The European Commission recently published further guidance on the Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive, this time in the form of a Frequently Asked Questions document. Launched at the height of the summer break and just days before the PPWR begins to apply, what are the key points the packaging industry needs to be aware of? 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, takes a comprehensive look.
Introduction
The second-edition FAQs on Regulation (EU) 2025/40 (the PPWR) were released by the Commission on 1 August 2026. The document runs to twenty chapters and adds more than thirty new or substantively revised entries against the first edition of 30 March 2026, together with a wholly new Chapter XVI dedicated to enforcement in the period immediately following the date of application set by Article 71 PPWR; the insertion of that chapter has shifted the numbering of all subsequent chapters by one position against the first edition.
The interpretive value of the new material is genuine in a number of well-defined areas. Its practical value, however, is conditioned by the moment of publication. The PPWR enters into application on 12 August 2026.
The new FAQs reach economic operators eleven days earlier, in the first week of the European summer break, when compliance programmes for the first wave of obligations have already been costed, funded and, in most cases, executed.
Against a Regulation that has been in the Official Journal since 22 January 2025 and whose interpretive gaps have been the subject of active industry dialogue for over eighteen months, the exercise carries the marks of a delayed intervention.
This article isolates the areas in which the second edition moves the interpretive framework, distinguishing substantive refinements from purely presentational restatements, and returns in the conclusions to the question of timing.
Manufacturer and producer: definitions in transport packaging and multi-party configurations
The distinction between the manufacturer defined in Article 3(1)(13) PPWR and the producer defined in Article 3(1)(15) PPWR carries fundamentally different legal consequences. Manufacturer obligations under Article 15 attach at Union level to the entity that places the packaging on the Union market.
Producer obligations under Chapter VIII attach on a market-by-market basis in each Member State in which the packaged product is made available on the territory for the first time. The interaction of the two definitions has generated persistent uncertainty in commercial configurations that involve multiple entities across multiple Member States.
The second edition addresses that interaction with six new entries under Chapter II (II.4 to II.7, II.9 and II.10) and one further entry under Chapter X (X.14). The Commission introduces a worked example, presented in diagrammatic form, of a supply configuration in which multiple legally distinct undertakings established in more than one Member State operate on the same packaging.
The example allocates the manufacturer role to the entity that first places the packaging on the Union market and the producer role, for each Member State concerned, to the entity that makes the packaged product available on the territory of that Member State for the first time.
The clarifications resolve the recurring question of who bears the producer obligation in transport packaging chains (II.5, II.9 and II.10) and provide a defensible reading of Article 3(1)(15)(a) in the context of branded and private-label packaging on which a third-party trademark is affixed (II.6, II.7 and X.14).
Two structural configurations are not addressed at the level of a dedicated worked example, neither in the second edition of the FAQs nor in section 3 of the Commission Notice C/2026/3084 of 10 June 2026.
The first is the triangulation in which the packaging is filled in Member State A on behalf of a principal established in Member State B and the packaged product is then distributed in Member State C: the allocation of the manufacturer role under Article 15 and of the producer role in each of the three Member States concerned must be constructed by the operator by application of Articles 3(1)(13) and 3(1)(15) PPWR and of the general principle expressed in the Notice according to which the producer is normally the operator in the Member State where the packaging is filled.
The second is online platform configurations that fall outside Article 45(4) PPWR, which by its terms is confined to providers of online platforms falling within Section 4 of Chapter III of Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 and gives effect, in the packaging context, to the traceability obligations set out in Article 30(1), points (d) and (e), of that Regulation; neither the second edition nor the Notice addresses configurations outside that perimeter.
Substances of concern and heavy metals: the EN 13428:2004 reversal and the ADR carve-out
Chapter III of the second edition contains the single most consequential textual change in the entire update, and it is not signalled as such by the Commission. In the first edition of March 2026 (Q8), the Commission stated that Annex C of harmonised standard EN 13428:2004, related to the ‘minimisation of dangerous substances or preparations and demonstration of conformity’, could ‘no longer create a presumption of conformity after 12 August 2026’, on the basis that the standard focused on end-of-life disposal and did not capture the lifecycle scope of Article 5 PPWR or the expanded hazard scope covering substances of very high concern under Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 and hazard classes under Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008.
The second edition preserves the analytical reasoning verbatim but appends a decisive final sentence: ‘until the updated harmonised standard becomes available, the existing standard EN 13428:2004 can be used’ (III.9). The insertion is reinforced by the new III.8, in which the Commission states that the general principle set out in Article 5(1) ‘should be assessed in line with Annex C’ of EN 13428:2004.
The Annex whose interpretive value the Commission had disclaimed in March is now the operative benchmark until the delegated act on the updated standard is adopted, for which no date is fixed.
Operators that had proceeded with substitution on the strength of the March position must now reassess whether that substitution is proportionate to the residual regulatory risk; those that had delayed obtain retrospective validation. The Commission’s silence on the transition between the two positions is inconsistent with the interpretive discipline that a Regulation of this scope requires.
On heavy metals, the new III.10 recommends the use of CEN report CR 13695-1/2000 for the demonstration of compliance with Article 5(4) PPWR. The reference is welcome, in that Article 5(4) had been left, until now, without an operative methodology in Union-level interpretive documents; the Commission’s characterisation of the obligation as ‘not a new obligation’ by reference to Article 11 of the repealed Directive 94/62/EC forecloses arguments based on the novelty of the requirement.
The new III.21 further introduces a carve-out for refillable steel cylinders for gases, on the basis of Article 2(2) PPWR (without prejudice to Union safety legislation) and of Directive 2008/68/EC transposing the ADR into Union law. Its interpretive value extends beyond gas cylinders: where a safety instrument at Union level imposes standards on packaging that are incompatible with the heavy metals limits in Article 5(4), the safety instrument prevails. Operators in other ADR-regulated segments will be entitled to construct analogous arguments.
Nothing in the second edition addresses the harmonised methodology for verification of compliance with the PFAS limits in Article 5(5) PPWR. The three-step framework outlined in the Commission Notice C/2026/3084 of 10 June 2026 (total fluorine screening, pyrolysis-GC/MS, and TOP analysis) remains without a corresponding harmonised standard or a defined conformity assessment procedure.
Article 5(5) enters into application on 12 August 2026 for food-contact packaging in the categories set out in that provision, and operators subject to it retain no defined pathway for demonstrating compliance at Union level.
Article 15 obligations: legacy stock, accompanying documents, traceability, delegation and transit
Article 15 PPWR is the operative provision for entities that place packaging on the Union market. The second edition adds nine new entries and one substantive update to Chapter X (X.4 UPDATED, X.5 to X.14), addressing the most acute operational uncertainties that had accumulated in the four months since the first edition.
The regime for legacy stock is set out in the new X.5. Packaging that has been produced but not placed on the market by 12 August 2026 does not need to be destroyed, remanufactured or re-labelled; compliance with the identification obligations in Article 15(5) and (6) may be achieved by means of an accompanying document, and packaging already placed on the market before that date remains lawfully on the market even if non-compliant.
The position is coherent with the Commission Notice ‘Blue Guide on the implementation of EU product rules 2022’ (2022/C 247/01) on the moment of placing on the market and with the absence of any explicit stock-exhaustion mechanism in Article 70 PPWR.
For packaging manufactured after 12 August 2026, the new X.7 provides that the accompanying document may be used only where the size or nature of the packaging does not allow the affixing of the unique identifier and of the manufacturer’s name and address directly on the packaging; the assessment is case-by-case, and the general rule of direct affixing is preserved.
On traceability, the new X.8 confirms that identification at the level of type, batch or serial number is sufficient and that identification of each individual unit is not required. Where the sales package is composed of separable elements (the example given is a beverage container consisting of cup, lid and sleeve), identification of a single representative component satisfies Article 15(5). The position provides operators with a defensible reading of the ‘type, batch or serial number, or other element’ formulation.
The non-delegability of the technical documentation is addressed in the new X.9. The obligation to draw up and hold the technical documentation referred to in Annex VII PPWR remains with the manufacturer and cannot be delegated to third parties, including the authorised representative appointed under Article 17. Other Article 15 obligations may be delegated within the limits of Article 17, but the technical documentation function is not among them.
The clarification is analytically consistent with the design of Annex VII, which anchors the documentation to the manufacturer as an integrated compliance record; it is of significant practical consequence for multinational groups that had structured intra-group compliance arrangements on the assumption that the entire documentation function could be centralised in a designated Union entity.
Two further entries close cross-cutting gaps. The new X.12 confirms that goods transiting through the Union without being released for free circulation within the meaning of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 do not fall within the scope of the PPWR, a position aligned with the Blue Guide and welcome to the logistics sector.
The new X.13 clarifies that compliance with Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 (FIC) does not automatically satisfy the identification requirements in Article 15(5) and (6): the two regimes pursue distinct regulatory objectives and the operator must demonstrate compliance with each independently.
Refinements to the conformity assessment procedure
Chapter XV contains two substantive updates and one new entry. The updated XV.5 confirms that the declaration of conformity is drawn up for the entire packaging unit and not for its separable components: a bottle, its closure and its label are the subject of a single conformity assessment and of a single declaration that identifies the components, in line with the definition of packaging in Article 3(1)(1) and with the structure of Annex VII.
The updated XV.8 confirms that the manufacturer is not required to notify the competent authorities of each Member State in whose territory the packaging is placed. Notification arises only in the situations governed by Article 15(8), where the manufacturer becomes aware of non-compliance, and by Article 19(5), where the distributor is under an analogous obligation.
In configurations in which the manufacturer delivers products from one Member State to the warehouse of a distributor in another, and the latter distributes to further Member States, the obligation to inform the competent authorities of each destination Member State on suspected non-compliance rests with the distributor. The new XV.14 restates Article 39(2) on the language of the declaration without interpretive expansion; its value is limited to the removal of any residual argument based on the sufficiency of a monolingual declaration for cross-border placing on the market.
Chapter XVI: the enforcement guidance
Chapter XVI is entirely new. It contains a single entry (XVI.1) whose textual reach is short but whose implications for operators are of a different order than those of the other new entries.
The Commission invites Member States’ market surveillance authorities to adopt a supportive rather than sanction-oriented approach in the enforcement of the obligations that apply from 12 August 2026, by way of a warning to the economic operator, followed by an opportunity to take corrective action within a reasonable timeline, followed by the measures set out in Article 62 PPWR (prohibition, recall, withdrawal) only where non-compliance persists. The stated objective is the avoidance of any disruption to trade flows, supply chains or consumer access to goods.
The legal character of Chapter XVI must be identified with precision. It is not a delegated or implementing act, nor a Commission Notice adopted with the formal apparatus of soft-law communications: it is a chapter of an FAQ document issued by the Commission’s services and carrying no binding legal basis.
Enforcement powers under the PPWR remain with the Member States. Article 68 PPWR requires each Member State to lay down effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties, and Article 62 PPWR structures the sequence of measures available to national authorities in response to identified non-compliance. The Commission’s invitation carries no capacity to derogate from those provisions and none of the Member States is bound to follow it.
The practical implication is that operators face an enforcement environment in which the Commission’s stated preference for a supportive approach is likely to be honoured by some national authorities and disregarded by others.
The likelihood of enforcement fragmentation is not incidental: it is the predictable outcome of a soft-law instrument that operates at the discretion of twenty-seven distinct competent authorities. Operators cannot rely on Chapter XVI as a shield in any Member State in which the competent authority elects to proceed directly under Article 62 PPWR. The value of the chapter is not zero, but it is materially lower than the language of its single entry might suggest.
Extended producer responsibility and reuse systems
Chapter XIII contains one new entry (XIII.5) on the application of EPR obligations to reuse systems. The new XVIII.6 provides that a Member State may require additional information or documents for registration purposes beyond those specified in Article 44 PPWR, provided that the requirement is necessary and proportionate for the purposes of monitoring compliance with the extended producer responsibility obligations set out in Chapter VIII. The Commission thereby confirms that the harmonisation effect of Article 44 does not preclude additional national requirements where the double condition of necessity and proportionality is met.
The new XX.6 clarifies that deposit and return systems established under Article 50 PPWR, whose organisational, technical and financial arrangements are comparable to those of a producer responsibility organisation, may register and report on behalf of the producers participating in those systems to the register established under Article 44(1). The position resolves a concrete question of institutional design that had been raised in Member States implementing new DRS in the run-up to the application date.
Conclusions
The second edition of the FAQs closes a set of operational gaps that had accumulated in the four months since the first edition. The regime for legacy stock, the operative reach of the accompanying document mechanism, the granularity of traceability, the non-delegability of the technical documentation, the exclusion of pure transit, the interplay with the FIC, the definitional worked example for transport packaging and the ADR carve-out for refillable steel gas cylinders are all responses to concrete industry questions left open by the first edition and by the Commission Notice C/2026/3084 of 10 June 2026.
The reversal on EN 13428:2004, however awkwardly presented, provides operators with a defensible interpretive anchor for the assessment of substances of concern under Article 5(1) PPWR pending the availability of the updated harmonised standard.
The gaps identified before the first edition remain, for the most part, unaddressed. The PFAS regime in Article 5(5) is not equipped with a harmonised testing methodology or a defined conformity assessment procedure. The scope of Annex V and its application to composite formats such as beverage cups and food containers is not addressed. These are the areas in which industry engagement with the Commission has been most sustained and where the absence of operative guidance carries the highest compliance cost.
The residual question is timing. The Regulation has been in the Official Journal since 22 January 2025. The Commission Notice of 10 June 2026 was published two months before the application date; the first edition of the FAQs appeared in March 2026, five months before; the second edition arrives eleven days before, in the first week of the European summer break, at a moment when the compliance programmes of European operators for the first wave of obligations have been costed, funded and, in most cases, executed.
Several of the clarifications delivered on 1 August 2026 modify, retrospectively, the interpretive framework on the basis of which those compliance programmes were designed. The reversal on EN 13428:2004 and the regime for legacy stock are the clearest illustrations: had they been delivered in March 2026, they would have redirected capital that has, in the intervening months, been irretrievably committed.
The interpretive quality of the new material is, in the areas covered, defensible. What the Commission has not done, and what the practical value of the exercise depends on, is to align the timing of its interpretive output with the temporal architecture of the Regulation it interprets. Chapter XVI on enforcement reads, in this light, as an implicit acknowledgement of the point.
Whether the Commission’s invitation to national authorities will translate into an enforcement environment that shields operators from the consequences of late guidance is a question that will be answered, one Member State at a time, in the months that follow 12 August 2026.
The hope, from the perspective of the operators that have engaged with the compliance exercise in good faith and at significant cost, is that the interval between publication and enforcement will not compound the interval between application and clarification.
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