PPWR Simplification Is Proposed, Not Passed: What It Changes — and Doesn't — for Buyers Sourcing Packaging from China
On 20 and 21 October 2026, the two EU legislators each put a proposal on the table to pause one specific obligation in the Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR, Regulation (EU) 2025/40) — the requirement to appoint an authorised representative in another Member State. Headlines have shortened this to “PPWR relief for small producers.” That shorthand is where the misunderstanding starts, especially for buyers sourcing packaging from China.
This article separates the proposal from the law, the Council text from the Parliament text, and — most importantly for importers — the relief that is being discussed from the relief that would actually reach a China import chain.
What is being proposed, exactly
Under Article 45(3) of the PPWR, a producer established in the EU must appoint an authorised representative in each other Member State where it places packaging, or packaged products, on the market. For a small business selling into several countries, that means a representative — and the associated cost and administration — in every destination market, even when volumes are tiny.
The Council’s position, adopted 21 October 2026 as part of the EU’s eighth simplification package (Omnibus VIII), would exempt an EU-established producer from that appointment in another Member State where it places less than one tonne of packaging on the market in a calendar year. The mandate includes a safeguard clause for producers found in breach of their EPR obligations. The Commission would review the duration of the suspension by 31 December 2030, ahead of its scheduled expiry in 2032. A more comprehensive reworking of EPR is expected later, as part of the forthcoming Circular Economy Act.
The Parliament’s text, adopted 20 October 2026, takes a different route to a similar place: it would pause the same obligation for producers established in the Union that are micro or small enterprises, rather than using a per-market tonnage threshold. Its suspension would run until 2035, or until a harmonised EPR framework is in place, whichever comes first.
The two texts therefore do not match — volume threshold versus enterprise size, 2032 versus 2035. The Irish Presidency will now negotiate with Parliament, and the final text could land anywhere between them, or change again. Nothing is law yet. Today, Article 45(3) applies exactly as it is.
Why this does not reach a China import chain
Here is the sentence that matters most in both texts: neither proposal pauses the rule for producers established outside the EU.
For a China import chain, the “producer” for EPR purposes is normally the EU importer — the business that first places the packaging, or the packaged product, on the EU market — not the factory in China that manufactured it. That importer is not a small EU-established producer selling cross-border into another Member State; it is the party bringing goods into the Union in the first place. The proposed exemption is aimed at the former, not the latter.
The same logic applies to the rest of the obligations. The proposal concerns only the appointment of an authorised representative. Other EPR duties — registration, reporting, and fee payment in the market where the packaging is placed — are expressly unaffected. So are the PPWR duties that sit alongside EPR: the declaration of conformity, PFAS restrictions on food-contact packaging, heavy-metals limits, and recyclability requirements. A buyer who reads “simplification” as “deregulation” will get every one of those wrong.
Five things to do — and not do — now
1. Do not deregister anything, and do not pause any representative appointment. Until a final text is published in the Official Journal, with a stated application date, the current obligation stands. Cancelling an appointment early creates a compliance gap, not a saving.
2. Identify the producer of record in your chain, in writing. For each EU destination market, confirm who is the producer: you as importer, your EU customer, or a distributor acting as importer of record. That single answer decides whether any future version of this proposal could ever touch you — and it is also the answer your EPR registration and your supplier contracts need to agree on.
3. Test the tonnage question properly, if you are EU-established. The Council threshold is per destination Member State, per calendar year, and counts packaging placed on that market — not your total EU volume. A business placing 0.8 tonnes in each of five markets is under the threshold in each market under the Council text, but that arithmetic only matters if the Council text survives negotiation, and only for EU-established producers.
4. Keep the rest of your PPWR file intact. The simplification debate changes nothing about the evidence buyers should already hold: supplier declarations, material composition and weights by SKU, and the recyclability and substance information your EPR reporting depends on. If anything, a period of regulatory flux is when auditors ask for cleaner files, not thinner ones.
5. Watch the negotiation, not the headline. The informative milestones are the trilogue outcome, the final threshold or size test, the expiry date, and the application date — not each new press release. When the final text lands, the question to ask is narrow: does it change who must appoint a representative in my markets, from what date, and on what evidence?
The PPWR simplification package is a genuine attempt to cut disproportionate administration for small cross-border sellers. It is not a pause on packaging compliance, and it is not a saving that importers from China can bank today. Buyers who keep their registrations current, name their producer of record clearly, and wait for the final text will lose nothing. Buyers who act on the headline risk the one thing simplification was meant to avoid: an avoidable compliance problem, created by trying to save a cost that was never theirs to save.