How the free PPWR assessment works
The checker uses deterministic, packaging-specific routes. It does not ask an AI model for a compliance verdict and it does not turn legal uncertainty into a reassuring percentage.
One packaging unit, one use and one role
PPWR requirements can change with the packaging function, component materials, product contact, lifecycle, market and the economic operator's role. The detailed assessment therefore evaluates:
A portfolio-level readiness score cannot safely replace that unit of analysis. Users should run a new assessment when a supplier, component, artwork, market or intended use changes.
The 29 routed checks
Not every route applies to every package. A paper shipping box and a food-contact plastic bottle should not receive the same checklist.
| Area | Routes | What is screened |
|---|---|---|
| Scope and operator role | 2 | EU market scope and economic-operator role |
| Packaging data | 2 | Component materials, weights and supplier composition evidence |
| Substances and food contact | 3 | Heavy metals, PFAS and mandatory compostability routes |
| Circular design | 4 | Recyclability, methodology and plastic recycled content |
| Minimisation | 2 | Minimum weight and volume plus empty-space ratio |
| Reuse and restrictions | 5 | Restricted formats, reusable systems, targets, takeaway and rotations |
| Labelling and claims | 3 | Harmonised labels, pending specifications and environmental claims |
| Technical evidence | 3 | Technical file, EU declaration and traceability |
| EPR and governance | 5 | National duties, representative, marketplaces, DRS and ownership |
Evidence is not the same as compliance
The answer says the relevant evidence is documented.
Work has started, but the proof is incomplete or unlinked.
The answer exposes a concrete operational or evidence gap.
Scope, an exception or the supplied facts remain uncertain.
A delegated or implementing act is still needed for a final method or specification.
The route was screened out by the supplied packaging facts.
The displayed evidence-completeness percentage only counts documented evidence-bearing routes. It does not convert pending legislation, exceptions or legal responsibility into a score.
Primary legal sources, linked per finding
- Regulation (EU) 2025/40 on packaging and packaging wasteThe controlling legal text for scope, design, documentation, operator and EPR routes.
- European Commission guidance for Regulation (EU) 2025/40Used to check interpretation where the Commission has issued implementation guidance.
- European Commission PPWR implementation pageUsed for official implementation updates and the distinction between entry into force and general application.
Each result links to the regulation and names the relevant article or annex. See a worked output in the sample evidence report.
Versioning and regulatory change control
- Every saved or emailed result includes an assessment-version identifier.
- Rules that depend on future EU methodology are labelled as pending, not assumed.
- The methodology is reviewed when the Commission publishes relevant delegated acts, implementing acts or formal guidance.
- Material changes create a new version so previous results remain interpretable.
What the assessment cannot conclude
- It cannot verify whether uploaded or described evidence is authentic, complete or applicable to the exact packaging version.
- It does not replace testing, a conformity assessment, legal advice or the responsible operator's signed declaration.
- It does not treat national EPR registration, fees and markings as fully harmonised by PPWR.
- It cannot pre-empt delegated and implementing acts that have not been adopted.