The PPWR grades a pack by how much of it recycles, and the fee link waits for a second Commission act

What Article 6 actually says

Article 6 has twelve paragraphs, and the grades sit in the middle of them. The first two set the duty and its test. Article 6(1) states: “All packaging placed on the market shall be recyclable.” Article 6(2) then defines recyclable through two conditions: (a) the pack is designed for material recycling, so that the resulting secondary raw materials are of sufficient quality compared with the original material, and (b) when it becomes waste it can be collected separately under Article 48 and is recycled at scale, under the methodology set in paragraph 5 (Commission Notice C/2026/3084, section 6, quoting the article).

The Commission’s guidance then explains why the duty already applies while the test does not. In its words, Article 6(1) has no specific deadline of its own, “which means that it applies from 12 August 2026”. Until the design test starts, manufacturers comply only with the requirements of the old Packaging Directive and its harmonised standards, and they do not need to run the Article 38 conformity assessment for recyclability until the Article 6(4) delegated acts enter into force (Notice, section 6). SPI’s rule analysis for PR-EU-010 names EN 13430:2004 as the reference standard in that interim.

Paragraphs 3 to 12 build the machinery (Exhibit 2). The text SPI read for those paragraphs is the German version of the Regulation as reproduced by LX Gesetze, because the EUR-Lex HTML and PDF routes for Regulation (EU) 2025/40 stop at the recitals; the points below are SPI’s reading of that reproduction and have not yet been confirmed against the Official Journal.

Two of those paragraphs change how a packaging team should plan. Paragraph 9 says components that are integrated into the pack are assessed with it, except those that could separate during transport or sorting, and that separate components are assessed on their own; every component must be compatible with established collection, sorting and recycling processes and must not impair the recyclability of the main body. A closure, sleeve or label is therefore part of the grade, which is why the tracker links PR-EU-010 to the tethered caps rule PR-EU-015. Paragraph 4 gives operators three years to comply when the Commission later amends the criteria, so the first set of criteria is unlikely to be the last.

The grade thresholds in Annex II Table 3

Annex II turns the words of Article 6 into numbers. Its Table 3 expresses each grade as the share of a packaging unit that meets the design-for-recycling criteria after weighting, and the Verpact glossary, which explains PPWR terms for Dutch producers, reads the same table as setting the grade C line at 70%.

Three features of the table matter more than the percentages. First, the score is per unit, not per portfolio. A company target such as “95% of packaging designed for recycling” counts the share of tonnes or items that pass; a grade A pack is a single unit in which at least 95% of the assessed material performs. The two can both say 95% and mean different things.

Second, the weighting is not yet written. Table 3 sets the cut-offs, but the criteria that produce the score, and how each criterion is weighted, are for the Article 6(4) delegated acts. Annex II Table 4 lists the design parameters the criteria will cover, such as additives, labels, sleeves, closures, adhesives, colorants, inks, residues and separability (gesetze.legal reproduction). SPI has not yet confirmed how each parameter will be scored.

Third, the gap between C and B is 10 points, and so is the gap between C and the cliff. A pack scoring 72% today is two points from removal in 2030 and eight points short of the 2038 floor. SPI analysis: the packs to watch are not the obvious failures, such as multi-material laminates, but the near-misses at 65% to 80%, where one component decides the grade. Recital 28 of the Regulation confirms that packaging below grade C is to be considered technically non-recyclable, and recital 31 explains that a design assessment alone does not ensure that packaging is in fact recycled, which is why the at-scale test follows.

The JRC, which is preparing the technical basis for the criteria with CEN and CENELEC, puts the stakes in one line.

Twenty-two categories, thirteen of them plastic

Table 1 of Annex II is where a pack is placed before it is scored. It sorts packaging by predominant material, packaging type, example formats and, for most plastics, colour or optical transmission. The split is heavily weighted to plastic (Exhibit 4).

The plastic categories follow polymer and form. PET has three (rigid bottles, other rigid PET such as trays and cups, and PET films); PE and PP each have a rigid and a flexible category, and the PE and PP flexible categories include multilayer and multi-material films. HDPE and PP crates and pallets, PS and XPS, EPS, other rigid plastics such as PVC and PC, other flexible plastics such as blisters and stretch film, and biodegradable plastics complete the list (categories 7 to 19 in the gesetze.legal reproduction).

Who is outside the grades

Article 6(11) lists seven exempt groups (Exhibit 5). The list is longer than the one in SPI’s tracker record, which names infant formula packaging, packaging for dangerous goods and lightweight sales packaging; the article text as reproduced adds medicinal and medical-device packaging.

The pharmaceutical exemptions matter to a large group of SPI’s buyers. The pharma packaging piece covers the companies; the point here is that an exempt blister is outside the grade but not outside national fee modulation, which follows each scheme’s own rules.

The two Commission acts that do not exist yet

Everything in Exhibit 3 waits for two acts. The Article 6(4) delegated acts, due by 1 January 2028, set the criteria and the scoring; the Article 6(5) implementing acts, due by 1 January 2030, set the at-scale method (Commission Green Forum timeline, consulted 30 October 2026). The Green Forum page lists both deadlines but no consultation or draft for either.

The Commission’s Have Your Say portal is where a delegated or implementing act normally appears first, as a call for evidence or a draft open for feedback. A search of the portal for Regulation (EU) 2025/40 on 30 October 2026 returned seven initiatives, six of them PPWR acts, and none on recyclability grades or recycled-at-scale methods (Exhibit 6).

Three clocks, not one

The design test, the fee link and the at-scale test each run from a different act (Exhibit 7). SPI ran three timings: both acts on their legal deadlines, both 12 months late and both 24 months late. The 2038 floor is a fixed date in Article 6(3), so delay shortens the life of a grade C pack rather than moving its end.

Method: the design test is the later of 1 January 2030 and the 6(4) act date plus 24 months; the at-scale condition is the later of 1 January 2035 and the 6(5) act date plus five years; the fee date is the later act date plus 18 months. For example, at 12 months late the 6(5) act enters into force on 1 January 2031, and 18 months later is 1 July 2032.

Two conclusions follow. First, the harmonised fee link always trails the market floor, by 18 months in every timing, because it waits for the at-scale act, which is due two years after the criteria. In that window a pack can be legal at grade C while its fee still follows a national rule, which may already treat it more harshly or more gently than a grade would. Second, delay compresses the grade C life: at 24 months late, a grade C pack redesigned for 2032 has six years before it must reach grade B. SPI analysis: for a format with a three-to-four-year development and tooling cycle, a 2032 start means the grade B project should begin almost as soon as the grade C one ends. Check with counsel on how the dates apply to your products.

How the Article 45 fee link will work

Article 45 sets the producer’s EPR duty: producers carry extended producer responsibility under the schemes in Articles 8 and 8a of the Waste Framework Directive, and their contributions must also cover bin labelling under Article 13 and, where required, mixed waste composition surveys (Article 45(1) and (2), German text as reproduced by LX Gesetze). Article 45 does not itself mention grades. The link runs the other way: Article 6(8) says the contributions paid under Article 45 are to be modulated in line with the grades set out in the 6(4) and 6(5) acts, and Article 6(4) says the delegated acts will also cover modulation by grade.

Recital 35 explains the intent. It notes that some Member States already encourage recyclability through modulated EPR fees and says the grades are to modulate fees under harmonised criteria, without the Regulation setting the amounts (SPI rule analysis, PR-EU-010). So the EU will set what is rewarded, and each scheme will still set how much.

That leaves today’s schemes as the best guide to the size of the signal. SPI’s fee data hold two schemes that already modulate on design rather than on material line alone: Verpact in the Netherlands, through discounts, and PackUK in the UK, through ratings. Exhibit 8 sets them beside the PPWR.

The three systems agree on direction and differ on almost everything else. RAM is local by design: it asks whether a pack moves through UK collection, sorting and reprocessing today, which is closer to the PPWR’s 2035 at-scale condition than to its 2030 design score. Verpact’s steps are closer to the design score, and its base condition that the target polymer makes up at least 70% of the unit happens to sit at the same number as grade C, though it measures composition rather than a weighted score.

The Netherlands: what design steps are worth

Verpact’s own 2027 document opens by saying that from 1 January 2027 it is splitting its plastic tariff differentiation scheme into two separate schemes (Tariefdifferentiatie Plastic 2027, Design for Recycling, September 2026).

The second half, Circulaire Plastics, rewards post-consumer recyclate and biobased drop-ins with up to EUR 0.78 per kg for contact-sensitive PET, and its own text notes that only post-consumer recyclate counts towards the PPWR’s recycled-content percentages (Circulaire Plastics regulation, September 2026). The Verpact piece covers that scheme in full. For grades, the design half is the relevant one (Exhibit 9).

SPI calculation: at four steps the rigid line falls 32.8%; on flexible plastic the same EUR 400 is 30.3% of EUR 1,320. The 2026 combined cap of EUR 0.60 per kg was worth 49.2% of the rigid line. SPI analysis: Verpact rewards design by step, so a pack that misses the colour step still earns the other three. A PPWR grade is a threshold, so a pack at 69% is out of the market however many features it gets right. Teams that treat the Verpact steps as a proxy for the grade will over-read partial credit.

The UK: what a rating is worth

RAM 2027 assesses packaging at four stages, collection, sorting, reprocessing and application, and some packaging is rated red automatically (RAM 2027 overview). The UK RAM piece works through the green discount and the ratings by material; Exhibit 10 shows only the plastic red line as the factor rises.

Scenario: the size of a grade gap

No scheme prices PPWR grades yet, and the Regulation leaves amounts to the schemes. The two working systems give a range for what a design signal is worth per tonne of plastic today, each in its own currency (Exhibit 11).

A framework: four portfolio positions

Put the grade thresholds against the dates and every pack falls into one of four positions (Exhibit 12). The positions are SPI’s, built from Article 6(3), 6(10) and 6(11) and Annex II Table 3.