EU footprint: PPWR

Regulation (EU) 2025/40 of the European Parliament and of the Council on packaging and packaging waste (PPWR)
regulation · CELEX 32025R0040 · procedure 2022/0396(COD) · built 2026-10-16

Claims and the numbers

Verbatim quotes from the documents the act was justified with, and the statistics they can be checked against. The verdict is never true/false — only whether the measured direction matches the prediction, and from when the claim becomes testable at all.

Who followed this act (EU Transparency Register)

Source: EU Transparency Register. n = 77 organisations naming this act in their register entry; x = country of seat, y = number of organisations.

Meetings with the Commission

Meetings the Commission itself publishes, matched to the same organisations by Transparency Register id — not by name.

When the meetings happened, and with whom

the Commission published its proposal: 2022-11-30 · first meeting: 2015-11-13

Source: meetings published by the European Commission. n = 300 meetings with organisations naming this act; x = quarter of the meeting date, y = meetings.

Meetings with Members of the European Parliament

Meetings with interest representatives declared by MEPs themselves, where the declaration names exactly this procedure. This is the other side of the access picture — the Commission-side meetings are shown above.

Source: the European Parliament's register of declared MEP meetings (CSV export). n = 454 meetings; only rows whose procedure reference equals 2022/0396(COD) exactly are counted. x = quarter of the meeting date, y = meetings.

Public feedback (Have your say)

Read what they wrote → — verbatim quotes, positions, and who raised problems.

Source: the Have-your-say portal. n = 8000 submissions tagged with this act; counted by the country and type each filer declared.

Who supported, who raised problems — by submitter type

Stance is keyword-scored, not semantic — a temperature reading, not a vote. Every number opens as the list of records it was counted from.

Positions from academics, NGOs and unions

Selected on the submitter type each filer declared: research institutions, NGOs, environmental and consumer organisations, trade unions. Business associations appear in the sections above.

126 → 25 · Read what they wrote →

Who steered it in the European Parliament

Who spoke in the plenary debate

Speakers, their political groups and the time they took the floor, from the European Parliament's open data. The verbatim text is not here: Parliament publishes it only on its document site, which does not allow automated access.

10. Packaging and packaging waste ***I (debate) 2023-11-21 official transcript ↗

PPE · 9S&D · 8Renew · 5ID · 5Verts/ALE · 4ECR · 4NI · 4The Left · 2— · 1

14 speeches with no identified speaker (the chair, Commission or Council representatives) — counted, but not named.

How this country's MEPs voted

Roll-call records published by the European Parliament. This act went through 69 recorded votes (on individual amendments and on the text as a whole).

Who tried to change it (EP amendments)

2534 amendments, 114 MEPs. Drafting language: en=2254, fr=95, cs=84, pt=63, it=26, de=12.

ID · 2939 PPE · 2394 Renew · 708 — · 666 S&D · 652 ECR · 563 Verts/ALE · 131 The Left · 67 NI · 36

Where the fight was, article by article

How many amendments each article of the act attracted, and which political groups tabled them. These are attempts, not outcomes: an amendment record names the provision it targets and the reasoning behind it, but not the proposed wording — whether it survived into the final text cannot be established from this data.

Source: European Parliament amendment documents. n = 1982 amendments naming an article; x = article of the act, y = amendments.

What plenary adopted and rejected

The fate of every voted amendment, from the Parliament's voting-results minutes: the provision it targeted, who tabled it (a group, the committee, or members), the result and the counts. Tabling is not the same as voting for it.

adopted · 100rejected · 95lapsed · 50

Source: EP voting-results minutes (PV…VOT). n = 280 voted items; the closest votes (smallest for/against margin) are shown.

Verbatim justifications (as they themselves put it):

How member states argued — national travaux

Verbatim excerpts from parliaments whose materials name this act directly. Topical similarity alone does not count: search also surfaces adjacent legislation, and presenting that as commentary on this act would mislead.

Lietuva

Lenkija

Švedija

Slovėnija

What the national parliaments did

Member-state parliaments' reaction to the Commission's proposal — from IPEX (the interparliamentary EU information exchange). A reasoned opinion is a formal subsidiarity objection under Protocol No 2; a political dialogue is a non-binding opinion sent to the Commission.

Source: the IPEX record for proposal COM/2022/0677. n = 20 chambers that opened a scrutiny; the table lists only those. Subsidiarity deadline: 2023-04-25. ↗ IPEX

News about this act

Publications that cover this act.

Latest coverage of this act

The most recent articles that name this act — including what is happening after adoption and entry into application.

Source: our press archive, selected by the act tag (the article must name the act in its own text). n = 16 newest of those held.

How the press covered it while it was being drafted

Articles published between the Commission's proposal and the act's adoption. 2022-11-30 — 2024-12-19.

Preparatory documents

Links open the local reconstruction; the original source is one step further.

The Lithuanian side

A regulation applies directly and is not transposed, but the state still designates authorities, keeps registers and sets penalties. That is exactly what these bills do.