The lunchbox dilemma: Why Europe’s packaging push risks backfiring 

As the Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR) moves closer to application, all attention is on the deadlines for its practical delivery. Few provisions illustrate this more clearly than Articles 32 and 33, which seek to expand reusable packaging and ‘bring your own’ (BYO) options for take-away food and beverages across the EU’s hotel, restaurant and cafés (HORECA)  sector. However, even the terminology reflects a disconnect. While the industry commonly refers to BYO, the PPWR uses the term “refill”. More importantly, uncertainty around how these provisions are meant to work in practice highlights a deeper issue: namely, the lack of operational clarity in the European Commission’s approach.

This gap is particularly notable given that DG Environment has welcomed a bottom-up approach to the implementation of Articles 32 and 33. At a Commission stakeholder webinar in December 2024DG Environment said that they would welcome a bottom-up approach from affected sectors.

A persisting implementation gap

Different industries share frustration at the lack of guidance. They are asking to stop the clock so  a targeted revision for the legislation can be created. For operators, regardless of size, the implementation of compliant and scalable systems will require significant investments, reorganization of operations and training of staff in addition to substantial preparation time.

Reusable packaging systems will require structural changes to existing operations, each of which come with their own environmental considerations depending on the design and management of the system. By contrast, BYO packaging raises a different set of challenges regarding food safety and consumer health, as it risks introducing foreign contaminated objects into previously strictly controlled environments in restaurants.

Risk to food safety and the environment

In particular, the lack of guidance relating to Articles 32 and 33 is consequential, as it must be applied across a wide range of operators offering diverse products and menus.

In operational terms, the BYO obligation raises legitimate sanitary and liability concerns, as food service operations rely on controlled hygiene environments. Customer-provided containers can be outright dirty and contaminated, and restaurants cannot thoroughly assess or wash them on the premises. While the PPWR exempts operators from liability, it does not reduce the health risks for consumers, as BYO will lead to an increased risk of cross-contamination through pathogens and allergens.

Similarly, reusable packaging does not automatically deliver environmental benefits. It only works when return rates are high and logistics are well managed. The EU Joint Research Centre has shown that these conditions are hard to achieve in off‑premises settings. When these conditions fall short, reusable systems can end up with a higher life‑cycle footprint than fully recyclable paper options.

This is reflected in the fact that Articles 32 and 33 apply to all  take-away channels, including delivery. It does not take an industry expert to see that the delivery of BYO packaging will not bring a net benefit to the environment. Instead, for both options the most controlled and implementable option is for customers to walk into a restaurant and order take-away over the counter in either reusable packaging or BYO.

These considerations do not undermine the objectives of Articles 32 and 33. On the contrary, they underline the importance of clear and consistent implementation guidance.

Further market fragmentation

A reference to the Voluntary Industry Guidelines in the FAQ could have been an opportunity to provide clarity and harmonize the EU market. However, national and local authorities will inevitably interpret these provisions in crucially different ways.

This fragmentation leaves operators active in multiple member states navigating legal uncertainty, higher compliance costs and a shortage of scalable best practice. The result is an uneven application of EU law, negatively impacting one of the PPWR’s core aims: preserving a level playing field in the internal market.

Voluntary Industry Guidelines as a pragmatic reference

The Voluntary Industry Guidelines developed by Serving Europe are intended to mitigate this risk, providing a practical reference for implementing Articles 32 and 33 in a manner that safeguards food safety, reflects environmental conditions and remains operationally feasible.

Importantly, these guidelines are voluntary and therefore do not replace legislation and do not bind authorities. They are designed as a common baseline, both for operators preparing for compliance and for regulators assessing implementation in good faith.

At present, these guidelines are not formally recognized by the regulator, as the European Commission has failed to reference it in the FAQ, despite addressing an implementation gap and incorporating feedback from DG Environment directly.

Time pressure is increasing.

The lack of a realistic operational roll-out is reinforcing industry uncertainty ahead of the PPWR application date of August 12, 2026. This is followed by a separate application date of February 12, 2027 for BYO packaging. As operators require at least 12 months to design procedures, adapt operations, communicate changes and train staff, they are left under enormous time pressure to ensure compliance. Operators, therefore, face a choice between investing without legal certainty or missing compliance, outcomes that oppose the regulation’s environmental objectives.

Acknowledging the Voluntary Industry Guidelines would not reduce ambition or shift regulatory responsibility. Rather, it would provide clarity, support consistent application and give practical effect to the bottom-up approach already endorsed by DG Environment.

Articles 32 and 33 are designed to change behavior on the ground, but without clearer implementation signposts they risk generating more uncertainty than impact. As the PPWR enters its application phase, the question is no longer one of ambition, but whether the framework is ready for delivery.

Disclaimer

POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT

• The sponsor is Serving Europe .
• The entity ultimately controlling the sponsor is Serving Europe.
• This article calls on EU policymakers to clarify and adjust the implementation of the PPWR, including recognition of industry guidelines and potential delays, thereby seeking to influence EU public policy and falling within the scope of the TTPA.

More information here.