IN Brief:
- IFS has launched a PPWR white paper and pilot-tested online conformance self-assessment.
- Companies can map processes, upload supporting evidence, and identify gaps requiring follow-up.
- An optional auditor-led Conformance Check is planned as PPWR requirements continue to phase in.
IFS has launched a PPWR white paper and a pilot-tested conformance self-assessment to help companies organise packaging processes and evidence as the EU Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation begins to apply.
The IFS PPWR Conformance Self-Assessment is the first element of a wider Conformance Solution. Companies complete an online questionnaire in the IFS Database and can upload supporting documents, producing an initial indication of whether relevant processes are in place and where gaps, risks, or follow-up work remain.
IFS plans to add an optional PPWR Conformance Check later. Trained IFS auditors or assessors will be able to carry out the review on site or remotely, either alongside an existing IFS audit or assessment or as a standalone check.
The distinction from certification is important. IFS is not replacing the regulation or creating a new legal approval route; it is providing a structured way to test how internal processes, records, and responsibilities align with PPWR obligations.
Packaging compliance is becoming a process-control issue
Regulation (EU) 2025/40 applies from 12 August 2026, with further requirements introduced through a phased timetable. Existing IN Food coverage of the Commission’s PPWR FAQ sets out the immediate food-contact, recyclability, documentation, and market-placement questions in more detail; the new IFS material approaches the same regulation from the company’s internal control system.
That is a useful distinction for food production because packaging compliance rarely belongs to one department. Procurement may hold supplier declarations, technical teams control specifications, quality functions manage approvals, production teams see machinability, and regulatory staff interpret the legal requirements. Evidence can be complete in one part of the business and still fail to follow the exact pack used on a filling line.
Material substitutions make the problem more obvious. A different coating, adhesive, ink, barrier layer, closure, or recycled polymer can change food-contact status, sealing behaviour, line performance, or recyclability while leaving the visible pack almost unchanged. Change control therefore has to connect regulatory evidence with the manufacturing specification rather than treating packaging documents as a separate compliance archive.
The IFS self-assessment is designed around that process view. Its questionnaire and document-upload function allow a company to test whether responsibilities and supporting evidence are already in place before deciding whether a deeper review is needed. The result is an indication of implementation status, not a declaration that every pack is legally compliant.
Supplier communication is likely to be one of the more difficult parts of that control. Food manufacturers may buy a finished tray or film from one converter even though the structure depends on resins, coatings, adhesives, inks, labels, and additives supplied by several other businesses. A declaration that cannot be traced through those layers leaves the packer with a documentation gap even when the packaging performs perfectly on the line.
Auditability does not remove legal responsibility
The accompanying white paper, From Regulation to Action: Navigating the New Packaging Rules, covers the regulation’s scope, objectives, implementation timeline, key requirements, and the roles assigned to different businesses. For companies already operating IFS systems, the structure is familiar: define responsibility, maintain evidence, test the process, record gaps, and follow corrective work.
That approach can expose weak handovers between manufacturers and packaging suppliers. Technical information may sit across specifications, declarations, test reports, artwork records, bills of materials, purchasing systems, and supplier portals. When authorities or customers ask how a finished pack was assessed, the business has to connect those records to the precise structure placed on the market.
The planned auditor-led check adds independent scrutiny, but IFS has not presented it as a substitute for enforcement or legal interpretation. Businesses will still have to monitor implementing measures, understand which PPWR duties apply to their role, and keep evidence current as specifications and suppliers change.
The phased timetable makes that continuing control more important. A process that is adequate when the first requirements apply in August 2026 may need to change again as later labelling, reuse, recyclability, and other measures take effect. A one-off assessment completed at launch would therefore have limited value if it is not tied to normal packaging change control.
IFS says further information will follow as the Conformance Solution develops from its pilot phase. The immediate offer is less dramatic than a new material or packing line, but it addresses a problem that can stop both: proving that packaging decisions, documents, suppliers, and production specifications still align as regulation changes.
