The European Commission recently published a guidance document that aims to provide clarity around the requirements of the Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation. But how helpful is it in practice?
Matteo Squeo, founder of The Green Clause and member of the Permanent Delegation of the Court of Justice, the General Court and the EFTA Court, examines the guidance in detail and explores its shortcomings.
On 30 March 2026, the European Commission published its Guidance document and accompanying Frequently Asked Questions on the Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR).
Together, these instruments represent the Commission’s first comprehensive interpretive effort on a Regulation that enters into application on 12 August 2026.
The guidance covers the full breadth of the PPWR’s regulatory architecture: from the basic definitions of packaging, manufacturer, producer, and importer, to the substantive requirements on PFAS restrictions in food-contact packaging, recyclability and Design for Recycling criteria, recycled content targets, compostable packaging, packaging minimisation, empty space ratios, harmonised labelling, the relationship between the PPWR and the Single-Use Plastics Directive, packaging format bans under Annex V , re-use targets for transport packaging and beverages, national exemptions, Member State flexibilities, and deposit and return systems.
The FAQs complement this with targeted answers on conformity assessment, extended producer responsibility, waste prevention, and collection systems.
Where the guidance delivers, certain clarifications are genuinely valuable. The distinction between manufacturer and producer, two concepts carrying fundamentally different legal consequences under the PPWR, is articulated with a degree of precision that was previously absent.
The manufacturer bears responsibility for sustainability and labelling compliance at EU-wide level; the producer is identified on a market-by-market basis and carries the EPR obligations. This distinction, which has generated considerable confusion among economic operators, is now better delineated.
Equally important is the Commission’s position on the moment of “placing on the market” for food-contact sales packaging subject to the PFAS restrictions. In fact, the guidance confirms that this occurs when the packaging is filled with food, anchoring the interpretation in the Blue Guide on the implementation of EU product rules.
This settles a months-long debate and delivers a concrete operational reference point for compliance planning.
Where it falls short beyond these points, however, the picture becomes less reassuring. The most immediate concern is timing. The guidance was published five months before the Regulation’s date of application. Economic operators are expected to redesign products, invest in new materials, restructure supply chains, and build data disclosure infrastructure all on the basis of interpretive material released with a compliance window that, for many obligations, is simply insufficient for meaningful implementation.
On recyclability, the guidance introduces uncertainty rather than resolving it. The applicability of recyclability rules should be clearly linked to the delegated acts establishing Design for Recycling criteria, which are due by 1 January 2028 under Article 6(4).
Without these delegated acts, the recyclability framework stays aspirational rather than operational, and yet the guidance creates ambiguity about what is expected from operators in the interim.
PFAS compliance presents a similar gap. While the three-step enforcement methodology (total fluorine screening, pyrolysis-GC/MS, and TOP analysis) is a useful conceptual framework, there is no harmonised EU testing methodology and no clear conformity assessment procedure for verifying compliance with the concentration limits.
Combined with the absence of any transitional period for existing stocks, this places operators in a position where the obligation is clear but the means of demonstrating compliance are not.
Recycled content exemptions require extensive technical justification, imposing a bureaucratic burden that risks being disproportionate for smaller operators. The scope of packaging restrictions under Annex V remains unclear in critical areas, most notably, the extension of bans to composite packaging formats such as beverage cups and food containers, which appears to go beyond what the co-legislators agreed in the final text.
The road ahead
The practical effect of these gaps is already visible. Investment decisions across the packaging value chain are being delayed or cancelled outright. Compliance risk is increasing, not in the abstract, but in concrete terms: companies are being asked to commit capital to redesign cycles, material substitutions, and infrastructure upgrades without knowing whether the regulatory parameters they are designing against will hold.
The competitiveness of the EU packaging sector is under pressure, not because anyone disputes the Regulation’s objectives, but because the regulatory environment does not yet provide the conditions for confident, long-term planning.
The guidance is a necessary foundation. But foundation alone does not deliver compliance. What is
needed now, and urgently, is operational clarity on the provisions that are generating the most friction.
The delegated acts on Design for Recycling criteria and recycled content calculation methodologies must be fast tracked. A harmonised EU wide PFAS testing methodology needs to be established, together with clear conformity assessment procedures that give economic operators a defined pathway to demonstrate compliance.
And the open questions on the scope of Annex V and the key definitions that underpin producer and manufacturer obligations require binding clarifications, not further interpretive layers that restate positions the industry has already internalised.
If you liked this story, you might also enjoy:
The ultimate guide to packaging innovation in 2026
Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation: what to know in 2026
Everything you need to know about global packaging sustainability regulation
No comments yet