Most companies that contact us ask, “How do I fill out the PPWR Declaration of Conformity?” It’s an understandable question, though it should really be asked last. To properly begin the discussion, one should ask, “Who prepares this PPWR Declaration of Conformity?” And there is a good reason, because properly identifying roles provides context for further consideration. It is the entity preparing the PPWR declaration of conformity that bears full regulatory responsibility for the packaging on the EU market. And it is this entity that will be the recipient of EPR (Extended Producer Responsibility) fees subject to eco-modulation. Ecomodulation of fees means that starting in 2027, they will vary depending on recyclability class, recycled content, and the quality of documentation.
Therefore, the right question (to determine the role in PPWR and EPR fees) should be directed to the CFO’s desk, and the compliance manager can only provide support here. The answer will determine which entity should factor in rising packaging fees when setting its prices, margins, and future capital expenditures.
02.06.2026
Under the PPWR (Art. 3, Art. 39), the Declaration of Conformity is drawn up by the manufacturer — but “manufacturer” within the meaning of the Regulation is not always the factory. It is the entity that produces the packaging or commissions its production under its own name or trade mark. In practice, this means that if a Polish company commissions packaging production in Asia and places it on the EU market under its own brand — the factory in China is not the PPWR manufacturer. The manufacturer is the brand owner or trader who commissioned the production. It is they who draw up the declaration, compile the technical documentation, sign the DoC and bear personal legal liability. And it is they who will pay eco-modulated EPR fees.
For a detailed breakdown of roles — who is the manufacturer, who the importer, and who assumes obligations — see our article: Who signs the PPWR Declaration of Conformity?
Until now, EPR fees in most EU countries were calculated primarily on the basis of weight and material type. A 10 g LDPE film package paid the same regardless of whether it was mono-material and recyclable or multi-layer and impossible to process. The PPWR changes this logic. Under Art. 45 of the Regulation, Member States’ EPR schemes must implement eco-modulation.
Eco-modulation is a mechanism for differentiating fees based on the environmental characteristics of packaging. Packaging that is easy to recycle and contains recyclate will attract lower fees. Packaging that is difficult to process will attract higher fees, and in extreme cases penalty surcharges. By 2030, eco-modulation must be fully correlated with PPWR recyclability classes (A–E), although many countries are already implementing these mechanisms.
The most advanced eco-modulation model in the EU is the Dutch Verpact system (formerly Afvalfonds Verpakkingen), which serves as a benchmark for future PPWR requirements. Details of the eco-modulation model for plastics — including discount criteria for mono-materiality, colour, recyclate and Recycle Check results — are publicly available:
→ Tariff rules: Verpact — Fee Modulation Plastic 2.0,
→ Current material rates: Verpact — Rates,
→ 2026 scheme: Verpact — Fee Modulation Plastic 2026.
The base rate for flexible plastics (including LDPE film) is approximately €1,220 per tonne (2025/2026). The system provides five discount steps, each reducing the fee by €100–200/t:
The maximum total discount is up to €600/t, meaning the fee can be reduced by almost half — from €1,220/t to approximately €620/t. In the table below, we have compiled information on the impact of certification on EPR fees, using LDPE (the Dutch market) as an example.
| Packaging variant | Recyclability cert. | Traceability cert. | EPR fee 2025–2026 | EPR fee 2030+ (forecast) | Savings vs. base rate |
| 100% PCR, CLASS A | RecyClass A | RecyClass Traceability (100% PCR) | ~620 €/t | ~400–500 €/t | up to 50% |
| 50% PCR, CLASS A | RecyClass A | RecyClass Traceability (50% PCR) | ~620–820 €/t | ~450–550 €/t | up to 45% |
| 0% PCR, CLASS A | RecyClass A | NONE | ~820 €/t | ~600–700 €/t | up to 35% |
| 0% PCR, CLASS B | RecyClass B | NONE | ~1 020–1 120 €/t | ~750–900 €/t | up to 15–20% |
| 0% PCR, CLASS C | RecyClass C | NONE | ~1 220 €/t (bazowa) | ~1 100–1 500 €/t | 0% (+ malus risk) |
| No certification | NONE | NONE | ~1 220 €/t + penalty 25–40% | ~1 500–1 700 €/t | negative (surcharge) |
Sources:
Base rate and discounts: Verpact Rates 2025/2026, Verpact Fee Modulation Plastic 2.0.
2030+ forecast: industry estimates based on Art. 6, 7 and 45 PPWR (Regulation (EU) 2025/40).
Final row (no certification) includes estimated penalty surcharges of 25–40% for missing recyclability documentation..
This is where the loop closes. The PPWR Declaration of Conformity requires the manufacturer to declare:
The same data will be used by EPR schemes to calculate the eco-modulated fee.
Certificates such as RecyClass Recyclability (class A/B/C) and recycled content certification (EN 15343, RecyClass Traceability) become not merely compliance tools — but direct instruments for cost optimisation. A company holding a class A certificate will pay less than a company with packaging of unknown recyclability — even if both produce similar packaging. The system rewards evidence, not verbal declarations.
PPWR and EPR fees are operational costs — predictable, plannable, optimisable. But the real risk does not lie in the level of fees. It lies in the incorrect identification of which entity in the supply chain should draw up the declaration — because it is that entity which becomes the manufacturer under the PPWR and assumes full regulatory, financial and operational responsibility.
A Polish company (brand owner) commissions packaging production in Asia. The packaging enters the EU through a trader based in the Netherlands. Who is the manufacturer under the PPWR? Who draws up the declaration? Who pays eco-modulated EPR fees?
If the brand owner and trader have not established this unambiguously — neither of them may draw up the declaration. Or the trader draws it up without material data or recyclability certificates. Or the factory in Asia draws it up — but it is not a relevant entity under the PPWR, as it has no establishment in the EU and does not place the packaging on the European market.
In each of these scenarios, the declaration is invalid or non-existent. And packaging placed on the EU market without a valid Declaration of Conformity is packaging that does not comply with the law.
The PPWR (Art. 68) obliges each Member State to establish penalty provisions by 12 February 2027. Penalties must be effective, proportionate and dissuasive. For infringements of Art. 24–29 (packaging bans, void space requirements, reuse obligations), the PPWR imposes an obligation to levy a fine.
In countries that already have developed penalty systems, the scale is known: in France up to €100,000 per infringement, in Germany up to €200,000 per infringement under the VerpackG (which remains in force alongside the PPWR). Consequences extend beyond fines — they include market bans, product recalls, customs blockages and suspension of distribution on marketplaces. In cases of deliberate infringements or false declarations, criminal charges are possible.
But fines and blockages — though serious — are immediate consequences. Far more serious is what the company does not see until it is too late.
The question of regulatory responsibility and future regulatory CAPEX is one side of the coin. The other — and far more serious — is this: what if the company’s current financial model does not pass a regulatory stress test at all?
A brand owner who commissions packaging production without knowing that it — not the factory in Asia nor the trader — is the manufacturer under the PPWR, does not factor rising EPR fees into its pricing model (the difference between class A and class C is €600–1,000 per tonne by 2030), does not plan CAPEX for changing materials and packaging technology, does not build a negotiating position with material suppliers because it considers this “the supplier’s problem”, and does not invest in recyclability and recyclate certification because it does not understand that its EPR fee depends on those certificates.
Consider a realistic scenario. A company producing multi-layer film (class C or below) with no recyclate, whose suppliers are unable to provide certified mono-material. If it runs its model through the prism of the PPWR, it may discover that its EPR fees will increase by €300,000–500,000 per year (at a volume of 500 tonnes), that its packaging will be withdrawn from the EU market after 2038 (class C permitted only until that year), and that customers — retail chains, FMCG brands — will begin demanding recyclability certificates contractually, before the regulation forces them to do so.
In such a situation, changing the declaration form is not enough. It may be necessary to replace the entire production system — production lines, base materials, raw material suppliers, and in extreme cases — the business model. This is not CAPEX that one plans in Q3. This is CAPEX that should have been planned yesterday.
In four months, the PPWR substance requirements come into force (PFAS, heavy metals, Declaration of Conformity). In two years — eco-modulation of EPR fees based on recyclability classes. In four years — mandatory recyclate and classes A–C as a condition for market access.
A company that has not conducted a full regulatory risk assessment today does not know whether its financial model will survive these changes. It does not know what EPR fees await it. It does not know whether its packaging will even be permitted on the EU market after 2030. It does not know what CAPEX will be needed for adaptation — or whether its cash flow will allow it.
This is not the stage for “we will deal with this next year”. This is the stage at which the CFO should sit down with the head of production, the head of procurement and a regulatory adviser — and calculate: what does the status quo cost us? What will it cost in 2 years? And what does change cost now, before costs begin to rise?
Companies that do this in 2026 will build themselves a cost advantage for the next decade. Companies that do not will discover the scale of the problem when there is no longer time to optimise. And the cost of changing a production line under regulatory pressure is always higher than the cost of a planned transformation.
Silk Road Certification supports companies not from the form, but from the strategy:
We are well-versed in PPWR and EPR fees, as well as eco-modulation. Take advantage of our experts’ experience.
← News
Practical Guide to Dual Roles in the Plastics Supply Chain. In today’s packaging market, a single facility often operates simultaneously as a converter, contract manufacturer, and sometimes also as a brand owner or trader. However, this business flexibility also means operating under several different regulatory and certification frameworks at the same time. Both the Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR) and certification schemes such as RecyClass now require a precise definition of who is responsible for mass balance, recyclate traceability, and who signs the PPWR Declaration of Conformity within a given cooperation model.
→ READ MORE