PPWR in practice: What the new FAQ clarifies

August 2026 was a significant month for European packaging law: On 12 August 2026, the EU Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR) became applicable across all Member States, further harmonizing packaging law across Europe.

Just eleven days earlier, on 1 August 2026, the European Commission had published the second edition of its FAQ on the PPWR—with numerous new and revised answers and a new Chapter XVI on enforcement of the PPWR.

At key points, the FAQ provides practical guidance and helps companies determine their own role in the value chain and establish a sound basis for ongoing compliance.

Starting point: PPWR obligations since August 2026

The first wave of PPWR obligations became effective on 12 August 2026. At its core is the new allocation of roles: companies must classify themselves as manufacturers, importers or distributors and assume the obligations associated with each role. Such a role immediately gives rise to requirements relating to packaging conformity, the documentation of that conformity by means of a declaration of conformity, and labelling on the packaging. In terms of the packaging’s properties, the catalogue of obligations initially focuses on substance restrictions; further requirements—including those relating to recyclability, recycled content and empty space in packaging—will become applicable successively through 2030.

Clarity on obligations remains a work in progress

Although the catalogue of obligations is manageable, the PPWR raises questions because it contains numerous legal terms requiring interpretation. Even where definitions exist, linguistic ambiguities create points of dispute. Below, we highlight examples of clarifications that are relevant in practice.

1. The manufacturer’s role, particularly for private labels

For a long time, it was disputed whether a commissioning party that has packaged products manufactured under its own name or brand is deemed a manufacturer solely for that reason—and to what extent the commissioning party’s actual decision-making power over the design and properties of the packaging is relevant.

This issue is particularly relevant when packaged products are manufactured on behalf of a company—for example, in the case of private labels.

In some areas of practice, manufacturer status was rejected by reference to the wording of Art. 3(1)(13) PPWR, which specifically emphasises the active manufacturing process (“manufactures packaging or the packaged product").

FAQ Section II.6 takes a clear position: A party that has packaging manufactured under its name or brand is supposed to be able to specify its properties—and is therefore to be classified as a manufacturer according to the Commission’s opinion. The German Packaging Register authority ZSVR has adopted this view. It is noteworthy that the FAQ additionally states that this is intended to apply even where the commissioning party chooses standardised packaging and does not require any changes to the design or production process—although this could in fact indicate that the commissioning party lacks actual decision-making power with regard to the packaging.

This classification deserves particular attention wherever the producer of the packaged product remains identifiable to third parties and knowledge of the production processes, together with the information required for the conformity assessment, is actually held by that producer—not by the commissioning party. In these cases, a blanket allocation of manufacturer status based solely on the brand and the manufacturing order is not ultimately persuasive, since the responsible producer is clearly identifiable in this situation. It would be desirable for the FAQ to be expanded further to include a practical differentiation between typical contract-manufacturing arrangements and a more detailed set of criteria for determining when decision-making power should be deemed to exist.

The issue continues to be debated and, in light of the wording of the PPWR, is handled differently in some cases; judicial clarification remains possible because the FAQ has no legally binding effect in this respect. 

Furthermore, the following applies according to the PPWR: It is not possible to agree by individual contract who assumes which role under the PPWR; the roles arise by operation of law, as the FAQ also makes clear (see FAQ X, no. 9). Nevertheless, in the interests of a clear allocation of obligations, each case should be examined to determine whether existing contracts also reflect the actual allocation of obligations in light of the PPWR, whether the labelling is unambiguous, and whether the information and cooperation obligations required for conformity are secured contractually.

2. Manufacturer and producer in relation to transport packaging

Another clarification relevant in practice concerns transport packaging. FAQ Section II.5 makes clear that, when determining manufacturer status for transport packaging, the relevant point in time is when the packaging reaches its final form—that is, when it can be used as transport packaging without any further components or additional elements (“final form“). The FAQ expressly cites transport cartons as an example: A party that merely places a product in an unprinted standard carton and affixes a shipping label does not thereby become the manufacturer. National registers have recently taken divergent positions on this, for example regarding the use of branded adhesive tape. Nevertheless, the distinction between packaging material and finished packaging is not clear-cut in all circumstances and must be determined on a case-by-case basis from the systematic context of the PPWR.

This is also connected to producer responsibility which is assigned at an earlier stage. The FAQ illustrates this with case studies: According to the FAQ, the producer of unprinted standard cartons is the company that physically produces the cartons and sells them in the same Member State—not the company that later fills and ships them (see FAQ Section II.9). This applies even if the cartons are delivered flat and are only folded by the user.

3. Enforcement of the PPWR by public authorities

The new Chapter XVI of the FAQ takes a soft approach to enforcement: If a market surveillance authority identifies an infringement, the economic operator should, in the European Commission’s view, initially receive a warning and a reasonable period to remedy the infringement. Only if non-conformity persists should further-reaching measures be considered—such as a prohibition on placing the packaging on the market, a recall or withdrawal. The FAQ expressly presents this as a supportive approach: authorities should support companies in complying with the new rules rather than immediately imposing sanctions.

For companies in Germany, however, Chapter XVI serves primarily as guidance and does not amount to a grace period. First, the FAQ is not binding and leaves the Member States to decide on the specific course of action. Second, competitors may assert infringements of the PPWR through competition-law injunctive proceedings. The guidance should therefore not be relied on as a dependable transitional period—early preparation remains essential.

4. Legacy packaging stock

For packaging stock, the new FAQ Section X.5 provides important relief.

Distributors with packaging in stock that was placed on the market by the manufacturer before 12 August 2026 benefit from the fact that such packaging may continue to be used, even if it is not PPWR-compliant. It is advisable to retain cogent evidence that the packaging was procured before the cut-off date.

The PPWR obligations continue to apply to manufacturers, albeit with a practical concession: packaging produced before 12 August 2026 but not yet placed on the market does not have to be destroyed. The labelling requirements under Art. 15 paras. 5 and 6 PPWR—unambiguous identification and the indication of the manufacturer’s name and address—can be satisfied for such stock by means of an accompanying document. For packaging manufactured after 12 August 2026, however, an accompanying document is permissible only where affixing the information directly to the packaging is not possible.

EPR reporting in the PPWR format

The first EPR report in the harmonised PPWR format is no longer scheduled for June 2029; instead, it is scheduled for 1 June 2030 (FAQ Section XVIII.3). The shift is due to the fact that the implementing act on the uniform registration and reporting format (Art. 44 para. 14 PPWR) is still pending and that, once it has been adopted, the Member States will have 18 months to establish their national registers accordingly.

Although the PPWR version of EPR will therefore not be in place for some time, companies should not put the issue on hold: The EPR obligations already in force under national law in the majority of European countries remain unaffected and continue to apply unchanged. Failure to register creates a significant compliance risk.

Summary and outlook

The second edition of the FAQ is a welcome development. It provides guidance on important points. At the same time, questions remain open, particularly with regard to the operational implementation of EPR obligations throughout Europe.

A key practical challenge remains coordination with business partners. It is understandable that the parties along the value chain interpret the PPWR differently—and sometimes in ways shaped by their own interests: they are often seeking to make the complexity of the regulation manageable for their own organisation.

It is therefore crucial to know one’s own role and the obligations associated with it precisely—not least to protect against a one-sided allocation of burdens by business partners. At the same time, every company depends on suppliers providing the required information completely and accurately. This makes structured dialogue all the more important, so that responsibilities are clearly allocated and contractually secured.

Contact:

Dr. Tobias von Tucher is a lawyer and partner at PwC Legal AG and heads the ESG Legal/Product Compliance practice in Germany. Please feel free to contact him with enquiries on this topic.

This article was prepared with the assistance of Clemens Bauer, lawyer and manager at PwC Legal AG.