IN Brief:
- Food, beverage, and agricultural associations have asked ZSVR to clarify producer responsibility for own-brand packaging under PPWR.
- The dispute centres on whether retailers or suppliers carry producer obligations when retailers control own-brand packaging design.
- The outcome could shape EPR cost allocation, packaging data flows, and private-label supplier negotiations.
ZSVR has been asked by German food, beverage, and agricultural associations to clarify how producer responsibility should apply to own-brand packaging under the EU Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation.
The joint request focuses on the legal and operational position of suppliers producing private-label products for food retailers. The associations are seeking a coordinated interpretation of who is responsible for producer obligations where a retailer has products manufactured by third parties under its own brand, particularly when the retailer controls the design and nature of the packaging.
Under the interpretation previously set out by the Central Agency Packaging Register and confirmed at European level, responsibility for own-brand packaging generally lies with the retail company when it develops or has products manufactured under its own brand. The associations are concerned that some food retailers are assigning producer status to suppliers even where those suppliers have little or no influence over packaging design.
The issue has direct financial significance because producer responsibility under PPWR is linked to the financing of packaging collection, sorting, and recycling systems. When responsibility is unclear, costs can be pushed through supply chains unevenly, documentation can be duplicated or missed, and companies can face conflicting assumptions about who must register, report, and pay.
Private-label food production is especially exposed to that uncertainty. Many manufacturers produce retailer-branded products against customer specifications, artwork, pack formats, and approved materials. In some cases the supplier may source or fill the packaging; in others, the retailer may dictate the packaging concept and control the claims, branding, and design requirements. The commercial contract does not always map neatly onto the regulatory definition of producer.
As PPWR implementation approaches, those gaps become operational risks. Food manufacturers need packaging data on material type, weight, recyclability, recycled content, and market placement. Retailers need the same information for own-brand compliance. If both sides assume the other is responsible, reporting gaps can appear; if both report the same packaging incorrectly, cost allocation and system participation can become distorted.
Retail pressure around PPWR transition planning has already highlighted the difficulty of managing stock, declarations of conformity, PFAS restrictions, and packaging already in circulation before August 2026. The own-brand responsibility question adds a sharper commercial edge, because it affects who pays, who reports, and who carries the compliance burden.
The request also reflects a wider change in the relationship between food manufacturers and retailers. Private-label production has grown in importance as shoppers trade between branded and own-label ranges, while retailers demand more control over price, format, sustainability claims, and packaging. The manufacturer may operate the production line and manage quality systems, but the retailer often controls much of the consumer-facing pack identity.
That split carries weight under PPWR because packaging compliance is no longer a narrow waste-management exercise. It connects to design decisions, technical documentation, recyclability assessment, label information, material restrictions, and end-of-life financing. Companies need to know which party has authority to change the pack and which party has responsibility to account for it.
The dispute is unlikely to remain a German concern. Food manufacturers supplying retailers across several EU markets will face different national systems and enforcement cultures, even under a directly applicable EU regulation. A clear interpretation in Germany would help set expectations, although cross-border suppliers may still need to manage market-specific reporting, contracts, and authorised representative arrangements.
Supplier agreements will need to become more precise. Packaging specifications should identify who owns the design decision, who holds technical documentation, who reports packaging volumes, who pays EPR costs, and how changes are approved. Without that clarity, PPWR could turn packaging compliance into another pressure point in already tight private-label negotiations.
The request to ZSVR brings the commercial reality of packaging regulation into view. Recyclability targets and waste reduction rules may be set at EU level, but the operating consequences sit between retailers, manufacturers, converters, and compliance schemes. Own-brand packaging is where those responsibilities most easily collide.
