PPWR After the Parliament Debate: What Could Change

Just over one month after the Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation started to apply, the European Parliament debated its implementation. Several MEPs described the same practical effect: for a small European business, selling to New York can now be easier than selling to Lyon. Three requests were repeated across the debate. This article sets out each request, the responses from the Commission and the Council, and what was and was not agreed.

Background

The PPWR entered into force on 11 February 2025 and has applied since 12 August 2026. A company that makes packaging available for the first time in a Member State can count as a producer there. Article 44 requires registration with that Member State's producer register and payment of extended producer responsibility fees. Under Article 45(3), a producer established in another Member State must appoint an authorised representative in the Member State where the packaging is made available. A company selling into 20 Member States can therefore face 20 registrations and 20 representatives.

MEPs cited representative costs of €600 to €1,000 per country each year. One speaker described a company with nine employees selling into 20 Member States at a fixed annual cost of about €5,000, in some cases for only a handful of parcels. Several speakers said that companies had stopped shipping to some markets or had closed since August.

Speakers also criticised the timing of the Commission's implementation guidance, which was published 12 days before the application date. They asked for clearer answers on open definitions, including whether a flower pot is packaging and which company is the producer when manufacturing, filling and sale involve different businesses.

1. Authorised representatives

What was requested

MEPs from several political groups asked for the obligation to appoint a representative in every sales market to be removed, at least for small companies selling limited quantities. Some speakers went further and called for the Regulation to be suspended or withdrawn.

What is on the table

The Commission proposed a temporary suspension in December 2025 as part of its environmental omnibus. The formal proposal, COM(2025) 982, would suspend Article 45(3) until 1 January 2035 for producers established in the EU. In the debate, the Commissioner said that a regulation intended to strengthen the single market cannot create new barriers within it and asked the Council to reach agreement on the proposal within a month.

The Council acknowledged the administrative burden, particularly for very small producers with limited trade in other Member States. It identified two possible routes: quantity thresholds or a single European producer register. The Council also explained the purpose of the current obligation. The representative supports enforcement, fair competition and action against free riding. Removing the requirement without a replacement could make some producers, especially those based outside the EU, harder to trace.

Several speakers added that any change for small traders must preserve responsibility for large producers, platforms and importers. The Council favoured a comprehensive approach across waste streams rather than a change limited to one instrument.

What remains unchanged

The suspension is still a legislative proposal under procedure 2025/0395(COD). The debate did not resolve which companies would benefit or when a change would start to apply.

The proposal concerns the authorised representative obligation. It does not suspend national producer registration or EPR fees. Those obligations remain in force.

2. EPR registration

What was requested

Several speakers asked for one European producer register in place of separate national systems. One MEP described the current position as 27 registration systems and 27 penalty regimes for a regulation intended to support the single market. Another called for a digital one stop shop.

What is on the table

The Commission and the Council both identified the future Circular Economy Act as the potential route for broader EPR simplification. The Commissioner said that the Commission intends to propose measures for simplification, harmonisation and digitalisation of EPR through that act. The Council asked for a proposal that supports one set of rules across product and waste streams.

Several speakers supported a structural solution through the Circular Economy Act rather than a reopening of the PPWR. One speaker argued that suspending the representative obligation for several years without a common system would only postpone the underlying issue.

What remains unchanged

No common register, design or implementation timetable was agreed. The Circular Economy Act has not yet been proposed and any proposal would need to complete the legislative process. Every national registration requirement currently in force continues to apply. Companies cannot yet plan around one European registration.

3. Practical implementation

What was requested

MEPs asked for guidance to be published with enough preparation time, for proportionate enforcement during the transition and for answers to definitions that companies must apply. Questions covered reusable packaging, labelling, pallet stabilisation film, PFAS testing frequency and food safety requirements for reusable crates. One speaker also asked that national deposit and return systems with high collection rates should retain the exemptions available under the Regulation.

What is on the table

The Commissioner confirmed three practical points during the debate. Companies may rely on documentation supplied by packaging suppliers. Packaging already in stock may be used. National authorities may decide to delay fines. She also announced an expert group intended to give stakeholders a direct role in implementation, committed to improving practical guidance and said that discussions with Member States would intensify. For deposit and return systems, she confirmed that national exemptions remain available where the PPWR conditions are met.

The stock question was also addressed in Commission answer P-002934/2026 of 21 August 2026. The answer confirms that packaging placed on the market before 12 August 2026 does not need to be destroyed, remanufactured or relabelled. A sale to a distributor can constitute placing on the market, and no later cut off date applies to the use of packaging that meets that condition. The answer does not specify which records are sufficient to prove the date of supply.

What remains unchanged

The debate produced no general pause and no postponement of an application date. Each national authority decides how it uses enforcement discretion. The Commissioner encouraged authorities to use the flexibility available to them, but did not issue a binding instruction. The definitional questions raised by MEPs were not resolved during the debate.

What this means for packaging teams

The strongest shared request was to make PPWR compliance easier to administer. There was no comparable agreement to abandon its environmental objectives. The Commissioner reiterated that several major requirements apply from 2030, that companies have time to redesign packaging and establish reuse systems, and that the balance in the Regulation should be preserved.

For packaging teams, this separates two cost areas. The cost of authorised representatives could decrease if the suspension is adopted. The cost of national registration could decrease later if a common system is proposed and agreed. Neither timeline is fixed.

The packaging requirements continue on the existing schedule. Harmonised labelling starts from 12 August 2028. Recycled content, packaging minimisation and the relevant format restrictions apply from 2030. Supplier evidence, technical documentation and redesign planning therefore continue on the same calendar as before the debate.

Key takeaways

• The authorised representative obligation is the clearest candidate for near term change. A suspension has been proposed, but has not been adopted and its practical scope remains open.
• Producer registration and EPR fees in each relevant Member State remain in force.
• A common European register depends on a future Circular Economy Act proposal and the subsequent legislative process.
• Packaging placed on the market before 12 August 2026 does not require a retrofit. Companies should retain evidence of the supply date.
• The 2028 labelling requirements and the main 2030 packaging requirements remain unchanged.

The debate strengthens the case for administrative simplification. It provides no basis for pausing a PPWR programme. PSL's PPWR advisory helps packaging teams clarify responsibilities, review evidence and prepare for the 2028 and 2030 requirements.

This article provides general information, not legal advice. Requirements should be assessed against the relevant packaging, supply chain, Member State rules and current legal text.