Germany’s Emerging Packaging Fee: Industry Pushback on National Measures Going Beyond the EU PPWR

• A broadened system‑participation obligation (more categories of packaging must join a dual system).
• Clarified definitions, including “producer” and “manufacturer,” to align with Article 3 PPWR.
• An updated national packaging register framework (LUCID).

However, it is the proposal to introduce a financial contribution of €5 per ton of packaging that has attracted intense industry criticism.
The draft foresees that producers, producer responsibility organizations, and industry solutions collectively fund measures promoting reusable and refillable packaging, thereby supporting waste‑prevention objectives. This fee would apply separately from existing EPR charges. [plastmatch.com]

This mechanism is not mandated under the PPWR, making it an example of Germany exercising national discretion in ways business groups view as burdensome and potentially distorting the single market.

Industry Critique: National Measures that Threaten Harmonization

The introduction of a per‑ton packaging fee has raised several concerns:

1. Germany Going Beyond Harmonized EU Requirements

Industry associations argue that the new fee risks undermining the foundation of the PPWR—namely, creating a unified set of rules across the EU. The PPWR explicitly aims for consistency across Member States, reducing opportunities for divergent national measures that increase complexity and compliance costs. Key legal analyses emphasize that the PPWR’s shift from a directive to a regulation was precisely intended to prevent such fragmentation. [packaginglaw.com]

2. Uncertainty Ahead of Final EU and German Guidance

German associations representing packaging, waste management, and consumer goods sectors have expressed alarm about the lack of legal clarity at both national and EU levels before the 2026 deadline. They warn that mid‑year implementation will result in overlapping legal regimes and create ambiguities around EPR obligations and cost responsibilities. [paperandwood.com]

3. Financial Implications for Producers

With existing EPR fees already rising due to stricter recyclability rules and increased reporting duties, the proposed €5/ton fee is seen as an additional cost that lacks a clear, measurable link to improved sustainability outcomes. Industry stakeholders stress that Germany is already implementing more ambitious recyclability criteria starting in 2026, which further compounds compliance costs. [packagingpost.com]

The Broader Context: High Compliance Pressure as 2026 Approaches

As Germany introduces stricter national recyclability standards (effective January 2026), businesses are already adapting packaging design to real sorting and recycling practices rather than theoretical recyclability claims. [packagingpost.com]

Combined with the PPWR requirements—including mandatory declarations of conformity, QR‑based digital identification, and minimum recycled content targets—industry stakeholders face a compressed timeline. Consultations indicate Germany’s implementing law will not be finalized until mid‑2026, leaving limited preparation time for companies operating at scale. [verpackung…gister.org]

Several industry alliances have already requested postponing the PPWR’s date of application from 12 August 2026 to 1 January 2027 to avoid structural disruptions in the packaging compliance ecosystem. [paperandwood.com]

Conclusion

Germany’s upcoming implementation of the PPWR is taking shape, but controversy surrounds its decision to introduce a national fee per ton of packaging—a measure that extends beyond the harmonized obligations laid out in the regulation. While the government aims to strengthen reusable and refillable systems, industry voices warn that such measures risk undermining the PPWR’s goal of EU‑wide harmonization.

With the PPWR’s start date approaching rapidly and Germany’s implementing law still under development, affected companies face intense pressure to adapt packaging designs, supply chains, and data systems. As the German draft continues to evolve, dialogue between policymakers and industry will be essential to avoid unintended consequences and preserve both sustainability objectives and the functioning of the EU internal market.