EoW - The End of Waste Status for Recycled Plastic: European Commission Proposes First Harmonised EU-Wide End-of-Waste Criteria

A draft implementing regulation, formally notified to the WTO on 6 August 2026, would for the first time set common rules, valid across all Member States, for the moment at which recycled plastic legally ceases to be waste. For recyclers, compounders, traders and importers, the stakes are not theoretical: the draft introduces purity thresholds, a quality management system with external verification, and separate, stricter conditions for recycled material brought in from outside the EU.

Here is something the plastics industry knows from experience, but which European legislation has never stated clearly and uniformly: the fact that a flake or a pellet has passed through a recycling line does not automatically turn it, in legal terms, into a product. As long as the material remains classified as waste, moving it across a border, selling it to a customer in another Member State, and even feeding it into a production line all remain governed by waste legislation, not by product legislation.

The European Commission has now put forward a draft implementing regulation that attempts to end this ambiguity for plastic materials. The document, notified to the World Trade Organization under number G/TBT/N/EU/1229, proposes single, Union-wide criteria for the moment at which plastic waste recycled through mechanical or solvent-based processes ceases to be waste and becomes a "recyclate" – a secondary raw material.

The draft is still in the consultation stage and may be amended before adoption. This article analyses, on the basis of the official draft text and the technical annex published by the Commission, what the document actually provides, what this could mean for market operators, and what remains, for now, uncertain.

1. What End-of-Waste Actually Means

Under the logic of European waste legislation, any material that has been discarded, collected separately or treated as waste remains, legally, waste until it meets a set of conditions that allow it to "exit" this regime. As long as a material is classified as waste, it is subject to waste legislation – including rules on cross-border waste shipment, specific environmental permits, and, often, a commercial perception of being a second-tier material.

The concept of End-of-Waste (EoW) represents exactly this transition point: the moment at which a material resulting from a recovery operation ceases to be waste and legally becomes a product or a secondary raw material, subject to product legislation rather than waste legislation. The Waste Framework Directive 2008/98/EC has provided for this mechanism since 2008, but, until now, detailed criteria harmonised across the whole Union have been missing for most plastic waste streams. In the absence of common criteria, Member States have applied, where they applied any at all, different national rules – generating precisely the fragmentation that the new draft attempts to eliminate.

2. Why Europe Wants Common Criteria

The draft provides, in its very first recital, that "Union-wide harmonised End-of-Waste criteria for plastics are key to strengthen the single market for recycled plastics and for secondary raw materials ready to be used in the manufacturing of new goods". This is the document's central statement of intent: not merely clarifying a legal point, but building an actual single market for recyclates.

Another important recital of the draft specifies that, to facilitate this market, the End-of-Waste criteria apply to the recycled plastic material itself, not to the final product or article containing plastic parts. This is a technical distinction, but one with direct commercial consequences: the regulation governs the legal status of the pellet, flake or recycled material delivered by the recycler, not the status of the finished product later manufactured by the converter.

Plastinfo assessment: for an industry that today operates under different national rules – some states having their own EoW criteria for certain plastic streams, others having none at all – a single set of criteria would remove, at least in theory, one of the sources of legal and commercial uncertainty that has so far held back the free trading of recyclates within the EU.

3. Which Plastic Materials Are Covered

The draft provides that "plastic waste" means waste containing discarded thermoplastic polymers and blends of discarded thermoplastic polymers, "regardless of the polymer type and source of the waste". This is a deliberately broad definition, built around the type of material (thermoplastic), not around a closed list of polymers.

At the same time, a recital of the draft explicitly names, as examples of the thermoplastic polymers covered, PE, PET, PP, PS and PVC. It is important to state this precisely: the five polymer families are named explicitly in the draft text, but as illustrations of the general "thermoplastic polymer" category, not as an exhaustive list and not as a restriction of the scope. In practice, any thermoplastic polymer or blend of thermoplastic polymers appears, in principle, to fall within the draft, provided it meets the other technical conditions.

The draft does not contain, in the text analysed, an explicit exclusion of PVC or of other polymers containing chlorine or other heteroatoms; these remain subject to the same assessment grid on hazardous substances, REACH and persistent organic pollutants (POPs), described in point 7 below.

4. Which Recycling Technologies Are Included

The draft provides, in the article on scope, that the regulation applies to plastic waste "used as input for mechanical or solvent-based recycling". The two processes are explicitly defined: mechanical recycling includes sorting, grinding, washing, separating materials, drying and re-crystallisation; solvent-based recycling uses heat and solvents to dissolve plastic waste into a solution, from which the polymer is subsequently recovered.

A key technical criterion in the draft's annex requires that "mechanical and solvent-based recycling shall retain the polymeric chains that constitute plastic, except for small unintentional changes in the molecular weight distribution of the polymeric chains". This is the condition that, in practice, defines the technological boundary of the draft: the processes included are those that preserve the macromolecular structure of the polymer, not those that break it down.

Pyrolysis, depolymerisation and other chemical recycling technologies are not mentioned as being included in the scope of the draft. The text contains no explicit, article-by-article justification for their exclusion, but it states, in a recital, that technological developments in treating plastic waste, "including chemical recycling as one of the recovery operations for which End-of-Waste criteria could apply", are to be assessed by the Commission when the regulation is reviewed.

This could mean that the underlying reason for the exclusion lies precisely in the requirement to preserve polymer chains: technologies that deliberately break macromolecular chains – whether down to monomer level (depolymerisation) or down to petrochemical fractions (pyrolysis) – do not conceptually fit a criterion built around preserving polymer structure. This is a reasonable interpretation, but not a statement the draft text makes in these terms.

Important for operators betting on chemical recycling: the draft provides, in the article dedicated to review, that this assessment will take place "at the latest by 1 January 2029". In its current form, there is no commitment or deadline for any future extension of the technological scope; there is only a review clause.

5. Which Streams Are Excluded or Restricted

The draft's technical annex sets precise conditions for input material, and the nuances matter a great deal here – the text draws a clear line between absolute exclusions and conditional exclusions.

The draft provides that input plastic may not be classified as hazardous waste, except where hazardous substances can be removed, on their own or as part of a mixture, before or during recycling, in accordance with Article 10(5) of the Waste Framework Directive. It is not, therefore, an absolute exclusion of any stream containing hazardous substances, but a condition tied to the possibility of decontamination.

Two categories are treated separately, with an "excluded, except where" formulation:

• healthcare waste is excluded as input plastic, except where the healthcare waste is made of non-hazardous plastic and is separately collected;
• used absorbent hygiene products (nappies and similar products) are excluded, except where proof of decontamination and sanitation by the producer or a previous operator can be provided.

For streams originating from waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) and end-of-life vehicles (ELVs), the draft does not provide for a blanket exclusion, but rather a documentary requirement: the operator accepting such input material must request documentation from the previous operator proving compliance with the specific treatment requirements applicable to WEEE and end-of-life vehicles respectively.

Separately, eligible input plastic may not be mixed or diluted with other waste, substances or materials, with a direct reference to Article 18(1) of the Waste Framework Directive – a general anti-dilution rule, applied here specifically to plastic streams.

Plastinfo assessment: for recyclers working with "difficult" streams – contaminated industrial plastic, plastic from WEEE or from vehicle dismantling – the draft does not automatically close off these streams, but it conditions them on a level of documentary traceability that many current collection and pre-treatment operations do not yet have in place at this level of rigour.

6. The Four Conditions for EoW Status

The draft provides, in the central article of the text, that plastic waste ceases to be waste when five conditions are cumulatively met:

• the input plastic used for recycling complies with the requirements in the technical annex on input material;
• the mechanical or solvent-based recycling process complies with the technical requirements on treatment processes and techniques set out in the same annex;
• the resulting plastic material can be used directly in the production of new plastic products or articles containing plastic parts, and complies with the requirements on output quality;
• the producer or importer issues and transmits the statement of conformity provided for by the draft;
• the producer or importer implements the quality management system provided for by the draft.

This is the logical structure of the entire regulation: clean, traceable input material, a process that preserves the polymer structure, compliant output material, plus two administrative pillars – the statement of conformity and the quality management system – without which the other three technical conditions, however well met, are not sufficient to obtain EoW status.

7. How Clean the Recycled Material Must Be

This is probably the section with the greatest immediate operational impact, because it sets numbers, not just principles.

The draft confirms the threshold circulating in the market: the total amount of foreign material in the resulting plastic must be below 1.9%, calculated on the weight of the dry (moisture-free) material. The text specifies the determination method: representative samples of the dried output material are analysed gravimetrically to measure the content and nature of foreign materials, with a monitoring frequency of at least once every six months, to be adjusted so that trends or other changes in the input material can be detected.

Beyond the foreign-material threshold, the draft imposes separate conditions on hazardous substances and persistent organic pollutants in the output material:

• substances classified as hazardous, on their own or in mixtures, must be present in the output material below the concentrations that would trigger classification of the output as hazardous under the CLP Regulation (Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008) – or, if such substances constitute the recycled plastic material itself (for example, a structural additive), the output material must be correctly classified and labelled;
• substances resulting from recycling must comply with the REACH Regulation, including Article 56 (authorisation of uses of substances listed in Annex XIV) and Article 67 (restrictions under Annex XVII);
• substances resulting from recycling must comply with the Regulation on Persistent Organic Pollutants (Regulation (EU) 2019/1021), regardless of whether a pre-treatment step for the plastic waste was in place.

In addition, the output material must comply with "the requirements of Union product legislation and the industry specifications or standards applicable to the use of plastic recyclates" – a generic reference, but one that explicitly links EoW status to compliance with the product legislation relevant to the final application (for example, toys, packaging, construction materials, electrical devices), not only to the regulation's own criteria.

Plastinfo assessment: the 1.9% foreign-material threshold is more relevant to the material's legal status than to its technical performance – many commercial specifications, especially for high-quality applications, are already stricter than this threshold. The real stakes are that, below this threshold, the material gains a new legal status; above it, however good it may be commercially, it remains, legally, waste.

8. Traceability and the Statement of Conformity

The draft provides that the statement of conformity is to be issued by the producer or importer of the recycled material, for each batch delivered, using a standardised model set out in a dedicated annex to the regulation. The document must be transmitted to the next operator in the chain and must be issued exclusively in electronic form – the draft states this expressly.

Under the text analysed, the statement must be kept by the issuer for at least five years from its date of issue and must be made available to the competent national authorities, electronically, on request.

The content of the statement, as set out in the dedicated annex, includes at least:

• the unique identification code of the batch;
• the name, address and contact details (telephone, email) of the producer or importer;
• the quantity, expressed in tonnes;
• the name or code of the recycled material and its main technical characteristics;
• compliance with any customer-required specifications or standards;
• compliance with the numbered technical criteria in the regulation's annex (those concerning input material, treatment process and output quality);
• compliance with the CLP Regulation, with Articles 56 and 67 of REACH, and with the Persistent Organic Pollutants Regulation;
• an express statement that the material is intended exclusively for the manufacture of plastic products or articles containing plastic parts;
• the name, date and signature of the person issuing the statement.

An additional point in the annex on the statement specifies that the recycled material "shall not be converted, directly or indirectly, into energy or into non-plastic materials, and shall not be used for any other purpose" – a clause designed to prevent situations in which a material obtains EoW status as a recyclate but actually ends up in energy recovery or other uses outside the plastic circuit.

Plastinfo assessment: the mandatory electronic format and traceability per delivered batch, rather than per general production lot, mean that current documentation systems based on generic technical data sheets or on quality certificates issued once for a product type will very likely need to be adapted to a per-delivery traceability logic.

9. The Quality Management System

This is, alongside the chapter on imports, one of the most demanding chapters of the draft for industrial operators.

The draft provides that the producer must implement a quality management system enabling it to demonstrate compliance with the End-of-Waste criteria. The system must include documented procedures covering:

• monitoring of the plastic waste used as input material, including quality control and risk management measures;
• monitoring of the treatment processes and techniques;
• monitoring of the quality of the output material resulting from recycling, including sampling and analysis instructions and their frequency;
• record-keeping of the monitoring results referred to above;
• record-keeping of customer feedback concerning the quality of the output material;
• record-keeping of actions taken to improve recycling performance where non-compliance with the End-of-Waste criteria is observed;
• periodic review and improvement of the quality management system;
• staff training.

The producer must give enforcement authorities access to the quality management system on request, and must make the records referred to above electronically available to the relevant national authorities, on request, for at least five years from the date of recording.

The draft confirms the three-year interval circulating in the market: the quality management system must be verified by a conformity assessment body or an environmental verifier, with verification "carried out every three years". Environmental verifiers may only carry out this verification if they hold accreditation or a licence covering at least one of the NACE codes relevant to plastic recycling activities set out in Regulation (EC) No 1893/2006 – specifically, NACE codes 20, 22 and 38.

Plastinfo assessment: for a small or medium-sized recycler, this chapter is probably the biggest barrier to entry in the entire draft – not a technological one, but an administrative and financial one. Implementing an eight-strand documented system, with accredited external verification every three years, involves consultancy, audit and, often, dedicated quality staff costs that large operators can absorb more easily than small ones.

10. The Big Question: Imports from Outside the EU

This is, from Plastinfo's perspective, the chapter with the greatest potential to redraw the commercial map of recyclates in Europe.

The draft provides, in the chapter on the quality management system, a specific rule for imports: in order to place recycled plastic on the Union market, the importer must require third-country suppliers to implement a quality management system that meets the same content requirements as the system applicable to EU producers (the eight strands described in point 9).

The key difference from EU producers lies in how this system is verified. The draft provides that the third-country supplier's quality management system must be verified by a body that is accredited or licensed in a Member State to carry out verification and validation activities for an organisation located in a third country, in accordance with the specifications laid down in Regulation (EC) No 765/2008 or in Regulation (EC) No 1221/2009, read in conjunction with Commission Decision 2011/832/EU.

The consequence explicitly provided by the draft for failing to meet this condition is drastic: if the importer does not meet these requirements, the plastic material it intends to import "shall be considered waste" and must therefore comply with Regulation (EU) 2024/1157 on shipments of waste – that is, the cross-border waste transport regime, not the free regime for products.

A recital of the draft explicitly links this construction to the general logic of the waste shipment regulation: End-of-Waste criteria for plastic waste are designed so as not to "undermine" the export restrictions set out in Regulation (EU) 2024/1157, and the text seeks to clarify the relationship between the rules under the waste shipment regulation and those established by this new regulation.

What This Could Mean for the Market

For the rPET, rPE, rPP and other recycled thermoplastic markets sourced from outside the EU, this could mean several things, which we treat separately, as possible implications rather than legal certainties:

• additional certification and verification costs for third-country recyclers wishing to supply the EU market with EoW status, since they must go through a body accredited/licensed in an EU Member State for operations in that third country – a more complex, and likely more costly, process than verifying a domestic EU producer;
• additional documentary pressure on European importers, who effectively become contractually responsible for ensuring that their external supplier has a compliant, properly verified quality management system – not just for the physical quality of the goods;
• a possible relative competitive advantage for recyclers established in the EU, at least during the transition period, insofar as they do not go through the additional step of cross-border quality system verification;
• the risk that, for third-country suppliers who fail or choose not to obtain this verification, material intended for export to the EU remains classified as waste, with everything that regime entails in terms of transport, documentation and, potentially, the export restrictions in the waste shipment regulation.

No firm conclusion can yet be drawn from the current form of the draft as to whether this mechanism will actually reduce the volume of recyclates imported with "product" status from outside the EU, or whether the market will adapt quickly through the emergence of specialised certification services for third-country suppliers. Both scenarios are plausible, and the draft text does not provide enough elements to choose between them.

11. What EoW Could Mean for the rPE, rPP and rPET Markets

The draft contains no polymer-specific provisions for rPE, rPP or rPET – the criteria are built generically, around the "thermoplastic polymer" category, not around individual polymers. Any polymer-specific conclusion is, therefore, a Plastinfo assessment, not a provision of the text.

Plastinfo assessment: for rPET, which already has the most developed quality chains in Europe – largely due to strict food-contact requirements – the practical impact of the new criteria could be smaller than for rPE and rPP, where the heterogeneity of the input material (mixed films, flexible packaging, diverse industrial plastic) makes it harder to consistently reach the 1.9% foreign-material threshold and to maintain the documentation required by the quality management system. For rPE and rPP streams sourced from mixed municipal collection, meeting and maintaining these criteria could require additional investment in sorting and quality control, rather than a simple administrative formalisation of processes already in place.

12. EoW and Food Contact

This is one of the most frequent points of confusion in the market, so it is worth stating directly: obtaining End-of-Waste status under this draft does NOT, by itself, equate to the material's eligibility for food contact.

The draft provides, in a dedicated recital, that the output material must be usable directly for the manufacture of new plastic products, and that this "should also be the case for producing food-contact recycled plastic materials, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1935/2004 and Commission Regulation (EU) 2022/1616". The same recital specifies that, under these regulations, the input plastic must be decontaminated to ensure the material is suitable for food contact.

In practice, the draft text treats food contact as an additional requirement, governed by its own specific legislation – the framework Regulation (EC) No 1935/2004 on materials intended to come into contact with food, and Commission Regulation (EU) 2022/1616 on recycled plastic materials and articles intended to come into contact with food – not as an automatic effect of EoW status.

Plastinfo assessment: End-of-Waste status and food-contact eligibility remain, even under this draft, two distinct compliance regimes, which may overlap but do not substitute for one another. A recyclate may hold valid EoW status under the new regulation without being automatically approved for food contact; for food-contact applications, authorisation of the decontamination technology and compliance with Regulation 2022/1616 remain necessary, regardless of the material's EoW status.

13. EoW and PPWR – Different Rules, the Same Material

The draft text analysed contains no reference to the Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR, Regulation (EU) 2025/40). The two pieces of legislation function, at least at the level of this draft, as separate systems with different objectives.

PPWR sets requirements on packaging as products – among other things, the recyclability of packaging and, over time, recycled-content targets for certain categories of plastic packaging. The End-of-Waste regulation analysed here, by contrast, sets the criteria under which a recycled material ceases to be waste and becomes a secondary raw material. The former regulates the finished product (the packaging); the latter regulates the input material from which that product can be manufactured.

This could mean, commercially, a useful intersection: a recyclate that has obtained EoW status under the new regulation could be easier to document and trace as "recycled content" when a packaging producer needs to demonstrate compliance with PPWR requirements for a given product. But this remains a reasonable commercial assumption, not a link explicitly established by legislation. No firm conclusion can yet be drawn from the current form of the draft that EoW status legally equates to the proof of recycled content required by PPWR; the two verifications may still require separate methodologies and documentation.

14. Who Could Gain and Who Could Face Higher Costs

The analysis that follows is, in its entirety, a Plastinfo assessment of the draft's possible consequences, structured by operator category.

Mechanical Recyclers

Those established in the EU, with already-documented processes, could stand to gain: the draft offers them, for the first time, a single legal status, recognised across the Union, for their material, which could facilitate cross-border sales without repeated national reassessments. On the other hand, additional costs could arise from formally implementing the quality management system, from the six-monthly gravimetric sampling and analysis of foreign materials, and from external audits every three years.

Compounders

Could benefit from a more clearly documented supply base, with standardised electronic statements of conformity, which would simplify internal verification of input material. The potential cost lies in the need to integrate these statements into their own quality systems and to verify, in turn, the compliance of purchased material before reselling or further processing it.

Plastics Converters

Could gain simpler, legally clearer access to recyclates sourced from multiple Member States, but may need to adapt their input documentation to demonstrate, in turn, the compliant origin of the material used, especially where their final products fall under other regulations (PPWR, food-contact legislation, automotive legislation).

Traders and Distributors of Recyclates

Could see a more liquid, more easily tradable cross-border market for material with confirmed EoW status, but could also become an important traceability point in the chain of statements of conformity, with an obligation to correctly retain and pass on these documents.

EU Importers of Recyclates from Outside the EU

Represent, probably, the category with the highest risk of additional costs, for the reasons detailed in point 10: the responsibility of ensuring that the external supplier has a quality management system verified by a body accredited/licensed in a Member State for operations in the third country is a significant administrative and financial requirement, and failure to meet it results in the material being reclassified as waste.

Non-EU Recyclers Exporting to Europe

Could gain clearer, more stable access to the EU market if they manage to obtain the required verification, but could, at the same time, lose competitiveness against European recyclers if the cost of this verification is high, or if the bodies accredited to carry out verification in their country are few or hard to access.

Packaging Producers and Automotive Plastics Supply Chains

Could benefit from more solid documentation to demonstrate the use of compliant recycled material, which could indirectly support their own recycled-content objectives (whether from PPWR, for packaging, or from sector-specific automotive requirements), without the EoW draft itself imposing these targets.

15. What Companies Should Do Now

The regulation is NOT in force and is NOT adopted. It is not, therefore, the case that companies should act as if compliance were already mandatory. It is, however, a reasonable moment for preparation, especially for operators whose business depends on the swift recognition of their recycled material's quality.

For Recyclers

It makes sense to review, as an internal exercise:

• an updated map of accepted input material streams, clearly flagging those that would fall under the draft's conditional exclusions (healthcare waste, absorbent hygiene products, WEEE, end-of-life vehicles);
• the current state of contamination controls and the ability to demonstrate, through gravimetric analysis, a foreign-material level below the threshold discussed in the draft;
• laboratory capacity, in-house or outsourced, for sampling and analysis at the frequency envisaged by the draft;
• the current batch or delivery traceability system, compared against the electronic documentation requirements described above;
• the current state of the quality management system, compared against the eight documented strands set out in the draft, and the availability of accredited certification bodies for a possible external verification;
• any documentation gaps for streams originating from WEEE or end-of-life vehicles.

For Importers

It makes sense to consider:

• already requesting information on the quality management systems of third-country suppliers;
• checking the accreditation or licensing status of bodies that could carry out verification of the external supplier's quality system, under Regulation (EC) No 765/2008 or Regulation (EC) No 1221/2009;
• reviewing supply contracts to include clauses on the documentation needed to demonstrate compliance;
• an early assessment of the material's traceability path, from the third-country supplier to the final EU customer.

For Compounders and Converters

It makes sense to:

• review the statements currently received from recyclate suppliers, to see how close they are to the content described in point 8;
• clarify internal technical specifications against the thresholds and criteria discussed in the draft;
• prepare, in turn, an internal traceability system for input material, useful both for their own suppliers and for customers who will, in turn, ask them for proof of compliance;
• clarify the documentation requirements their own customers might request, especially where the final product falls under other regulations (PPWR, food contact, automotive components).

16. Timeline

What Has Already Happened

The draft implementing regulation, together with its technical annex, was notified to the World Trade Organization under number G/TBT/N/EU/1229, with a date of receipt of 6 August 2026. This is a transparency notification, mandatory under the WTO Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade for technical regulations that may affect international trade, and it does not, by itself, constitute a step in the adoption of the legislative act at EU level.

Where the Draft Stands Now

According to the Commission's official page, the current procedural status is "open for comments", with a final comment deadline of 20 September 2026.

What Comes Next

As the usual steps for this type of act, after the comment period closes, the comitology procedure specific to implementing acts adopted under the Waste Framework Directive normally follows, followed by formal adoption of the regulation by the Commission and its publication in the Official Journal of the EU. These steps do not yet have confirmed dates at the time of writing this article.

What the Draft Provides on Entry into Force and Application

The draft provides, in its final article, that the regulation "shall apply from [the first day of the month following entry into force, plus six months]" – a formula typical of a draft still being finalised, not a fixed calendar date. The exact application date can only be calculated once the regulation is actually adopted and published, with a definite date of entry into force.

What Remains Uncertain

The draft includes a review clause, under which the Commission "shall assess and, where appropriate, review" the regulation at the latest by 1 January 2029 – including, according to the recitals, with regard to a possible future extension to other recycling technologies, such as chemical recycling. No firm conclusion can yet be drawn from the current form of the draft as to whether the final adopted text will keep unchanged the numerical thresholds (1.9% foreign material, three-year verification) discussed above, since these may be amended following comments received during the WTO consultation or the EU's internal procedure.

17. The Plastinfo Conclusion

It is tempting to read this draft merely as an exercise in administrative definition: the Commission setting out, with figures and procedures, the exact moment at which plastic waste "becomes" a product. But the real stakes are something else, and more important for the industry.

Europe is not just trying to redefine a legal moment. It is trying to establish the rules under which recycled plastic can actually function as a genuine secondary raw material in the Single Market – freely tradable, uniformly recognised from one Member State to another, accompanied by standard documentation that any buyer anywhere in the EU can verify and understand. It is the difference between having a material that is "recycled, but of uncertain status" and having a material with product status, backed by an electronic statement of conformity and an externally verified quality system.

For operators who can afford the investment in documentation, traceability and external verification, this draft could, over the medium term, strengthen the position of European recycled material as a credible, easily tradable alternative to virgin polymer. For those who cannot – whether because of their size, the heterogeneity of the streams they work with, or their distance from an accredited certification body, as is the case for many non-EU suppliers – the draft could, to the same extent, raise a real barrier to accessing "raw material" status, not just an administrative formality.

The regulation's final form is not yet fixed. But the direction is clear: the commercial future of recyclates in Europe will no longer be judged solely on the physical quality of the material, but also on the quality of the documentation that accompanies it.

Sources

Source 1
Draft Commission Implementing Regulation laying down rules for the application of Directive 2008/98/EC as regards criteria to determine when plastic waste ceases to be waste – official notification page
European Commission / World Trade Organization – notification G/TBT/N/EU/1229
https://technical-barriers-trade.ec.europa.eu/en/notification/40172

Source 2
Full text of the draft regulation (Draft text)
European Commission
https://technical-barriers-trade.ec.europa.eu/en/notification/text/EU1229_EN_DRAFTTEXT1_70d470eff3aef0ea71d0056ca4e7d99b.pdf

Source 3
Annex I to the draft regulation – requirements on input material, treatment processes and output plastic quality
European Commission
https://technical-barriers-trade.ec.europa.eu/en/notification/text/EU1229_EN_ANNEX1_d5a3a9907326831cfaf0bab0bf5c4516.pdf

Source 4
Directive 2008/98/EC on waste and repealing certain Directives (Waste Framework Directive), Article 6
EUR-Lex / European Union
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2008/98/oj/eng

Source 5
Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (REACH)
EUR-Lex / European Union
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2006/1907/oj/eng

Source 6
Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures (CLP)
EUR-Lex / European Union
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2008/1272/oj/eng

Source 7
Regulation (EU) 2019/1021 on persistent organic pollutants
EUR-Lex / European Union
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2019/1021/oj/eng

Source 8
Regulation (EC) No 1935/2004 on materials and articles intended to come into contact with food
EUR-Lex / European Union
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2004/1935/oj/eng

Source 9
Commission Regulation (EU) 2022/1616 on recycled plastic materials and articles intended to come into contact with food
EUR-Lex / European Union
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2022/1616/oj/eng

Source 10
Regulation (EU) 2024/1157 on shipments of waste
EUR-Lex / European Union
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1157/oj/eng

Source 11
Regulation (EU) 2025/40 on packaging and packaging waste (PPWR) – context only, not directly referenced in the draft analysed
EUR-Lex / European Union
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2025/40/oj/eng