About these results

Why these results matter

In May/June 2026, Simvia surveyed 276 professionals across the EU food and beverage supply chain to understand their current state of readiness for the Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR). Respondents were drawn from a broad range of company sizes and roles, with a deliberate focus on the people and organisations most directly in scope for the August 2026 deadline. 22 pages covering every finding, stat, and gap. 👉 Free to download

The dominance of Quality Assurance professionals is significant: it reflects where PPWR obligations are landing in practice. These are the people responsible for chasing declarations of conformity from suppliers, maintaining packaging documentation, and ensuring traceable compliance records, tasks that have expanded considerably under PPWR. Their responses carry weight precisely because they are closest to the day-to-day compliance workload. Its important to note the “other” category (13%) captures roles such as procurement, operations and gene-ral management. This signals that PPWR is beginning to pull in functions beyond the traditional quality and sustainability teams.

Equally significant is the portfolio exposure. With 72% of respondents reporting that the half or more of their pro-ducts fall within scope, and 44% reporting that their entire portfolio is affected. This is not a group testing the edges of PPWR, it is the mainstream of the industry dealing with a regulation that touches almost everything they produce. The dominance of mid-sized companies (100-500 emplo-yees, 52%) is also telling. These business face the same obligations as large enterprises, but typically without dedicated regulatory teams to absorb the workload.

Executive Summary

Companies are working hard, but confidence is low and time is running out.

Across 276 companies surveyed, a clear picture emerges: PPWR preparation has begun, but it is not yet under control. The vast majority of respondents have started collecting packaging data and requesting declarations of conformity from suppliers, but most describe this as a work in progress, with significant gaps remaining in supplier engagement, internal resource allocation, and understanding of what exactly is required.

Confidence levels tell the clearest story. On average, respondents rate their readiness at just 35%, and with the deadline less than two months away, this number has profound implications for supply chains across the EU. Critically, not a single respondent was able to provide a meaningful estimate of what PPWR compliance will cost them. The answer was universally some variant of 'unknown.'

Four themes run through the data consistently:

• Data collection is the primary battleground - Most companies are spending their PPWR time here, but supplier cooperation remains patchy and slow.

• Ownership is still being resolved - PPWR obligations sit most often within Quality Assurance. This is a challenge because Quality often lacks packaging-specific knowledge, but cross-functional clarity is lacking in many organisations.

• External support is being sought - A significant number of companies are engaging consultants, industry associations, and specialist tools to fill knowledge and capacity gaps.

• The deadline is not the finish line - PPWR is an ongoing compliance obligation, and companies that treat August 2026 as a one-time event risk being caught unprepared for the next phase.

How does your organisation compare?  👉 Download the survey →

Finding 01 | No company is fully prepared and the deadline is weeks away

The majority are actively working on PPWR compliance, but 'work in progress' masks significant variation in pace and depth. 

When asked to describe their PPWR readiness, no respondent described themselves as fully prepared. The responses split across three broad stages: 

The good news is that the majority are moving. The challenge is that 'work in progress' means very different things across organisations. For some, it means a structured project with cross-functional ownership and a supplier data programme. For others, it means an individual in QA sending emails to packaging suppliers and compiling responses in Excel.

When respondents were asked what they are specifically doing, the picture becomes clearer.

The most common first steps are:

• Requesting Declarations of Conformity (DoC) and PFAS-free declarations from packaging suppliers.

• Mapping product portfolios to identify which packaging formats fall within scope.

• Attending webinars and industry association sessions to understand the regulation.

• Building internal spreadsheets and ERP entries to track packaging component data.

These are the right foundational steps. But they reveal that most companies are still in the information-gathering phase, not yet in a position to feel confident in their PPWR compliance at scale. With a portfolio of hundreds or thousands of SKUs, the gap between 'we've sent requests to suppliers' and 'we have documented, auditable compliance' can be substantial.

Why this matters

The foundational work of mapping packaging data and establishing supplier data flows is not optional groundwork, it is the foundation of the compliance process itself. Companies that have not completed this mapping have no reliable way of knowing which obligations apply to them, which products are at risk, or what documentation an auditor would expect to see. Starting here is great. Staying here without a path to scale is a big risk.

This is just one of six findings. 👉 Free download and get the full picture

Finding 02 | One team, many obligations: PPWR can’t be a QA-only task

Compliance obligations are falling primarily on QA teams, often without the cross-functional support the regulation demands.

PPWR is a regulation that touches packaging design, sourcing, manufacturing, sustainability reporting, and legal documentation. Yet in the majority of companies surveyed, responsibility sits primarily, and in many cases exclusively, within Quality Assurance.

The concentration of PPWR responsibility within QA is understandable, these teams are accustomed to managing supplier documentation and regulatory compliance. But PPWR introduces requirements that extend well beyond traditional QA scope: packaging layer compliance data, packaging design changes, extended producer responsi-bility (EPR) obligations, and supply chain traceability that reaches back to raw material suppliers.

The more mature structures emerging in the survey involve genuinely cross-functional approaches. Several companies are building dedicated PPWR working groups that span QA, sustainability, purchasing, production, and even finance, recognising that the cost and reporting dimensions of PPWR cannot be handled by QA alone.

One respondent's situation illustrates the risk of under-resourcing: with PPWR responsibility sitting solely within QA and purchasing only providing support for data requests, the team is relying on an intermediary packaging supplier who 'lacks the specialised knowledge regarding packaging materials that would be truly supportive.' This is not an unusual situation in the current market, but it is a precarious one.

Recommendation

PPWR compliance requires a cross-functional owner, not just a cross-functional awareness. The most effective structures give a named individual accountability for the overall programme, with defined collaboration with sustainability (EPR and recyclability reporting), purchasing (supplier data requests), and legal (obligation mapping). QA can own the documentation and audit readiness, but they need upstream support to do it effectively.

Finding 03 | Zero suppliers are fully engaged and companies can’t solve this alone

Most suppliers are only partially engaged, and a significant minority haven't started at all.

Under the PPWR, the obligation to provide accurate packaging data does not end at the company's own factory. For brand owners and retailers, a significant portion of the required documentation like declarations of conformity, material composition data, PFAS declarations, recyclability information, must be sourced from packaging suppliers. Which makes supplier readiness not just relevant, but critical.

The survey results on this are among the most concerning in the dataset:

Not a single respondent reported that their suppliers were fully engaged in PPWR preparation, with just 2 respondents reported supplier proactively sharing compliance data. This is striking. In many cases, the companies themselves are ahead of their suppliers, which creates a bottleneck that no amount of internal effort can resolve.

The practical consequence is visible in responses about confidence levels. Respondents who cited supplier data gaps as a key reason for low confidence were numerous:

When asked to name their single biggest obstacle in collecting packaging data from suppliers, responses fell into four categories:

Why this matters

Supplier engagement is not just a data collection challenge. A company can have exemplary internal processes and still be non-compliant if its packaging suppliers cannot or will not provide the required documentation. Companies should escalate supplier PPWR requests through procurement and commercial relationships, not just QA email chains. Where suppliers are consistently unresponsive, that is itself a material compliance risk that should be escalated internally.

Finding 04 | 4 extra hours per person per week and most are still relying on spreadsheets

The compliance burden is real, measurable, and growing. Most companies are seeking outside help.

PPWR compliance is a concrete addition to the working week. Respondents were asked to estimate the time their teams are spending on PPWR-related tasks each week, above and beyond business as usual:

With the majority of respondents falling between 1-3 and 4-8 hours per week range, and this figure likely to increase as the August deadline approaches, the resource implications are significant. For the majority of companies surveyed, a QA team of two or three people already managing day-to-day supplier quality programmes, PPWR is adding the equivalent of half a working day per week, per person.

In response to this pressure, many companies are turning to external support. The tools and support channels being used span a wide spectrum:

The 'other' category is revealing: several respondents described being in the process of evaluating tools, attending multiple webinars simultaneously, combining consultant input with internal spreadsheets, and using general AI tools like Microsoft CoPilot for research. This is not a picture of companies with a managed PPWR toolset, it is a picture of companies improvising under time pressure.

Several respondents noted a desire for a tool that could handle not just PPWR, but broader EU packaging and sustainability regulations, recognising that PPWR is unlikely to be the last regulation in this space. The appetite for integrated, future-proof compliance infrastructure is there. The capacity to evaluate and implement it, in the current sprint to the deadline, is stretched.

The hidden cost

The hours being spent on PPWR today are largely unstructured with manual data requests, spreadsheet compilation, email chains with suppliers. This approach may get companies to August 2026, but it will not scale. Every hour spent on manual data management is an hour not spent on the next compliance cycle, which begins the moment the first deadline passes.

👉 Download and share with your colleagues

Finding 05 | Even the largest companies are scoring 1% on compliance confidence 

An average confidence score of 27% two months before the deadline signals something more than normal pre-deadline nerves.

Respondents were asked: if you were audited right now, how confident are you that you would be PPWR-compliant? The results are unambiguous:

Company size is no protection here. The lowest confidence score of just 1% came from one of the largest companies in the survey, with over 1,000 employees. The highest score (90%) came from a company whose suppliers has been engaged from the outset and had been proactively sharing compliance data. This is a rare position, and exactly the kind of supplier relationship the rest of the industry is trying to build.

Proceed with caution

A common assumption is that PPWR compliance is the supplier's problem. It isn't. The regulation is explicit: the manufacturer, the actor who places packaged goods on the EU market under their own name or trademark holds sole legal responsibility for conformity. Suppliers must provide the data and documentation you need, but they cannot take on your liability. If your packaging is found non-compliant, the enforcement action lands with you.

When respondents explained their confidence scores, three themes emerged consistently:

1. Regulatory ambiguity

Multiple respondents cited uncertainty about what the regulation actually requires of their specific business type. Traders, retailers, and intermediaries in particular expressed confusion about their obligations, a confusion that is grounded in genuine regulatory complexity.

2. Supplier data gaps

As noted in Finding 3, the dependency on suppliers for key compliance documents creates a structural vulnerability that internal effort cannot resolve.

The dependency on suppliers for key compliance documents creates a structural vulnerability that internal effort cannot resolve:

These aren't edge cases. They are the core documentation required for a valid Declaration of Conformity, and without them, confidence in compliance has nowhere to go but down.

3. Time and personnel constraints

The resource pressure created by PPWR is being felt acutely. Several respondents cited lack of time and staffing as direct reasons for low confidence, not unwillingness to comply, but a genuine capacity constraint.

Important context

Low confidence at this stage does not necessarily mean non-compliance by August. Companies are aware of the deadline, they are working toward it, and many will get there. The concern is also going to be what happens after August. PPWR is not a one-time exercise. The data infrastructure, supplier relationships, and documentation processes required for initial compliance will need to be maintained and expanded as new obligations come into force. Companies that sprint to the line without building durable systems will find themselves in the same position again and again.

Finding 06 | 100% of companies don't know what PPWR will cost them

100% of respondents could not provide a meaningful cost estimate. This is not indifference; it is reflecting companies’ confusion about what part of the regulation applies to them as well as the EPR fee structure.

Perhaps the most striking single finding in the survey is this: not one respondent was able to provide a meaningful estimate of what PPWR compliance will cost their business. Every response to the cost question from companies of all sizes, in all sectors, at all stages of readiness amounted to some version of 'unknown.'

The inability to estimate costs is not simply a failure of financial planning. It reflects something more fundamental: without a complete picture of which products require which packaging changes, which suppliers need to provide what documentation, and which EPR fees will apply in which markets, cost estimation is structurally impossible.

The costs of PPWR compliance are real and varied. They can include direct costs of new packaging materials to meet recyclability or reuse requirements; EPR registration and fee payments across multiple EU member states; internal staff time for data collection, documentation, and audit preparation; external consultant and legal fees for obligation interpretation; and technology investment for compliance management systems.

The cost of not knowing

Entering a regulatory cycle without a cost model creates risk on multiple fronts: budget shortfalls mid-programme, inability to make informed sourcing decisions, and exposure to EPR fees that have not been provisioned for. As compliance data becomes available, typically through the supplier documentation process building a running cost model in parallel is not optional.

Conclusion: August is the beginning, not the end

The companies that responded to this survey are not complacent. They are spending time, money, and significant organisational energy on PPWR preparation. They are right to be. The regulation is real, the deadline is real, and the consequences of non-compliance, packaging recalls, EPR fee surcharges, reputational risk with retail partners are real.

But the data tells a story about structural readiness, not just activity. Activity without infrastructure does not scale. Manual processes that work for 50 SKUs break at 500. Supplier email chains that feel manageable in May become unworkable in an audit in October. The question for every company in this survey is not only whether they will do enough to reach August 12th it is whether what they build to get there will still be working in 2027.

The two futures for companies completing this sprint are starkly different:

The good news is that the gap between these pathways is not as wide as it might appear. Many of the companies surveyed already doing the right foundational work, mapping their portfolios, engaging suppliers systematically, building cross-functional teams. They are laying the groundwork for Pathway B, even if they don't feel confident yet. The data they are collecting now is the asset that will power everything that comes after.

The priority, in the weeks and months ahead, is to turn that data into a durable system, one that makes compliance visible, auditable, and continuously maintained, rather than a project that gets repeated from scratch every time a new obligation lands.

PPWR does not end on August 12th. It is just beginning. The full report is free to download.

Appendix: Survey Methodology

This report is based on a survey of 276 professionals across the EU food and beverage supply chain, conducted in May & June 2026.

All responses have been anonymised. Where direct quotes are used, they have been lightly edited for clarity and translated where necessary, while preserving the respondent's original meaning. No individual, company, or email address is identified in this report.