Last week, industry CEOs asked the European Commission for more time to comply with the Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation. Is the request justified, or could it have industry-wide repercussions? We heard from a range of industry players about the outcome.
Packaging Europe’s brand director, Tim Sykes, reached out to various packaging professionals via LinkedIn – and their responses were varied.
ViaPackaging UG and 360PackMastery founder Marius Tent was optimistic: “For me, the first point is positive: PPWR is now being discussed at board level. That shows packaging circularity has moved from a specialist topic to a boardroom issue – exactly where it needs to be now.
“From an implementation perspective, PPWR should remain ambitious – and companies should keep preparing. Speed matters. But implementation is not a tick-box exercise. It requires (cross- functional) resources, technical knowledge and value-chain coordination.
“Role allocation, technical documentation, EU declarations of conformity / DoC and testing evidence are genuinely complex. These points deserve proper technical, regulatory and legal assessment while implementation continues.
“So the balance, in my view, is clear: clarify where needed, keep preparing, and maintain momentum. PPWR is important enough to get right – and important enough to keep moving.”
“I fully agree with those CEOs protecting their staff and business in times of uncertainty created by PPWR,” commented Geza Nagy, packaging expert Metal Packaging and Materials at Nestlé. “An extension of the grace period is essential to allow REACH/ECHA to endorse the official methods to be used as proof of compliance.”
Renata Daudt, sustainable packaging consultant with AWEN Packaging Consulting, shared her reservations: “I understand why this is happening and the number of topics that need clarification, such as the recyclability grades; however, I think that postponing it will only make the PPWR seem less serious, and more letters like this one will come in the future.”
Anna Perlina, sustainable packaging consultant at Integrity Solutions, expressed her surprise that the Commission’s list of unclear rules was so limited, but called for a balanced approach.
“Based on my observations, even before addressing PFAS and plastic format bans, the industry is already struggling to understand which role(s) they have under the PPWR definitions, how the Declaration of Conformity (DoC) should look, what exactly is okay or not okay for technical documentation, etc. across the many different cases and situations,” she wrote.
“My overall feeling is that the administrative burden created by the new processes is high. Companies are spending significant time and resources just trying to understand how to deal with all these unclarities. As a result, there is unfortunately very little capacity left to focus on what should be the core objective of the Regulation: improving packaging sustainability.
“Regarding PFAS, we need to face reality. It may be counterproductive to push for the 12 August 2026 deadline, despite the good intentions behind it, when there are stocks sitting across the value chain. These stocks may be considered non-compliant, and companies will not manage to place them on the market before 12 August 2026. The waste that could be generated would go against the spirit of the PPWR, which aims to reduce packaging waste.”
Ton Knipscheer, executive director of the European Co-Packers Association, continued: “My first reaction would be that this seems rather unfair to companies who adapted their processes and are ready to go. However, we should not ignore that certain companies thought that this ‘PPWR-thing’ would blow over.
“Perhaps a financial incentive for the companies who immediately kicked into action and adapted their processes would be a suitable reward and an example for the underachievers to do better next time.”
Conversations continue
Much of the backlash against the letter suggests that CEOs have already been given enough time to align with the incoming regulation – and this viewpoint has sparked ongoing debate.
“Wait, wait, wait, is all these CEOs seem to want to do,” commented PackSense director Robbert-Jan Pos. “Fortunately, there are also plenty of CEOs who understand the urgency and haven’t waited.
“There is enough clarity to start. So, let’s get to work, find those business models in this framework that actually work, and move this thing forward.”
“The CEOs who urge to wait now are the ones who waited way too long to prepare for PPWR!” agreed Walther de Bruin, marketing manager Europe at Yellow Chips BV.
Decofilm Group CEO offered a different perspective: “As a ‘plastic CEO’, I must say I don’t dislike the PPWR in its entirety; it’s been done with intelligence in most parts. The thing is, the matter is so complex, there’s still plenty of mistakes and most of all uncertainties.
“For example, I have to make a medium-sized investment right now on a technology that we don’t yet know will be allowed or not in four years’ time. Even without the price instability, this uncertainty is risking killing businesses, or at least slowing down their development.
“I think the EU should start working hard on fixing the gaps, and to actually check if the infrastructure to actually produce so much PCR plastics can be built in time. Maybe they could just make it more gradual…?”
“That is the key point,” replied Xworks CCO Alexander Hall. “The market can work with complexity. What kills investment is uncertainty without a credible proof layer behind decisions.
“Packaging teams do not just need more time. They need a way to turn recycled content and supply chain shifts into evidence that actually stands up.”
Elsewhere, watttron CEO Marcus Stein argued that “the CEOs had more than five years’ time to prepare. I hope the Council of the European Union keeps strong and doesn’t get tricked.”
In response, Nestlé’s Geza Nagy posited that “the attempt to fast-track chemicals through PPWR without involving REACH/ECHA is a disaster. It created uncertainty and fragmentation of responsibility […] for the consumers who will pay for the unnecessary costs.
“We are still waiting for validated official quantification methods and clarity on the mandatory elements to report. The August deadline to comply is a bad joke.
“Don’t get me wrong, PPWR is going in the right direction and has the industry’s full support. It’s the how that is challenged and not the what.”
The conversation revealed differing views on whether consumers take harder hits from a rushed implementation of the PPWR – or from the current status quo, with non-recyclable waste sent to “non-profitable” sorting and recycling centres and polluting the environment.
Other thoughts
Eric Abraham, senior director of EPR Packaging Strategy & Delivery at FoodChain ID, asserts that the letter should be a “wake-up call for every packaging leader in Europe.”
He continues: “When CEOs ask the European Commission to postpone enforcement, and Member States request urgent clarification on exemptions, it signals something deeper than “regulatory delay.” Sounds like a signal to a readiness gap!
“The Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation was never going to be simple. It touches packaging design, materials, logistics, recyclability, labelling, PFAS, reuse systems, data governance, and commercial reality across every supply chain layer. That complexity was always known.
“The companies that win under PPWR will not be the ones asking for more time! They will be the ones already redesigning portfolios, mapping packaging data, stress-testing SKUs, engaging suppliers, and building cross-functional accountability. Because compliance is only the minimum bar.”
“With polymer prices skyrocketing, the shift is not only possible; it’s becoming economically compelling and increasingly resilient,” said Blue Ocean Closures CEO Lars Sandberg.
“What’s particularly striking is how quickly unit economics are evolving. Even for advanced formats like screw caps, moving from PP to fibre has gone from sustainability-focused to financially viable in just the past year.
“Companies like Blue Ocean Closures are showing that this isn’t theoretical; fibre is starting to compete on both performance and cost in addition to sustainability.”
Other commentators are more pessimistic.
“How much of this is genuine regulatory ambiguity, and how much is strategic delay?” asked Jos Meertens. “Delay doesn’t create clarity. It just postpones accountability.”
Emma Samson, marketing communications manager at Searious Business, continued to describe the letter’s signatories as “victims of their own (strategic) procrastination.”
“No way back,” said Rob Daniels, entrepreneur and sustainable packaging specialist at Packaging Partners. “Postponing will get companies into serious trouble. Brand owners and retailers will kick back conformity responsibilities to the supply chain.
In a published statement, Zero Waste Europe wrote: “While Zero Waste Europe acknowledges the challenges the packaging sector faces in adapting to new regulatory frameworks, we firmly oppose any attempts to adjust/postpone the 12 August 2026 application date, or to reopen the PPWR for a targeted review.
“Such moves would not only undermine the legal certainty of the Single Market but also jeopardize the urgent environmental progress the EU has committed to achieving through the PPWR, which also aims at increasing the circularity of the sector, helping to reduce dependency on third countries.”
It asserted that reopening the legislation “sets a dangerous precedent” regarding the co-decision process between the European Commission, Parliament and Council: “It suggests that once a law is democratically enacted, it remains subject to revision under lobbying pressure rather than achieving legal finality.
“Legally, the application date is not a mere suggestion; it is a binding provision of the Regulation. Postponing it would violate the principle of legal certainty and the integrity of the EU’s legislative framework, including the EU’s ability to enforce its own rules.”
Zero Waste Europe pointed out that the Commission has published guidance documents and a Q&A to help companies transition into the new legal requirements – asserting that “the industry is using ‘lack of guidance/clarity’ as a stall tactic while they lobby for exemptions.”
It went on to argue that the existing guidance around the harmonization of the Single Market “already favours industry players”, and that delaying the legislation further will have environmental consequences.
“It is ironic that the same industry actors who have united so effectively to leverage the current simplification/deregulation wave to demand the reopening of the PPWR and the postponement of the application date are not demonstrating the same unity and urgency to solve the packaging waste crisis they helped create,” the statement said.
“If the industry has the collective strength to successfully lobby for delays and exemptions from a legally approved and democratically debated piece of legislation, it possesses that same capacity to join forces to innovate, redesign, and solve the waste crisis.
“Rather than seeking to delay the inevitable, the industry should channel this energy into accelerating the transition to circular packaging. The tools, technologies, and markets exist; what is needed is the political will and the corporate commitment to act.”
UNESDA Soft Drinks Europe disagreed, suggesting that “industry is still facing real implementation challenges due to insufficient legal clarity and certainty, which have not been provided in the recent Commission’s Guidance document and FAQ, despite repeated requests from the industry throughout the development of the PPWR and its accompanying guidance.”
It argued that the lack of harmonized and legally binding methodology for detecting and quantifying PFAS in food-contact packaging could run the risk of “divergent interpretation and enforcement across Member States, as well as insufficient time to test products before the application deadline.”
Additionally, UNESDA underlined the “vague” wording in relation to Annex V’s ban on single-use plastic grouped packaging; it does not expect the Commission to clarify this measure before the 2027 deadline, which would impact the industry’s ability to comply.
“This is not an initiative that questions the circularity objectives of the PPWR, nor does it call for the full delay of the general PPWR application date,” said director general Nicholas Hodac. “It is a call for urgent action from EU leaders to ensure that the PPWR can be implemented consistently and effectively across the EU.
“Investment decisions must be taken now, requiring legal clarity and predictability for proper compliance. That’s why now is the time to develop a roadmap that will help industry fully comply with the PPWR.”
Xworks CEO Electra Coustoftides also stated that “CEOs are asking for more time. The reality is simpler: most companies can’t prove compliance today.
“PPWR doesn’t just require recycled content. It requires evidence — traceable, auditable, independently verifiable. And that’s where the market is unprepared. Internal data, supplier declarations, and estimates won’t hold.
“This is not a “delay the deadline” problem. It’s a verification gap.”
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