The Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation (ESPR) will hard-wire durability and recyclability into product design, while Digital Product Passports (DPPs) enforce transparency on material composition and supply-chain decisions. At the same time, the Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR) links EU market access to proven recyclability-70% by 2030, rising to 80-95% by 2038. Packaging that cannot be sorted, traced, or verified against these thresholds is set to “age badly” as the next regulatory cycle takes hold.
1. Multi-layer flexibles with no credible recycling route
Lightweight PET/Aluminium/PE laminates deliver barrier protection but remain mechanically inseparable, placing them outside PPWR’s definition of recyclability “in practice and at scale.”
Compliance Trigger: Sub-70% recyclability will be restricted from 2030
Under PPWR Annex II, packaging below 70% recyclability performance (Grades D-E) faces restriction from 2030, with full-scale compliance expected by 2035. Most multi-material flexibles cannot meet EU sorting and yield thresholds required for Grades A-C, positioning them for Performance Grade E and prompting mandatory reformulation for continued EU market access.
2. ‘Hero’ refill systems that fail basic ISO reuse thresholds
Durable refill packs-especially stainless steel and thick-wall PP -were championed as circularity icons, yet many fail because real consumer behaviour does not deliver enough returns to offset production impact. Under ESPR, durability alone is insufficient; the packaging must exist within a functioning reuse system, not a marketing narrative. When miles driven, reverse logistics, and cleaning emissions are modelled, low uptake quickly turns “reusable” into a higher carbon alternative to single-use.
Reusable ≠ compliant without a verified rotation system
ISO 18603:2013 requires reuse packaging to demonstrate participation in an established system that proves environmental worthiness. Research indicates break-even points often range 10-50 rotations, depending on weight and material. Under PPWR-aligned green claims rules, reuse that fails its environmental break-even point (e-BEP) risks being categorised as misleading-breaking the new compliance baseline rather than meeting it.
3. Carbon black plastics (NIR-undetectable)
Luxury black SKUs mask imperfections and elevate brand perception, but standard carbon black absorbs NIR light-the core technology used for optical sorting-effectively erasing the item from the recycling system. Despite being technically recyclable, these packs convert into residual waste due to their invisibility in sorting infrastructure.
NIR-invisible plastics undermine DPP traceability and yield
Because the DPP requires disclosure of composition and substances of concern, pigment choices become auditable attributes, not aesthetic decisions. RecyClass guidance states that carbon black without NIR-detectable technology fails Design for Recycling criteria. This downgrades recyclability classification and pushes disposal toward incineration, shrinking material recovery and raising EPR fees.
4. Direct printing and non-washable adhesives on rigid plastics
Digital direct-to-object printing, sleeve adhesives, and full-coverage inks increasingly serve marketing teams-but exact a performance cost during recycling. Ink adherence and adhesive residue degrade polymer clarity and colour, inhibiting closed-loop production of rPET and rHDPE.
Contamination thresholds now shape recyclability grades
To achieve Grade A or B recyclability by 2038, flake purity becomes non-negotiable. APR and RecyClass require wash-off adhesives and ink systems that detach at 65-85°C to prevent yield loss. Designs that ignore these thresholds risk locking packaging out of food-grade loops-undermining circularity claims and supply reliability.
5. Fiber packaging containing PFAS (“forever chemicals”)
PFAS-enabled barriers allowed molded fiber bowls and wraps to compete with plastic for grease resistance - but that advantage becomes a liability as the regulatory tolerance drops toward practical zero. Reformulation is no longer optional; it is required for market continuity.
2026 PFAS restrictions force immediate substitution
Under PPWR Article 5, >25 ppb individual PFAS in food contact packaging is prohibited by 2026. Solutions positioned as “eco” yet reliant on PFAS coatings will require rapid redesign, testing, and requalification-an urgent timeline given that many SKUs already sit inside 18-36-month development cycles.
6. Full-body shrink sleeves made from incompatible polymers
Full-body sleeves maximize branding space-but complicate automatic sorting. Where sleeves are made from PVC or PETG rather than PET, optical misidentification or sink-float separation failure can upcycle an entire bottle straight into downgrading.
Density compatibility determines recyclability - not design intent
RecyClass guidelines penalize sleeves that do not float or sink separately from the primary polymer. PVC contamination, even in small percentages, degrades PET during thermal processing. These formats are increasingly being flagged as incompatible with closed-loop targets, especially under DPP enforcement, where polymer mismatch becomes traceable.
7. Excessive “slack fill” that creates regulated void space
Oversized e-commerce boxes, excessive protective fillers, and packaging with significant empty volume are now being reframed as compliance failures, not branding or unboxing features. Under ESPR logic, the space itself is waste.
PPWR sets a verifiable 50% empty space ceiling
The PPWR introduces a maximum 50% empty space ratio for grouped, transport, and e-commerce packaging. With DPP expected to carry volumetric data, documenting this ratio becomes auditable. Formats that rely on oversized presentation or logistics simplification risk non-compliance and elevated EPR fees.
8. Compostable plastics used outside mandated applications
Industrial compostables such as PLA entered mainstream packaging faster than composting systems did. Without a dedicated bio-waste stream, these materials contaminate the very recycling loops they were meant to complement.
Compostables must be “materially recyclable” in the bio-waste stream
The PPWR restricts compostable plastics to a narrow set of applications (tea bags, fruit stickers, lightweight carrier bags). If infrastructure does not cover a significant portion of the population-meaning composting “at scale”-the format cannot be sold as a recyclable solution and risks market displacement.
9. PVC and PVDC across rigid and flexible formats
PVC and PVDC persist in blister packs, cling films, and shrink labels-yet their chlorine chemistry and melting point variance severely disrupt polymer recycling. Even trace amounts threaten entire rPET batches.
Expected Grade E classification eliminates market viability
With contamination thresholds as low as 50-100 ppm compromising outputs, PVC is widely expected to fall into Performance Grade E under PPWR-reserved for non-recyclable formats. Unless used in tightly controlled closed loops, PVC faces direct removal from general retail ecosystems.
These nine formats reveal where packaging risk now sits-not in aesthetics or consumer preference, but in recyclability performance, traceability, and evidence. As ESPR, DPP and PPWR tighten, packaging strategy becomes a question of data, design thresholds and verifiable end-of-life outcomes.
Q&A session on packaging formats under ESPR & DPP
Which packaging formats are most at risk under ESPR, DPP and PPWR?
Answer: Any format that cannot be sorted, traced or proven ≥70% recyclable by 2030. Multi-layer flexibles, carbon-black plastics, PVC/PVDC and poorly designed refill systems are the fastest to become non-compliant.
Why do compostables and “reusable” systems often fail EU compliance?
Answer: Compostables fail where no bio-waste stream exists, and ESPR only permits them in narrow uses. Reusable packs fail when rotations do not reach the ISO break-even point, making them non-credible under PPWR green-claims rules.
How will DPP change packaging design between 2025 and 2030?
Answer: DPP makes composition, pigments, adhesives, and recyclability performance auditable. Any format that masks true material content or cannot provide verified data (e.g., carbon black plastics, incompatible sleeves) becomes commercially risky.
Conclusion
These nine formats reveal where packaging risk now sits-not in aesthetics or consumer preference, but in recyclability performance, traceability, and evidence. As ESPR, DPP and PPWR tighten, packaging strategy becomes a question of data, design thresholds and verifiable end-of-life outcomes.
See what it takes to build ESPR-ready, DPP-verifiable packaging portfolios in the Tocco Report: Reusable Packaging 2030 - Special Edition.
