The ultimate guide to the Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation in 2024

In a rush? Click here to read a short summary of this story

This report delivers a mid-year update on the European Union’s evolving Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR), tracking key legal, industrial, and political developments since our previous overview in December. As negotiations intensify and deadlines loom, the stakes are high for policymakers, producers, and recyclers alike, with compliance, competitiveness, and circularity all on the line.

• Legal uncertainty persists: A legal assessment commissioned by major plastics associations claims the PPWR draft violates EU law by targeting plastics disproportionately. Industry groups are pushing for legally sound, material-neutral regulation to avoid trade conflicts and lawsuits.
• Industry pushback on reuse and recycling targets: Critics argue that loopholes and exemptions, especially for paper and cardboard, undermine the regulation’s goals. Meanwhile, recyclers warn that unfair competition from cheaper imports threatens the EU’s circular economy ambitions.
• PFAS ban and bioplastics review greeted positively: Environmental groups welcomed the move to ban PFAS in food packaging and conduct a future review on biobased plastics – seen as wins for human health and sustainable innovation.
• Concerns over food safety and market fragmentation: Fresh food and beverage sectors fear that outright packaging bans could compromise hygiene, increase food waste, and create a patchwork of national rules that threaten the integrity of the EU single market.
• Performance grading and recyclability rules introduced: New packaging recyclability performance classes (A, B, C) are set to reshape material selection and fee structures, with permanent materials like steel likely to benefit.
• Next steps delayed but critical: The final trilogue is now expected in October 2024. Key provisions are anticipated to begin rolling out in 2025, but Member States’ compliance with prior recycling targets remains under EU scrutiny.

The PPWR remains a moving target – hailed by some as a turning point for EU sustainability, criticized by others as flawed and discriminatory. While compromise is proving difficult, industry players are largely aligned on the need for clear, science-based regulation that avoids fragmentation and supports circularity.

The October trilogue will be pivotal. In the meantime, businesses should prepare for sweeping regulatory shifts across packaging design, materials, and end-of-life management.

Last December, we brought you a comprehensive rundown of the Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation’s development throughout 2023. Now we’ve passed the halfway mark of 2024, and there are further developments to record. In this edition of the Brief, we catch our readers up to speed with the legislation as it stands, and how the industry has responded.

January

To recap, we left off in December with the European Council’s introduction of a ‘general approach’ to the PPWR, serving as a mandate for negotiations with the European Parliament in 2024.

Last year’s guide explains it in more detail, but to provide a general outline, it offers specific definitions of a recyclable and a reusable pack; sets new targets for reuse, refill, and minimum recycled content in plastic packaging; requires the introduction of deposit return schemes (DRS) unless specific criteria are met; mandates the minimization of packaging weight and volume; and enforces stricter rules for on-pack or on-label information about packaging composition and disposal.

Criticisms included widespread opposition to Member States being exempt from the Council’s separate collection target if an existing system reached a 90% collection rate before 2029 or exceeded 78% in 2026.

This caveat was feared to put a cap on companies’ access to high-quality recyclate. Also, the “watered down” approach was believed to treat reuse and recycling as non-complementary processes, and certain political players were accused of influencing the rules in their own favour.

January saw the release of a joint industry statement condemning the European Council’s approach for its references to ’state-run producer responsibility organizations’. The signatories explained that producer responsibility organizations exist to do what they say on the tin – fulfil the responsibilities of producers on their behalf – and asserted that ‘state-run’ versions would have no represented producer mandate, meaning their only purposes would be to collect taxes for a State’s Treasury and help meet the Member State’s reporting obligations. This would apparently make them a form of tax and go against the minimum requirements of Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) schemes.

In layman’s terms, then, these organizations are viewed by some as a loophole through which Member States can avoid meeting legal obligations. They could therefore impact recycling rates, prevent producers from meeting their minimum packaging requirements, hold the EU back from achieving worldwide leadership in EPR, and stifle the packaging industry’s contribution to the EU’s target of meeting net zero by 2050.

Meanwhile, after noting a 7% decline in growth rate year-on-year for plastics recycling capacity, Plastic Recyclers Europe feared that the continent could miss the targets laid out in its upcoming legislation. President Ton Emans blamed such “unprecedented challenges” as the COVID-19 pandemic, the energy crisis in 2022, and low demand for recyclates in 2023 – in turn attributed to cheap recyclate imports and declining industrial production within the EU – for slowing progress.

Legislation would play a key role in ploughing through this lull, he said. Indeed, Plastic Recyclers Europe uplifted enforcement mechanisms and the harmonization of practices across Member States as methods of driving progress – building upon a previous manifesto in which it called upon the EU to prioritize science-based policies, traceable imports, and realistic targets as driving forces behind improved competitiveness and innovation.

February

February was filled to the brim with insightful conversation. Global law firm Dentons dropped a bombshell with a legal assessment commissioned by European Plastics Converters (EuPC), IK Industrievereinigung Kunststoffverpackungen, and Elipso. Apparently, the PPWR draft was ‘very likely not compatible’ with EU law; where rules for plastic packaging did not apply to other packaging materials, the legislation was thought to violate the EU principle of equal treatment.

There were ‘no objective reasons’ to single out plastics in various bans and reuse or recycling quotas, Dentons said. It cautioned that rules like these could blindly replace lightweight and easily recycled plastic packaging with heavier, less recyclable materials, resulting in more greenhouse gas emissions and increased packaging waste.

The assessment also alleged that the European Parliament and Council had committed procedural infringements by failing to consider ‘all relevant factors’ in their proposals. As such, it encouraged the European Parliament and Member States to help companies plan ahead and ensure legal compliance by removing material-specific rules from the PPWR in ongoing trilogue negotiations.

In its own critique, The European Recycling Industries’ Confederation (EuRIC) recommended that only post-consumer plastic packaging waste collected within the EU should be counted as companies pursue the Regulation’s minimum recycled content targets.

It warned that plastics were being imported en masse from non-European countries with fewer or different circularity measures in place; this meant that, despite being cheaper, they did not always meet EU standards or contribute to its circularity targets.

Furthermore, EuRIC feared that manufacturers’ reliance on countries with different standards for circularity, energy, and labour costs would lead to unfair competition from outside the EU.

In the current conditions, recyclers struggling under the weight of ‘unbalanced pressure’ were expected to take their business outside of Europe; industrial jobs and infrastructure could be lost, the growth of green jobs could be stifled, and Europe could miss its mandatory recycling and recycled content targets, EuRIC said.

Ensuring that European manufacturers can only utilize EU waste was expected to level the playing field between importers and European plastics recyclers. At the same time, it sought to prevent operators outside the EU from being subsidized by recycled content destined for use in the EU, and instead encourage more investment in circular value chains.

EuRIC believed that such measures would comply with the PPWR’s Impact Assessment, specifically its aim to bolster recycling within Europe. In addition, it would apparently fall in line with the EU’s increasing responsibility over its own waste, namely the newly-introduced Waste Shipment Regulation and a ban on shipping the EU’s waste to non-OECD countries.

It added that a robust traceability system with third-party verification would help make sure that the plastics being labelled as recycled actually adhered to EU standards.

In other news, Fruit Logistica 2024 brought together members of the fresh food packaging producer coalition Pro Food in a round table discussion regarding the PPWR’s ban on plastic packaging bans for fruit and vegetables. Martin Engelmann, general manager at IK Industrievereinigung Kunststoffverpackungen, reiterated concerns that singling out plastic packaging could violate the principle of equal treatment.

Nor did the ban reflect the impact of fruit and vegetable packaging in practice, argued Freshfel Europe’s delegate general, Philippe Binard. In his view, only 1.5% of all food packaging currently used within the EU can be attributed to such products; and 50% of fruits and vegetables are already sold in bulk, he said, “showing that the market has already optimized as much as it could”. Binard added that the ban would lead to inconsistent policy, increased food waste, and the limited use of post-harvest treatments to help preserve fresh produce.

Massimiliano del Core, president of Ortofrutta Italia, was similarly concerned about how the removal of plastic packaging could impact shelf life and product preservation in the context of exports. He believed that, instead of banning plastics, the PPWR should turn its attention to end-of-life management and encourage recycling.

In its then-present form, the text could have undermined 32,000 jobs only in Italy, according to Filiera Italia CEO and Eat Europe president Luigi Scordamaglia. Luc Vanoirbeek, chairman of the F&V working group of Copa-Cogeca, sought a more ‘fair’, ‘realistic’, and ‘affordable’ proposal via ‘more reasonable dialogue’ with the next Commission.

Collectively, the organizations called for a ‘non-ideological’ and ‘data-driven’ approach to the PPWR.

Gabriel Magdaleno, foreign sales director at Masterpress, spoke for label and printed decorative packaging manufacturers in his roadmap to fulfilling the targets of the PPWR. The steps included embracing digital watermarking to enhance the sorting of packaging waste; and selecting LED inks over UV-cured alternatives in order to cut down on energy consumption, harmful emissions, air pollution, and waste.

Choosing the right material is becoming more important for reducing waste and improving recyclability, he said, although he highlighted the absence of a silver bullet; “it’s about understanding the life cycle of each material,” he explained, “and how they can complement each other in a circular economy.”

Additionally, he underlined the role “informative and engaging” packaging design can play in communicating recycling or reuse instructions to consumers, thus influencing the correct behaviour to generate less waste.

By promoting reuse over brand dominance, he argued that companies could demonstrate “a deeper understanding of the role consumers play in the product life cycle”.

Plastics Recyclers Europe president Ton Emans rounded off the month by stressing the need to preserve and support the plastics recycling value chain through the end of the trialogue negotiations.

He warned that, by the time 2023 came to a close, the prices of recycled plastics had fallen by almost 50%, with companies from third countries able to sell their products on the European market at a much cheaper price.

In order for recycling targets to be met fairly, he recommended that control and verification mechanisms be implemented to ensure that the only imported plastics to be sold on the EU single market contain certified recycled content.

This should, in theory, create a level playing field between domestic and overseas recyclers. Emans also recommended the use of verification systems to check a material’s compliance with the EU’s environmental and safety standards.

Third-party audited certifications were highlighted as a key solution to achieve a transparent, traceable sourcing process for recyclate, as opposed to blindly trusting the word of the supplier. Failure to comply is feared to risk consumers’ health, as well as threaten the safety and labour rights of workers in countries outside the EU.

Manufacturing and recycling processes for plastics should be harmonized across every Member State, he added; he believed this would encourage investments, bolster circularity, and fall in line with the objectives of the EU Green Deal.

March

Vytal, Interzero, Bumerang, Circulware, Kleen Hub, Pyxo, reCIRCLE, Recup, Relevo, Retoornado, Re-uz, WeCarry, Wobz, and Zerooo kicked off the month by signing an open letter to the European Parliament. In it, they recommended that the PPWR should implement such ambitious targets as a 40% reuse rate for takeaway food by 2040, and stated that other product-specific targets should be added in the future.

Serving products in single-use packaging on-site were also discouraged, with the signatories calling for a ban. Moreover, they urged policymakers to implement mandatory reuse quotas across all industries, leaving no room for industry players to avoid them – exemptions for cardboard single-use packaging were frowned upon, for example.

In the meantime, British Glass’ Glass Packaging Policy lead, Matthew Kay, questioned exactly how targets surrounding recycling, reuse, and EPR would be calculated. If the metrics relate to the weight of a pack, he feared that factors such as recyclability, impact at end-of-life, and food safety benefits would be overlooked; and that lighter materials would always be favoured, whether or not they are suitable for reuse or circularity. This could lead to single-use, hard-to-recycle packaging materials being favoured, he warned.

While glass is a heavy material with a carbon-intensive production process, Kay argued that it is 100% recyclable and can be recycled infinitely without declining in quality. As such, fewer raw materials are required, and emissions decrease.

He also cited statistics claiming that 92% of glass was captured in the Welsh kerbside recycling system in 2021-2022, while a recycling rate of 74% was apparently recorded for glass across the UK.

Although Kay conceded that, as of right now, non-glass single-use packaging currently requires less energy to produce, he suggested that such packaging is more challenging to process at end-of-life and can therefore cause bigger impacts.

Therefore, he recommended that the PPWR include material-specific targets to ensure the responsibility to reduce waste is distributed fairly between different sectors. He also underlined that developments in electric hybrid and hydrogen furnace technologies could help reduce energy input in glass manufacturing processes going forward.

Then, amidst all the discourse, came a provisional agreement between the European Parliament and Council. It was met with mixed reviews.

The Rethink Plastic Alliance praised the crackdown on PFAS and chemicals of concern in food packaging, especially the future knowledge that might be gained from a mandated report on their environmental and health impacts.

Similarly, Zero Waste Europe’s Toxic-Free Circular Economy policy officer, Dorota Napierska, felt that banning PFAS would motivate food packaging manufacturers to eliminate all other harmful substances from their designs.

Furthermore, it was revealed that a review of the development of biobased plastic packaging is to be conducted three years after the PPWR enters into force. The findings are set to inform future requirements for biobased content, a measure that European Bioplastics approved of.

In general, Carla Worth, policy lead at Common Seas, felt optimistic about the progress that effective plastic bans – in conjunction with Extended Producer Responsibility and deposit return schemes – could make when it came to plastic pollution.

On the other hand, the packaging reduction targets set for Member States – 5% by 2030, 10% by 2035, and 15% by 2040 – proved unpopular. Many took issue with what they felt was an absence of incentives to drive reuse, with reuse targets removed for takeaway packaging and the introduction of a general derogation to meet reuse targets if certain recycling quotas were met.

Indeed, the Rethink Plastic Alliance felt that the European Commission’s original proposal had been “watered down by a plethora of exemptions and derogations”, including those that singled out single-use plastics over single-use in general; and Zero Waste Europe’s head of policy, Aline Maigret, criticized the “dizzying amount of regulatory loopholes for single-use packaging.”

So-called ‘single-use paper lobbies’ were also blamed for some of the perceived shortcomings, such as the exclusion of cardboard packaging from reuse targets. Circuthon Consulting founder Paul Foulkes-Arellano alleged that certain manufacturers of single-use paper packaging “have waged a fierce campaign against the regulation since it was first proposed”, with fears arising that simply replacing plastic with paper would fail to discourage wasteful behaviour among consumers, put additional pressure on forests, and limit the success of the PPWR.

Nevertheless, it was emphasized that the Commission had not agreed to the compromise just yet. It still had the power to overturn any of the suggested changes, and even if it didn’t, the final agreement would still await approval from lawyers. As such, certain commentators foresaw that the negotiations could overrun the expected end date of June 2024 – an outcome that would ultimately come to fruition, as we now know.

On the heels of this development, we published a report walking our readers through plastic packaging-related legislation across the world. In it, Finnish Packaging Association CEO Antro Saila listed his criticisms of the PPWR, including its supposed basis in ‘ideology and theory’ rather than science. Nor did he think it focused enough on packaging regulations not linked to environmental sustainability, such as food contact safety or food waste reduction.

He added that the language of the regulation is not specific enough, leading Member States to interpret the regulation individually and threaten the stability of the EU single market; and that new regulations are introduced before their predecessors are cemented into Member States’ regulation, which results in zero data regarding the effectiveness of the previous legislation.

On 15th March, The Committee of Permanent Representatives, or CORPERER – a preparatory body of the European Council constituting the head or deputy head of mission from each Member State – came to a deal on the PPWR. EuRIC praised the deal as a ‘significant milestone’ and the ‘best outcome’ after delays related to trade and the removal of any condition of origin for plastics accounting for recycling content.

Apparently, the new deal would still hold imported plastics to the EU’s standards, aligning with the rules of the World Trade Organization and aligning with the ban on plastic waste exports to developing countries. EuRIC was also optimistic that it would strengthen European competitiveness.

On the other hand, EuRIC worried that, if Member States could prioritize access to recycled plastics, it could disrupt Europe’s internal market. Their alternative solution was to put greater emphasis on meeting recyclability requirements and increasing collection rates in order to put the continent in a better position to achieve circularity.

Similarly to previous criticisms, IK Industrievereinigung Kunststoffverpackungen described the PPWR as ‘material-discriminatory’. It condemned the ‘numerous unfounded loopholes’ and argued – much like the legal assessment it commissioned from Dentons back in February – that the draft violated the EU’s principle of equal treatment.

More specifically, the organization criticized the ‘unjustified privileges’ afforded to paper and cardboard packaging regarding bans, recyclate usage, and reusable packaging targets. These would, according to IK, drive up packaging waste and CO2 emissions while decreasing recycling rates.

Exempting plastic-coated packaging with less than 5% plastic content from recyclate usage quotas and standards for large-scale recycling was branded “unacceptable”, while a complete ban on 100% plastic in packaging served at fast food establishments – a ban that does not apply to plastic-coated, single-use alternative – was questioned.

The so-called “mirror clause” also came under fire. This would require imported plastic recyclates to meet the environmental requirements of those sourced within the EU – a move that could apparently cause trade conflicts.

Martin Engelmann described the PPWR as an “anti-plastics regulation” and condemned the “continued silence” of the European Commission as “unacceptable”. He encouraged the Commission to address trade barriers and concede that 100% reuse quotas are “technically impossible” and “ecologically nonsensical” – and, in his view “tantamount to a ban on many types of packaging.”

As a whole, IK contradicted the viewpoints of other industry players and recommended that all packaging materials to be held to the same set of rules. It reviewed the compromise and encouraged the introduction of “clear” and “legally secure” regulations to prevent a “wave of lawsuits.”

And beyond…

In late April, the European Parliament and Council provisionally agreed upon a series of rules to be introduced to the PPWR. These would still require formal approval from the Council to be entered into force, however.

It was suggested that Member States should be held to packaging reduction targets of 5% by 2030, 10% by 2035, and 15% by 2040, focusing largely on plastic packaging waste. From 1^st January 2030, bans would be implemented for unprocessed fresh fruit and vegetables; foods and beverages filled and consumed in cafés and restaurants; individual portions like condiments, sauces, creamer, and sugar; and miniature toiletry products. Plastic carrier bags below 15 microns would also be ruled out.

Almost all packaging would be held to strict recyclability criteria, with the exceptions of lightweight wood, cork, textile, rubber, ceramic, porcelain, and wax materials. Minimum recycling targets would be enforced in relation to the weight of packaging waste, while minimum recycled content targets would be enforced for plastic packaging.

90% of single-use plastic and metal beverage containers of up to 3L in size were to be collected separately by 2029, using either deposit return systems or another solution.

Similarly, a mandate was raised for beverage and takeaway food distributors to allow consumers to bring their own containers – and, by 2030, offer a 10% discount on products served in reusable packaging. Alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverages (minus milk, wine, aromatized wine, and spirits, among others) would receive their own reuse targets by 2030.

‘Forever chemicals’ – i.e., PFAS – would be ruled out in food packaging above certain thresholds in a move hoped to benefit human health.

When it comes to transit, group packaging and packaging for transport and sales would have to meet their own reuse targets in 2030. Under certain conditions, Member States would be able to grant a five-year derogation from these requirements.

Nevertheless, a maximum 50% ratio for empty packaging space would be enforced for grouped, transport, and e-commerce packaging, while manufacturers and importers alike would be made to minimize their packaging weight and volume.

Cepi responded to the provisional rules by encouraging partnerships between its customers and local authorities to enforce legislation, bolster national recycling systems, and improve collection rates across the continent. Delays could threaten Europe’s chances of meeting the regulation’s deadlines, Cepi warned.

The Association of European Producers of Steel for Packaging (APEAL) took note of the new performance grading system, with its three defined recyclability percentages – A (95%), B (80%), and C (70%) – to be adhered to 2038. It was believed that this system would direct materials towards at-scale recycling, collection, and sorting, while the top two grades would “either stimulate innovation among current poor-performers or remove them from the packaging market”.

APEAL went on to uplift the text’s new design for recycling criteria for all packaging and category-specific performance grades for packaging recyclability, as well as the eco-modulation of fees based on these grades. So-called ‘permanent materials’ like steel were expected to benefit.

Nevertheless, it argued that the text had misidentified steel pails, drums, intermediate bulk containers (IBCs), and canisters as transport packaging, instead classing them as sales packaging.

Secretary general Steve Claus pushed for “clearer clarification of packaging categories and design for recycling criteria”, while Metka Cavka, head of EU Affairs, felt that to implement the new rules post-2030 would be to wait too long – and that the 55% target to recycle waste at scale was “insufficient”.

However, the Alliance for Sustainable Packaging for Foods (ASPF) felt that “serious trade and food safety concerns” were raised by the draft, which it felt would “almost certainly negatively impact global supply chains and food security”.

It opposed bans on single-use packaging options that could preserve the quality, safety, and freshness of perishables for longer – thus contributing to food waste, impacting the availability of healthy foods, and driving manufacturers towards unnecessarily durable plastics.

ASPF also felt that the text gave preferential treatment to recyclability over composting and limited the options available to fresh food manufacturers. With Member States able to approve or deny exemptions of their own volition, it was feared that perishable products would be subject to a “patchwork” of different regulations across Europe and would, in turn, threaten the EU’s single market. It implored further negotiations to take an evidence-based approach.

Further trialogue negotiations will take place between the European Parliament, Council, and Commission in October 2024. It is anticipated that the regulation will be finalized here, with Member States expected to begin transposing the regulations into national law; key provisions are likely to apply from 2025. Appeasing everyone is sure to be a monumental task – as we have seen, opinions differ from sector to sector, company to company, individual to individual.

Yet all Member States will be under increasing pressure as the European Commission begins its infringement procedure, accusing all 27 of falling short of their legally binding collection and recycling targets.

This includes the Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive’s expectation that between 55% and 80% of all packaging waste be recycled by 31^st December 2008 – 60% of glass, paper, and cardboard; 50% of metals; 22.5% of plastics; and 15% of wood. Many of these targets were missed, the Commission reports.

Even so, with the European Union itself having signed the Bridge to Busan Declaration in support of an international, legally binding instrument moderating the production of primary plastic polymers – an effort to overcome the environmental threat of plastic pollution – a clear drive to regulate packaging materials and protect the environment remains.

Creating the appropriate legislation to do so without stifling certain industries has proven to be something of a minefield, but as a whole, the packaging industry has expressed its willingness to work with officials and develop legislation that suits everyone. Here at Packaging Europe, we consider that the most effective way forward.

Of course, we will keep our readers informed as the text develops further, so watch this space.

This report does not constitute legal advice or official regulatory guidance. For a full and specific rundown of how the Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation affects your packaging, please refer to the full text.

If you liked this story, you might also enjoy:

How are the top brands progressing on packaging sustainability?

Sustainable Innovation Report 2024: Current trends and future priorities

Reuse vs. single use – which is better for the environment?

The ultimate guide to global plastic sustainability regulation