviate from this principle," they said.

According to the guidance, a manufacturer for the three aforementioned categories "will normally be the company which manufactures the transport or service packaging".

But if the packaging is clearly branded by the user, the user is classified as the manufacturer.

The criteria for identifying the producer of transport packaging, which often consists of multiple components, also state that the assembler will be the manufacturer and the first potential producer. 

However, Verpact notes that the example in the guidance relating to cardboard packaging no longer explicitly mentions an ‘assembler’; instead, it illustrates the concept of a contracting authority or ordering party.

Verpact pointed out that cardboard only takes its final shape at an assembler’s premises. "Therefore, the producer cannot be the cardboard manufacturer; it is always the assembler," it said.

The PRO explained that if the manufacturer or converter is considered the producer, they would need to request detailed information from all their customers on the share of cardboard placed on a member state’s market to enable accurate reporting to the PRO. This, Verpact said, would significantly increase the administrative burden for all involved.

According to the PROs, another area of confusion is the placement of the reference ‘final form’ after ‘service packaging’ rather than after all three categories, which they said creates ambiguity as to the scope.

Potential consequences

The PROs said different interpretations and a lack of clarity have direct consequences, such as:

  • financial uncertainty for companies regarding their role and responsibilities;
  • inconsistent reporting and declaration obligations;
  • extra complexity for companies operating across borders;
  • an uneven playing field within the European internal market; and
  • risk of fragmented enforcement and legal disputes at the national level.

The PROs are asking the Commission to clarify the definitions "as soon as possible", and at least well before member states have to meet their EPR reporting obligations. Verpact noted that in the Netherlands, the reporting obligation starts on 1 January 2027 for filings relating to the 2026 financial year.

Europe’s packaging trade association Europen has also previously spoken out about the confusion created by the guidance, which it said failed to provide the legal certainty required by industry.

PACKAGING PLUS: This article is part of a new, weekly news service from the Chemical Watch News & Insight team covering packaging regulations around the world. Click here for more details about this new content. 

FURTHER INFORMATION