If you are familiar with the REACH Regulation, you will probably have come across the concept of the Only Representative. It is an entity based in the EU that takes on registration obligations on behalf of a manufacturer outside the Union. The logic is straightforward: a producer based in China, the US or Japan cannot register substances with ECHA directly, so it appoints a European intermediary to do so on its behalf.
The PPWR introduces an analogous institution for packaging. There is, however, an important distinction: under the PPWR there are two entirely different types of Authorised Representative, each serving a completely different purpose. Confusing them is one of the most common errors we encounter in compliance preparation.
08.07.2026
The first type of AR operates under Article 17 of the PPWR. It is an entity appointed by a non-EU manufacturer. On the manufacturer’s behalf, it may draw up the Declaration of Conformity (DoC), hold the technical documentation, and act as a point of contact for market surveillance authorities.
This is an option, not a requirement. A manufacturer based outside the EU may draw up the DoC and hold the documentation itself. However, it must be able to provide those documents to market surveillance authorities within 10 days of a request. The Article 17 AR simplifies this process, but it is not a precondition for placing packaging on the market.
The analogy with REACH is useful but incomplete. Under REACH, the Only Representative takes over the importer’s registration obligations with ECHA — releasing the importer from those obligations entirely. Under the PPWR, this is not the case.
The Article 17 AR takes on the documentation obligations from the non-EU manufacturer. This includes drawing up the DoC and holding the technical file. Responsibility for the accuracy of the DoC, however, remains solely with the manufacturer. It does not transfer to the AR or to the importer. The DoC is signed by the manufacturer, or by the Article 17 AR if the manufacturer has granted it such a mandate. In either case, legal responsibility for the substantive content of the DoC rests exclusively with the manufacturer (Articles 17 and 39 of Regulation (EU) 2025/40).
An EU-based importer has a separate obligation under Article 18: to verify, before placing packaging on the market, that the manufacturer has carried out a conformity assessment and that the DoC exists and is available. The importer is not responsible for the accuracy of the DoC — it is responsible for not ignoring it. The sole exception: if an importer places its own brand on the packaging or modifies it in a way that affects conformity, Article 21 treats that importer as the manufacturer, with the full range of obligations, including responsibility for the DoC.
Furthermore, the Article 17 AR has no bearing whatsoever on EPR fees. Registration, reporting, and payments fall under Article 45 — and that obligation rests with the importer as the EPR Producer, regardless of whether the Chinese supplier appoints any AR at all. Appointing an Article 17 AR removes the documentation burden from the Chinese supplier, but does not relieve the EU company of a single penny of EPR liability.
Legal basis:
The second type of AR is an entirely different role. Article 45 of the PPWR concerns Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) and requires the appointment of an AR in each Member State where packaging first reaches an end user directly.
This AR registers the producer in the national packaging register, reports volumes, and pays EPR fees on its behalf.
An important distinction arises for importers. An EU company that imports packaging from a non-EU manufacturer and places it on the market itself is the Producer for EPR purposes. It is therefore responsible for EPR registration and fees. A Chinese supplier selling through an EU importer does not need to appoint an Article 45 AR.
The Article 45 AR obligation for non-EU companies arises only when they sell directly to an end user in the EU — bypassing a Union-based importer.
EPR fees are paid by the Producer under the PPWR — the entity that places packaging on the EU market under its own name or brand. In Poland, this obligation is already fulfilled through registration in the BDO system and an annual packaging report — and it exists today, independently of the PPWR.
The PPWR introduces one significant change: eco-modulation. It links EPR fee levels to the environmental properties of the packaging. Packaging that is easy to recycle will attract lower rates; packaging that is difficult to process will attract higher ones.
Poland is implementing these changes through new packaging legislation (UC100), the latest version of which dates from March 2026. The system is being phased in, with a two-year transitional period from 12 August 2026.
Packaging without a documented recyclability class receives no reduction. This is not a penalty. It is a principle: no evidence, no benefit.
It is easy to see that similar names denote completely different responsibilities. The table below shows the key differences between the Only Representative under REACH and the two roles of Authorised Representative under the PPWR.
| REACH | PPWR | ||
| Only Representative | AR under art. 17 | AR under z art. 17 | |
| Function | Registration of substances with ECHA | Documentation and DoC | EPR: registration, reporting, fees |
| Is it mandatory? | Yes | No (optional) | Yes (when selling directly to end users in the EU) |
| Who appoints this role? | Non-EU manufacturer | Non-EU manufacturer | Producer without establishment in the relevant Member State |
| Legal liability | Remains with the manufacturer | Remains with the manufacturer | AR is responsible for EPR within the scope of the mandate |
| Does the importer need one? | No | No | No (the importer is itself the EPR Producer) |
PLEASE NOTE: A company that has appointed an Authorised Representative for CE marking or REACH must not assume that the same entity fulfils the obligations of the PPWR.
Let us now suppose that a EU company imports products in unbranded packaging, and the design has been agreed with the supplier. In this situation, the company has a choice of three different courses of action:
The company has ordered packaging from a Chinese supplier to its own requirements (its own dimensions, its own construction, its own name or trade mark). Under the PPWR, the company is the manufacturer of that packaging. What makes a company the manufacturer is not the presence of a logo as such, but control over the design and characteristics of the packaging. The logo and name are merely an expression of that control.
Under Article 3(1)(13) of Regulation 2025/40, the manufacturer is the entity that commissions the design or manufacture of packaging under its own name or trade mark, regardless of whether physical production takes place within or outside the EU. The company must draw up its own DoC and is responsible for its content. The Chinese packaging producer is, in this relationship, a supplier under Article 16 (obliged to provide the technical data needed to draw up the DoC, but bearing no responsibility for its accuracy). This is the most common scenario in import practice and the one most frequently unrecognised as a source of PPWR obligations.
The company imports a product in the same packaging in which it leaves the factory in China. It does not add its own name or trade mark or make any changes to the packaging. Under the PPWR, the company is an importer, not a manufacturer. The importer does not draw up its own DoC, because that obligation rests with the manufacturer.
Article 18 requires the importer to verify, before placing packaging on the market, that the manufacturer has completed the conformity assessment and drawn up a DoC. The importer must also retain a copy of this document. The company is not responsible for the accuracy of the DoC. It is responsible for not ignoring it. The critical condition: an importer may only place PPWR-compliant packaging on the market. If the Chinese supplier has not issued a DoC, the packaging is non-compliant and cannot enter the EU market. The importer is then faced with a choice: compel the supplier to issue a DoC, take on the manufacturer role itself, or not place the product on the market. It is precisely this operational deadlock that leads to Option 3.
The supplier accepts the role of PPWR manufacturer and appoints, by written mandate, an independent entity in the EU as its Authorised Representative. The AR draws up the DoC on behalf of the supplier and holds the technical documentation. The EU company remains an importer. Its obligation is limited to verifying the existence of the DoC before placing the packaging on the market and retaining a copy. Responsibility for the accuracy of the DoC rests with the Chinese supplier as manufacturer. This option requires the supplier’s willingness to enter into formal regulatory cooperation and to fund the AR.
Each option is lawful. Each distributes the documentation burden, legal responsibility, and dependence on supplier cooperation differently.
A manufacturer based outside the EU (i.e. Chinese packaging producer) has every right to issue a DoC. By signing it, the manufacturer assumes full legal responsibility for the compliance of the packaging with PPWR requirements (Article 39(4)). EU presence is not required, nor is an AR — the manufacturer may issue the DoC directly. If it appoints an Article 17 AR, the AR does so on its behalf. However, responsibility for its content and accuracy remains with the manufacturer.
This distinction has direct financial consequences.
If the DoC contains inaccurate information (for instance, declaring the absence of PFAS when the packaging in fact contains them) legal responsibility rests with the manufacturer as the signatory. In the commercial relationship between the EU company and the Chinese supplier, this means the EU company should protect itself contractually: a PPWR compliance clause, the right to audit technical documentation, and a contractual penalty for any discrepancy between the DoC and the actual state of the packaging.
The consequences of introducing non-compliant packaging to the EU market may include:
The costs of a recall are borne by the entity that placed the packaging on the market, in principle, the importer. For example, Poland’s draft UC100 legislation provides for fines of up to PLN 2,000,000 for placing non-compliant packaging on the market. It also requires companies to carry out a recall at their own expense.
| The manufacturer is responsible for the content and accuracy of the DoC. The importer is responsible for placing packaging on the market without a valid DoC. The importer will also bear the costs of any recall. That liability can be partially shifted to the supplier through appropriate contractual provisions, but it cannot be eliminated entirely. Enforcement authorities in the EU will direct action against the entity that physically placed the packaging on the market — and that entity is the importer. |
Poniższy schemat pomaga ustalić, jakie obowiązki ma polska firma importująca produkty w opakowaniach z państw spoza UE i w którym momencie pojawiają się obowiązki wynikające z PPWR.
The entity drawing up the Declaration of Conformity assumes full regulatory responsibility for the packaging on the EU market. It is this entity that must provide documentation to the supervisory authorities within 10 days of a request. It is this entity that is responsible for withdrawing the packaging from the market if it proves to be non-compliant. And it is this entity that will pay the eco-modulated EPR fees.
For an importer who imports packaged products from China and is themselves a producer within the meaning of the PPWR, this means that their Asian supplier has become a source of regulatory and financial risk. Not because they have done anything wrong, but because they may not have provided the data now required by the PPWR.
A company based in China, South Korea or Taiwan selling plastic packaging on the EU market faces several independent regulatory frameworks (each with its own requirement to maintain a presence in the EU). In practice, all of these roles can be fulfilled by a single legal entity, which significantly simplifies the compliance structure.
lastics contain chemical substances subject to registration with ECHA. A non-EU manufacturer supplying substances or mixtures to EU importers may appoint an OR. Onlu Reprezentatice means the EU entity that takes over the registration obligations of the importer. This releases EU importers from the obligation to register, whilst giving the manufacturer a single point of contact with ECHA.
If an Asian manufacturer is the manufacturer of packaging under the PPWR (its name or trade mark appears on the packaging, or it commissioned the design), it may appoint an Article 17 AR, which draws up the DoC and holds the technical documentation. Responsibility for the compliance of the packaging remains with the manufacturer, but documentary presence in the EU is assured.
If an Asian manufacturer sells directly to end users in the EU, bypassing a Union-based importer, it must appoint an EPR AR in each Member State where the packaging reaches the market. This AR registers the manufacturer, reports volumes, and pays EPR fees.
The optimal structure for an Asian manufacturer is as follows:
| REGULATION | Role of the EU entity | Legal basis |
| REACH | Only Representative | Art. 8 REACH |
| PPWR – documentation | AR for documentation | Art. 17 PPWR |
| PPWR – EPR | AR for EPR | Art. 45 PPWR |
Consolidating all three roles within a single entity means one point of contact with authorities in the EU, consistent technical documentation, and no risk of inconsistency between REACH registration and the content of the PPWR DoC. It is particularly important when verifying restricted substances in plastics. Worth consideration?
If you’re wondering what this process looks like for your supply chain — get in touch.
Silk Road Certification provides services in the areas of recyclability certification (RecyClass Recyclability), verification of recycled content (EN 15343 Certification Program) and assessment of hazardous substances (REACH, RoHS).
← NewsThe PPWR and stock levels – what should you do? The answer is not straightforward. It depends on the type of packaging, its intended use and when it was placed on the market. That is why it is worth analysing your own stock levels before August. This will help minimise the risk of losses, compliance issues and unnecessary costs associated with the PPWR. ‘Old’ packaging need not be a problem once the PPWR comes into force.
→ READ MOREDiscussions about recycled content in finished products increasingly focus on one key question: how can recycled content be verified in a reliable and auditable way? This issue is particularly important in the context of the PPWR, where the EU Declaration of Conformity is expected to be based on documented evidence for a specific product batch rather than on general claims. Given the widespread use of different certification schemes, a practical question arises: ISCC PLUS, RecyClass or GRS? Each of these systems approaches the verification of recycled content differently and provides a different level of traceability and supporting evidence.
→ READ MOREWiększość firm, które się do nas zgłaszają, pyta: „jak wypełnić deklarację zgodności PPWR?". To zrozumiałe pytanie, choć powinno być zadane w zasadzie na końcu. Aby właściwie rozpocząć dyskusję, należałoby zapytać: "kto sporządza tę deklarację zgodności PPWR?". Nie bez powodu, bo odpowiednia identyfikacja ról nadaje kontekst dalszym rozważaniom. To właśnie podmiot sporządzający deklarację zgodności PPWR ponosi pełną odpowiedzialność regulacyjną za opakowanie na rynku UE. I to ten podmiot będzie adresatem podlegających ekomodulacji opłat EPR (ang. Extended Producer Responsibility - Rozszerzona Odpowiedzialnośc Producenta). Ekomodulacja opłat oznacza, że od 2027 r. zaczną się one różnicować w zależności od klasy recyklowalności, zawartości recyklatu i jakości dokumentacji.
→ READ MORE