Top Compliance Questions From Our European Roundtables – Answered by Regulatory Experts

This blog was originally posted on 7th April, 2026. Further regulatory developments may have occurred after publication. To keep up-to-date with the latest compliance news, sign up to our newsletter.

AUTHORED BY ANI NOZADZE, SENIOR REGULATORY COMPLIANCE SPECIALIST & TEAM LEAD, COMPLIANCE & RISKS

Key Insight

Our team recently presented at a series of regulatory compliance roundtables across Europe, which brought together professionals from manufacturing, consulting and legal sectors. Discussions centered on several critical areas where industry leaders are struggling to navigate the regulatory landscape and/or interpret complex, often interconnected requirements. Below are some questions that were raised during the conversations and were answered by Compliance & Risks Subject Matter Experts (SMEs).

Table of Contents

• EU Right to Repair Directive
• EU Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation (EU ESPR)
• Greenwashing/Green Claims – EU Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition Directive (EMCO Directive)
• EU Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (EU PPWR)
• Other Miscellaneous Questions

EU Right to Repair Directive

How Far Does the Responsibility of a Manufacturer Extend When Repairs Are Carried Out by Third-Party Repairers or Service Partners?

The Right to Repair Directive opens up the market to third party repairers and also specifically prohibits manufacturers refusing repair solely based on the reason that a third party has already repaired it. The manufacturer will still be responsible for the compliance of the product with safety law. It does not remove the manufacturer’s responsibility if the product is repaired by a third party. 

What Is Considered “Reasonable Time” Under the Right to Repair Directive? Is It Reasonable to Wait for 3 Weeks for a Washing Machine to Be Repaired?

A common-sense approach should be taken on this. The manufacturer must consider what would reasonably deter a consumer from choosing repair over replacement of a product.  While there is no fixed time limit, manufacturers should determine a reasonable period by considering how long a consumer could be expected to manage without the specific product before replacement becomes necessary.

When Trying to Implement the Right to Repair Directive, What Does It Mean for the Consumer? Are They Expected to Keep Receipts? Does This Only Affect Bigger Electronic Items?

There are two parts to the Right to Repair Directive. 

The first part is an amendment to the EU Sale of Goods Directive which will result in an extension of the legal guarantee by 12 months for consumers that choose repair over replacement of the product. Most consumer goods have a legal guarantee of two years, so this would mean an extension of the guarantee to three years. This applies to all consumer goods that fall under the Sale of Goods Directive and bought after 31 July 2026. 

The second part relates only to certain products that are listed in Annex II and for these products the manufacturer is under the obligation to offer a repair (if requested) on reasonable terms even beyond the legal guarantee period. Reasonable terms means within a reasonable time and for a reasonable price. So, for products such as TVs or dishwashers, there is an obligation to repair a product for 5-10 years after purchase (depending on the type of product). 

Are Textile and Footwear Products in Scope of the Guarantee Period Requirements That Apply to Consumer Goods?

Products covered by the guarantee period under the EU Sales of Goods Directive include any tangible movable item. Therefore, textiles and footwear would fall within this definition and would be covered by the Directive’s guarantee period requirements.

The obligation to repair outside of the guarantee period, as indicated in the Right to Repair Directive would apply to goods listed in Annex II of the Directive, which does not currently cover textiles and footwear.

EU Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation (EU ESPR)

How Will Digital Product Passports (DPPs) Be Implemented in Practice for Rebranded Products, and Who Is Responsible for Maintaining the Data?

For goods that are manufactured by one company and then sold under a different brand, the DPP responsibility remains with the party that places the product on the market (in accordance with the principles of EU law). “Placing on the market” means making the product available on the EU market for the first time.

What Is the Difference Between the Two New ESPR Implementing Regulations?

In February, two implementing regulations were approved: 

• Regulation on the Details and Format for the Disclosure of Information on Discarded Unsold Consumer Products, and
• Regulation on Exemptions to Prohibiting the Destruction of Unsold Textiles and Footwear

These are two distinct regulations with different requirements. The disclosure requirement applies to unsold consumer products, whereas the ban on destruction only applies to textiles and footwear. 

More details on these two regulations can be found in this blog post.

Does the Disclosure on Unsold Goods Requirement Only Apply to Textiles?

No. The disclosure requirement applies to unsold consumer products. This disclosure covers goods sent for recycling and reuse based on the waste hierarchy. A separate requirement on the ban on destruction applies to textiles.

With Regard to One of the Exceptions to the Ban on Destruction of Waste, Textiles Which Is Declaring Them as “Charity Goods”, Could This Be Abused to Send Goods to Third Countries as “Charity”? What Process or Documentation Do Companies Need to Adhere to to Prove Charitable Nature?

One of derogations from the ban on destruction of unsold consumer products – as set out in Article 2 of the supplementing Regulation approved in February 2026 – is that “the product was offered for donation either directly to at least three suitable social economy entities located within the Union or on an easily accessible page of the website of the economic operator, for a period of at least eight weeks, and the product has not been accepted for donation”.

Another derogation applies when “the product was received by a social economy entity located within the Union as a donation, but no recipient could be found for it”.

Economic operators must keep documentation proving the exemption for a period of five years after the destruction of the product. In particular, for the two exemptions mentioned above respectively:

• Evidence of the offer for donation;
• A declaration attesting that the product was received as a donation and that no recipient could be found for it.

Based on the above, products cannot be destroyed unless there is a legitimate reason that falls into one of the exemptions set out in Article 2. Exporting the goods outside the EU without any legitimate reason would not comply with this requirement.

Does the Ban on Destruction of Unsold Goods Extend to Existing Textiles Stock?

Yes. Destruction is banned for existing stock as well, unless a derogation applies. 

Derogations are set out in a supplementing Regulation which was adopted in February 2026, and include, but are not limited to the following circumstances: 

• The product is a dangerous product within the meaning of General Product Safety Regulation (EU) 2023/988; 
• The product is unfit for purpose by reason that it is non-compliant with EU or Member State law, and destruction is required by law or is the appropriate and proportionate corrective action;
• The product is unsuitable for preparing for reuse or remanufacturing because it is technically unfeasible either to remove or render permanently inaccessible labels, logos or recognisable product design or other characteristics that are: (i) protected by intellectual property rights; or (ii) considered inappropriate;
• The product is unfit for the purpose for which it was intended due to design or manufacturing defects for which repair is not technically feasible;
• The product was received by a social economy entity located within the Union as a donation, but no recipient could be found for it; 
• The product was made available on the market after being prepared for reuse by a waste treatment operator, but no recipient could be found for it. 

Does the Obligation for an External Service Hosting the DPP Under the EU ESPR Mean This Cannot Be Done Within the Company?

​​Yes. The requirement is that it needs to be a separate, third party. The reason is that in case a company goes bankrupt, there will still be a record of the Digital Product Passport.

How Do You Calculate the Carbon Footprint of a Product for the Digital Product Passport?

There is a draft implementing regulation on the methodology to calculate the Digital Battery Passport. This sets out the methodology for calculating carbon footprint for electric vehicles batteries only and it is still a draft. At the moment, a regulation to calculate carbon footprint has not been published under the EU ESPR. Following the CIRPASS2 project is recommended.

Are the ESPR Horizontal Measures Applicable to All Product Categories or Only Electronics?

Horizontal requirements are not limited to electronics. In principle, they can be established for two or more product groups that share certain characteristics. However, according to the 2025-2030 ESPR Working Plan, the only horizontal delegated acts currently envisaged concern electronics.

Greenwashing/Green Claims – EU Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition Directive (EMCO Directive)

The EMCO Directive Will Apply From 27 September 2026, Including for Existing Products. What Are Companies Whose Products Are Already on the Market Supposed to Do?

The EU Commission published a Frequently Asked Questions Document in November 2025, in which it clarifies that traders are allowed to cover or correct claims by using stickers or adding supplementary information at the point of sale.

Under the EMCO Directive, Can Using the Green Colour for Some Text Be Considered as a Green Claim?

According to the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive Guidance “the imagery and overall product presentation (i.e. layout, choice of colours, images, pictures, sounds, symbols or labels), should be a truthful and accurate representation of the scale of the environmental benefit, and should not overstate the benefit achieved. Implicit claims may, depending on the circumstances of the case, include the use of images (e.g. trees, rainforests, water, animals) and colours (e.g. blue or green backgrounds or text) that are associated with environmental sustainability.” As further explained in the FAQ Document on the EMCO Directive, “implicit claims (colours or images) on their own, without written or spoken text, cannot be considered generic environmental claims. However, claims made in written form or orally combined with implicit claims could constitute a generic environmental claim.”

EU Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (EU PPWR)

Is It Correct That the PPWR Does Not Require Online Marketplaces Outside the EU to Appoint an Authorized Representative?

No. The EU’s recent omnibus package proposes suspending the requirement for EU based packaging producers to appoint an authorised representative in every EU Member State until 1 January 2035. It does not change the rules for non EU-based producers.

The PPWR also references the need to ensure that online platforms do not become “free-riders” with regards to EPR obligations, however, efforts to mitigate this are yet to be released – i.e., the producer register is not yet finalised. Further information on these measures is expected via an upcoming guidance document that the Commission is due to issue.

Both the PPWR and Packaging Directive 2018/852 (Which Is Replaced by the PPWR) Have Similar Scope and Objectives. Will PPWR Increase the Percentage of Recycled Package Content and Other Targets? Also, Are All Targets up to Each Member State to Define?

You can refer to our whitepaper that clarifies all obligations relating to recycling, recovery, and minimum recycled content targets, along with corresponding compliance deadlines provided in the PPWR. 

As the PPWR is a Regulation rather than a Directive, Member States must meet the targets it sets out directly. Since some Member States already had higher targets than those required by the previous Directive, the new PPWR targets represent an increase for some countries, but not all. Lastly, Member States can still set higher targets than those established by the Regulation.

There Is No Clear Definition of Contact-Sensitive Packaging Under the PPWR. It Refers to Packaging Used for Any Product That Falls Under the Regulated Scopes of the Referred Legislation, Such as Medical Device/IVD. But Does “Contact-Sensitive” Apply to the Entire Medical Device/IVD Category by Default? Where Does the Border Lie?

The PPWR provides exemptions for packaging immediately in contact with a medicinal product, contact‑sensitive packaging for medical/in vitro diagnostic devices, and outer packaging where it is necessary to maintain the specific quality requirements of the medicinal product. Indeed, the text does not provide a specific definition of contact-sensitive packaging, but based on the general context of the exemptions, it can be interpreted as packaging that comes into direct contact with the product it contains (in this case, a medical device/product). 

Grouped  or transport packaging, such as retail cartons, multipacks, or shipping boxes, would generally not be considered as contact-sensitive unless they are in direct contact with the device/product or perform a safety-critical function. Therefore, such packaging would not be exempt and must comply with all applicable PPWR requirements. 

As mentioned, the text of the PPWR does not provide much more context on these exemptions, so it is difficult to provide the parameters on what exactly contact-sensitive packaging is. However, the EU Commission’s official guidance document on the PPWR might provide some clarification on this matter.

With Regard to the Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) Requirement, PPWR States That by 12 February 2027, Packaging Included in an EPR Scheme May Be Identified Throughout the Territory of the Member States in Which That Scheme or System Applies. What Are the Best Ways to Add Packaging EPR Registration Number to the Actual Packaging for Retailers in the Non-Packaging Domain?

At present, it is advisable to wait for further supplementary legislation and the forthcoming official PPWR guidance document in order to determine best practice with regards to adding the packaging EPR registration number to the actual packaging for retailers in the non-packaging domain. In the meantime, you could seek guidance from the Producer Responsibility Organizations in the particular EU member state(s) where you sell your products (e.g., Citeo in France, Duales System in Germany). 

Other Miscellaneous Questions

How Will Authorities Assess Compliance With the EU Forced Labour Regulation in Practice?

Competent authorities must adopt a risk-based approach, relying on relevant, factual, and verifiable information. During investigations, they may request companies to provide any information or details on actions taken to identify, prevent, and address forced labour risks in their operations and supply chains.

Regarding customs controls, authorities must conduct checks based on risk management principles, taking into account decisions made by competent authorities. Nonetheless, the EU Commission may also adopt delegated acts specifying the exact product information companies must provide to customs authorities. This information may include product descriptions and identification details such as brand, type, reference, model, or batch/serial number, etc., contained on the the product, packaging, product documentation, or in the digital product passport.

Companies may also be required to provide details about the manufacturer/producer and product suppliers such as name, trade name, registered trademark, contact details, unique identification number in the country of establishment, as well as, where applicable, their Economic Operators Registration and Identification number. 

Guidance documents for economic operators, competent authorities and customs authorities will clarify specific details regarding the practical implementation of the Regulation. These are expected to be published by 14 June 2026.

How Will the Amendment to the Waste Framework Directive Regarding Textiles EPR Affect the Existing Take-Back Schemes That Some Companies Operate?

The new textiles EPR Directive does not allow producers to run their own producer responsibility scheme. The EPR obligations are exercised collectively through producer responsibility organizations (PROs) and producers must entrust a PRO to fulfill their obligations on their behalf. The PRO will take care of the producer’s EPR obligations, including the collection of textile waste. Therefore, self-compliance through individual take-back schemes is no longer allowed.

Directive (EU) 2025/2456 Which Simplifies Regulatory Procedures Under RoHS From August 2027, Is It Any Renewal Application After That Date That Needs to Be Made to ECHA, or Is It Linked to the Exemption Deadline?

Any application for an exemption – whether it is for a new exemption or a renewal of an existing exemption – that is made on or after 27 August 2027 must be submitted to ECHA.

This means that for any exemption application (for a new exemption or a renewal) submitted before 27 August 2027, the Commission leads the process.

For applications submitted on or after that date, ECHA takes over the technical evaluation.

When a Product Can Be Considered Both a Toy and a Textile Article, When Will the Digital Product Passport (DPP) Requirement Apply?

Classification will depend primarily on the intended use and marketing of the product. For example, if a costume is designed or marketed for play purposes (for example, role-play costumes intended for children under 14 years), it is likely to fall within the scope of the Toy Safety Regulation and therefore the Toy DPP requirement would apply from 1 August 2030.

Where a costume is primarily a clothing item without play value, it may fall within the textiles framework, in which case the ESPR textile DPP timeline would apply (likely 2028–2029, subject to confirmation). 

In situations where a product could reasonably fall within both categories, a careful scope assessment is required. If the product meets the definition of a toy, the Toy Safety Regulation will apply irrespective of it also being a textile article. In such cases, businesses should prepare for compliance with the toy DPP deadline of August 2030, while also monitoring the textile delegated act to determine whether parallel obligations arise on an earlier timeline.

Stay Ahead Of Regulatory Changes

Want to stay ahead of the latest regulatory developments?

Accelerate your ability to achieve, maintain & expand market access for all products in global markets with C2P, your key to unlocking market access, trusted by more than 300 of the world’s leading brands. C2P is an enterprise SaaS platform providing everything you need in one place to achieve your business objectives by proving compliance in over 195 countries.

C2P is purpose-built to be tailored to your specific needs with comprehensive capabilities that enable enterprise-wide management of regulations, standards, requirements and evidence.
Add-on packages help accelerate market access through use-case-specific solutions, global regulatory content, a global team of subject matter experts and professional services.

• Accelerate time-to-market for products
• Reduce non-compliance risks that impact your ability to meet business goals and cause reputational damage
• Enable business continuity by digitizing your compliance process and building corporate memory
• Improve efficiency and enable your team to focus on business critical initiatives rather than manual tasks
• Save time with access to Compliance & Risks’ extensive Knowledge Partner network

Simplify Corporate Sustainability Compliance

Six months of research, done in 60 seconds. Cut through ESG chaos and act with clarity. Try C&R Sustainability Free.

START TRIAL