PPWR 11 – Who Pays for Packaging Once It Becomes Waste?

Manufacturer and Producer — Two Different Questions

PPWR 10 answered the question "who signs the EU Declaration of Conformity?" PPWR 11 answers a separate question: "who registers, reports and pays for the packaging once it becomes waste?" The company that signs the declaration of conformity and the company that pays EPR can be the same company — but PPWR does not assume they are.

Manufacturer is a technical role, tied to conformity with Articles 5–12. Producer is a waste-financing role, tied to Articles 44–47. A single packaging unit has only one manufacturer, but it can generate producer obligations in every Member State where it is first made available.

Who Is, Legally, a "Producer"?

The PPWR definition doesn't reduce to "whoever made the packaging" or "the brand owner." A producer is the economic operator that first makes packaging or packaged products available on the territory of a Member State, or that unpacks packaged products without being the end user, where the Regulation so provides.

In practice: if a company brings a packaged product to the Romanian market for the first time, it is normally the producer for Romania — regardless of whether it manufactured, filled, or merely distributed that packaging. The test is the fact of first placement, not the company's commercial label.

Producer Status Is a Country-by-Country Role

This is probably the article's single most important commercial point. A Romanian company selling the same packaged product in Romania, Hungary, Germany and France doesn't have one EPR question to answer — it has four, one for each market where the product is first made available.

Technical conformity can, in many respects, be a single, EU-wide question. EPR registration, by contrast, is organised territorially. Depending on the market, a company may need direct registration, an authorised representative, or an arrangement with a producer responsibility organisation. One SKU does not automatically mean one EPR registration.

Article 44 — Register of Producers

Every Member State must set up a national producer register. Producers must register in every Member State where they first make packaging or packaged products available, or unpack packaged products without being the end user, where this applies. The core rule is simple and strict: a producer may not first make the relevant packaging available in a Member State where it is not registered.

Registration broadly covers company identification, the brand names used, tax/company registration data, information about the authorised representative where applicable, information about the producer responsibility organisation through which obligations are fulfilled, and a statement on how EPR obligations are met.

The Registration Timeline — What's Confirmed, and What's Still Open

This is where caution matters most. Article 44(14) required the Commission to adopt, by 12 February 2026, an implementing act setting the harmonised registration and reporting format for national registers. As of the research date, 20 August 2026, we found no confirmation that this act has been adopted — sources checked from February and April 2026 still described it as "expected," not adopted.

The practical consequence: it would not be accurate to say all PPWR producer registers launched uniformly, in one harmonised format, on 12 August 2026. What is certain is the underlying obligation — registration in every relevant Member State remains active and required — but the harmonised format, and the 18-month window Member States have to align their national registers to it, depend on the entry into force of an act that, at the time of this article, was not confirmed as adopted. Companies should track the Commission's own communications on this directly, rather than treating 12 August 2026 as the only relevant date.

Annex IX — What Data Will Producers Report?

Without reproducing every field, the practical categories covered by registration and reporting include: company and brand identification, the reporting period, quantities of packaging placed on the market by weight, broken down by packaging category, and how EPR obligations are fulfilled — directly or through a producer responsibility organisation. The quality of this data depends directly on the accuracy of upstream packaging data — weight, material, packaging type — the same data we already discussed, from the technical-conformity angle, in PPWR 09 and PPWR 10.

Article 45 — Extended Producer Responsibility

The producer bears EPR responsibility for packaging it first makes available on the territory of a Member State, or unpacks without being the end user. EPR is not just "paying an environmental fee." Beyond the cost base set out in Article 8a of Directive 2008/98/EC (collection, sorting, transport, treatment, recycling, information), PPWR explicitly adds the cost of labelling waste collection receptacles under Article 13, and the cost of data-gathering and reporting activities. Producers established outside the Member State where they sell must appoint a representative to fulfil their EPR obligations.

EPR Contributions Are Not a Single European Tax

PPWR harmonises the legal framework, not the financial mechanism itself. Each Member State operates its own contribution system, with its own formulas and cost structures, within the common framework the Regulation sets. There is, at this point, no "single European packaging tax" — this is a common misunderstanding worth correcting directly.

Eco-Modulation — What's Legally Fixed, and What Remains Open

Through Article 45(6), PPWR introduces a principle-level obligation: EPR contributions must be modulated according to the recyclability performance classes set out in Article 6 — the same classes already familiar from PPWR 04. What is not fixed in the Regulation itself are the exact percentages and calculation methodology — these currently remain a matter for national systems, with an EU-wide harmonisation, through a separate delegated act, expected to follow later, according to the market analyses available at the time of this research.

We are therefore not publishing a formula along the lines of "Grade A packaging pays X% less" — no such figure is currently supported at the level of the Regulation itself. The principle, however, is clear and worth remembering for any manager: a packaging's recyclability performance is no longer only a technical market-access barrier — it is starting to carry an EPR cost dimension too.

Recyclability, Recycled Content, and the EPR Bill

The link to PPWR 04 is direct: design-for-recycling decisions no longer affect only production cost — through eco-modulation, they can also have a future effect on EPR cost. For recycled content, discussed in PPWR 05, we found no PPWR rule directly and separately tying the recycled-content percentage to a distinct EPR modulation — if such a link exists, it runs through the national eco-modulation methodology applied via the Article 6 recyclability classes, not through a standalone PPWR rule. We are not assuming a connection we haven't confirmed.

Article 46 — Producer Responsibility Organisations (PROs)

A producer may entrust a producer responsibility organisation (PRO) with carrying out its EPR obligations on its behalf, and some Member States may make using a PRO mandatory. It's essential to note: using a PRO does not automatically make the producer's legal responsibility disappear. What remains, in practice, with the producer — the accuracy of the data reported, the registration obligation, cooperation with authorities — does not transfer in full simply because a PRO contract exists.

PRO vs. Authorised Representative — Not the Same Thing

This is a frequent source of confusion. A PRO carries out EPR obligations — collection, reporting, financial contributions. An authorised representative for EPR (Article 47) represents a producer, often one established outside the Member State or outside the EU, where national law requires or allows this. This is not the same authorised representative discussed in PPWR 10, who acts for technical conformity under Article 17 — these are two distinct legal functions, with different mandates, even if, in some cases, the same company offers both services.

Non-EU Producers and Online Sales

For companies established outside the Union selling directly to EU consumers — including through e-commerce and marketplace platforms — the need for an EPR authorised representative in the relevant Member State comes up frequently; some states may require this, others may allow it as an option. Online platforms, in turn, have obligations to verify sellers' registration information — for example, the producer's registration number and a self-certification on EPR compliance — before allowing the sale of packaging or packaged products to EU consumers. It is not the purpose of this article to turn the subject into a broader discussion of digital-platform regulation — the practical principle to keep is this: a seller without valid EPR registration risks having its listing blocked, not just facing a later penalty.

A simple example: a German company sells directly, online, to consumers in Romania. What matters for EPR is not the German company's registered office, but the fact that the product reaches the Romanian market for the first time — which can trigger a registration or EPR representation obligation in Romania, separate from any registration the company already holds in Germany. Registration in the country of origin does not automatically cover every EU market.

Importer vs. Producer

The link to PPWR 10 is direct: an importer can also be a producer, but the two statuses are not synonymous. A Romanian importer buying packaged products from China and first making them available on the Romanian market will normally be both an importer (under Article 18, discussed in PPWR 10) and a producer (under Articles 44/45, discussed here). By contrast, a Romanian distributor buying from a German supplier, where the packaging has already been first made available in Romania by another company, does not automatically become a producer — what matters is the fact of first placement, not the commercial transaction itself.

Brand Owner vs. Producer

A brand owner is, in practice, often a producer — but not automatically, in every commercial structure. Again, the commercial label or job title is not the legal test; the test is who actually first makes the packaging or packaged product available on the territory of each relevant Member State.

Does a Converter Pay EPR for Empty Packaging?

A converter sells empty bottles to a customer who fills the product in Romania. Does the converter automatically owe EPR for those bottles? The answer depends on the actual facts, not a universal rule: if the converter simply delivers the empty packaging to a customer who then fills it and first makes it available, the customer is normally the one who triggers the producer test, not the converter. If, however, the converter itself makes the empty packaging available as a standalone commercial product on the market, before anyone else does so, the situation can change, and the converter can itself become the producer for that empty packaging.

The same logic — the first-placement test, not the packaging's form — applies to industrial and transport packaging too: drums, IBCs, pallets, crates, stretch film. EPR scope isn't limited to consumer packaging, although how it operates in practice — thresholds, categories, simplified reporting — can differ nationally for B2B flows.

Reusable Packaging and EPR

The link to PPWR 08 is relevant here: reusable packaging is not automatically exempt from EPR just because it's reusable. What changes is how it's reported — the repeated rotations of the same reusable packaging raise their own questions about the point at which the packaging actually becomes waste, and how this is accounted for compared to single-use packaging placed on the market once. We are not assuming a specific reporting rule beyond what we've confirmed here — companies operating reuse systems should clarify explicitly, with their PRO or the relevant authority, how rotations are treated.

DRS vs. EPR

The link to PPWR 09 and Romania's deposit-return system (SGR, run by RetuRO) matters here, but the two mechanisms are not identical. A beverage package inside a deposit-return system still sits, at the same time, within the producer-responsibility architecture — the deposit doesn't replace EPR obligations, it coexists with them. PPWR introduces, for deposit-return systems, a 90% collection target by 1 January 2029, and for beverage producers, reconciling DRS data with EPR data — quantities placed on the market, collected, and recycled — is becoming increasingly important in practice.

Romania

As of 20 August 2026, we have not identified an official, unified clarification clear enough to present as a definitive structure for the transition from the current packaging reporting system to the Article 44 PPWR register architecture. What is confirmed: Romania already operates a DRS for primary beverage packaging through RetuRO, while other packaging categories fall under the current extended-producer-responsibility system, administered through existing structures. On 30 June 2026, Romania, together with seven other Member States, sent the EU Council a note on major PPWR implementation difficulties, explicitly flagging the importance of preserving national EPR reporting obligations and the uncertainty created by delegated and implementing acts still not adopted. We will therefore not name a Romanian authority as definitively responsible for the PPWR register until an official designation is clearly confirmed.

One Producer, Multiple Countries — the Central Commercial Message

A Romanian brand owner selling the same packaged product in Romania, Hungary, Germany and France doesn't have a single SKU with a single EPR obligation — it potentially has four separate EPR obligations, with four sets of rules, thresholds, and possibly different contributions. This is something any finance or compliance department should check first, before estimating a product's EPR cost — not last.

The Data Behind the EPR Bill

EPR reporting needs accurate packaging data: weight, material category, packaging type, market/Member State, units sold, reuse status, DRS status. The data flow starts with the raw-material supplier, runs through the converter, reaches the brand owner or filler, consolidates at the producer level, and from there goes to the PRO or the national register. A producer reports quantities and categories; the PRO or the national system applies its own contribution rules, and future modulation will increasingly depend on reported recyclability performance — without this article inventing a national pricing formula. Inaccurate packaging data isn't just a technical problem — it becomes, directly, a financial compliance problem.

"I Pay EPR, So I'm PPWR Compliant" — False

Paying EPR does not demonstrate recyclability, recycled content, minimisation, correct labelling, reusability, or compliance with the Article 25 format restrictions. Conversely, technical PPWR compliance, discussed in PPWR 10, does not automatically mean EPR registration and reporting have been completed. PPWR 10 and PPWR 11 need to be read together precisely because they describe two separate responsibility systems, not one.

Common Misunderstandings

• "The manufacturer is always also the producer." False — these are different legal tests; the same company can be both, but not automatically.
• "If I paid EPR in Romania, I can sell anywhere in the EU." False — the EPR obligation is checked separately, in every Member State where the packaging is first made available.
• "The PRO becomes legally responsible instead of me." False — the PRO carries out the obligations, but the producer's responsibility doesn't fully disappear.
• "PPWR introduces a single EU-wide EPR fee." False — the framework is harmonised, the financial mechanism stays national.
• "Only consumer packaging falls under EPR." False — industrial and transport packaging can fall under it too, with different operational treatment.
• "Reusable packaging is automatically EPR-exempt." False — how it's reported changes, not whether the obligation exists.
• "DRS replaces EPR." False — the two coexist and, for beverages, need to be reconciled.
• "If the customer pays the EPR fee, I have no registration obligation." False, generally — it depends on who actually meets the producer test for that market.
• "Online sellers outside the EU are outside PPWR." False — they can have EPR registration/representation obligations, and platforms have their own verification duties.
• "If I'm technically PPWR compliant, EPR is automatically solved." False — these are two separate responsibility systems.

What to Clarify in a Contract

• Who is the producer, on each relevant market.
• Who registers and who reports.
• Who pays the EPR contribution.
• Who supplies the packaging weight and material data.
• Who notifies changes relevant to the market or the product.
• Who appoints the PRO or the EPR authorised representative.
• Who bears the cost of incorrect reporting.

None of these clauses is mandated by PPWR as such — they are practical recommendations, not contract language required by the Regulation.

Ten Practical Cases

• Romanian brand selling only in Romania. Producer for the Romanian market; registration and reporting at national level only.
• Romanian brand exporting packaged product to Germany. Potentially becomes a producer for the German market too — a separate EPR obligation from the Romanian one.
• Romanian converter selling empty HDPE bottles to a Romanian filler. Normally, the filler triggers the producer test; the converter remains a data supplier, not necessarily a producer.
• Romanian converter exporting empty packaging to another Member State. If it makes the empty packaging available itself as a commercial product on that market, it can become a producer there — to be checked case by case.
• Romanian importer of packaged goods from China. Normally both importer and producer for Romania.
• EU wholesaler selling into Romania. Producer for Romania if it is the one first making the product available there.
• Marketplace seller established outside the EU, selling directly into Romania. May need an EPR authorised representative in Romania; the platform must verify registration information before allowing the sale.
• Retailer's private-label product. Normally a producer, by the same brand-control logic discussed for manufacturer in PPWR 10 — but the producer test remains the first-placement one.
• Industrial manufacturer using drums/IBCs. Can fall under EPR for industrial packaging, with reporting treatment that may differ from consumer packaging.
• Beverage producer participating in DRS. Remains, in parallel, subject to EPR obligations; DRS data and EPR data need to be reconcilable.

What Companies Can Do Now

Do now: for every market you sell into, establish whether you meet the producer test — the fact of first placement, not your commercial title.

Check on each market: whether an active EPR registration already exists, who holds it, and which packaging categories it covers.

Ask your customers/distributors for: confirmation of who actually first makes the product available on each market.

Ask your PRO for: clarity on what remains, contractually and legally, your own responsibility, even after signing the contract.

Put into contracts: who reports, who pays, who supplies the packaging data, who notifies changes.

Monitor: adoption of the Article 44(14) implementing act, and any official clarification on the transition of national registers, including for Romania.

Don't do yet: don't assume a single EPR registration, in a single country, covers every EU market you sell into.

Conclusion

PPWR 10 answered who proves the packaging's technical conformity. PPWR 11 answers who pays for it once it becomes waste — and the answer is not automatically the same company. The practical sequence stays: who is the producer, on which market, for which packaging, where must it register, who reports, and who finances. Only once these questions have a clear answer does it make sense to ask how much EPR will actually cost.

OFFICIAL SOURCES

• Regulation (EU) 2025/40 on packaging and packaging waste — Articles 3, 40, 44, 45, 46, 47 and Annex IX.
• Directive 2008/98/EC on waste — Articles 8 and 8a, to the extent relevant to the EPR cost base.
• Commission Notice C(2026) 3702 — guidance document for Regulation (EU) 2025/40.

CONTEXT SOURCES

• Industry analyses on the status of the Article 44(14) implementing act and the national producer-register timeline, used for cross-checking.
• Romanian-language publications from June–August 2026 on the joint request by Romania and other Member States for PPWR clarifications, and on the relationship between EPR and the SGR/RetuRO system.