What the EU's Latest DPP Research Tells You About the Real Work Ahead
Two recent publications from the Joint Research Centre (JRC), the European Commission's science service, give the clearest picture yet of what a Digital Product Passport (DPP) will ask of the textile sector under the Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation (ESPR).
One looks at what a textile passport should contain. The other sets out the methodology for how DPP requirements get defined across product groups, and it is unusually specific about how a passport has to be built, who is responsible for it, and what the data has to do.
Two things up front: this isn't law, and it isn't final. Both feed the textiles delegated act expected around 2027, and still have to pass through consultation and impact assessment.
But read together, they make one thing plain: a Digital Product Passport is a data problem before it is a compliance problem. Here's the part worth your fifteen minutes.
DPP is already arriving, and textiles aren't first
The methodology via JRC lays out where DPP-style obligations already exist or are close. The dates are indicative and can still move:
- Construction products: the Construction Products Regulation, a separate regulation, applies from January 2026, but the construction passport itself only follows a later delegated act, expected 2027 at the earliest
- Batteries: first rules from early 2027
- Textiles: the delegated act expected around 2027
- Packaging: a harmonized digital labeling system aligned with the DPP concept from August 2028
- Critical raw materials, toys, detergents: all foreseen, on their own timelines
The point: you can watch the model take shape in batteries right now, before textile rules land. The template is being written in public. Keep in mind that dates are indicative, and subject to change.
Who is actually on the hook
This is the part most people get wrong. Responsibility doesn't sit only with the brand or the factory.
- Primary responsibility sits with the manufacturer.
- If the manufacturer is outside the EU, the importer takes on the manufacturer's obligations, including the DPP.
- Distributors carry a verification duty. Before making a product available, they have to check that the required information and DPP access are present, and they must not sell if they have reason to believe the product doesn't comply.
- An authorized representative can act for the manufacturer under a written mandate, but only for the tasks in that mandate, and does not take on overall responsibility unless the regulation says so.
In plain terms: if you import product from outside the EU, the regulation treats you as the manufacturer. Many wholesalers and retailers don't yet realize the obligation lands on them.
What a passport actually contains
The methodology groups DPP content into a few clear categories. Seeing them laid out is the fastest way to gauge where you stand:
- Identification, and it's not one code. Three identifiers sit underneath a passport: a unique product identifier (UPI), a unique operator identifier (UOI) for the responsible business, and a unique facility identifier (UFI) for sites in the value chain.
- Product and producer information: name, model, version, the responsible operator's identity and contact details, and the manufacturing site where needed.
- Product parameters tied to sustainability and circularity: durability, reparability, reusability, upgradability, energy and resource efficiency, plus guidance for use, maintenance, and repair, and information for end-of-life handling (disassembly, reuse, refurbishment, recycling, disposal).
- Substances of concern: what's present, where it sits in the product, and what recyclers and treatment operators need to handle it safely.
- Information already required under other EU law: declarations of conformity, manuals, warnings, and safety information, consolidated into one place rather than created fresh.
Not everything is required, and that's deliberate
This is the part that should take some pressure off. The methodology doesn't treat every possible data point as mandatory. It sorts them, using a value-versus-effort test that weighs how useful a data point is against how feasible it is to produce and share.
That sort produces three tiers:
- Essential: the data a passport genuinely needs to do its job. These are the candidates for mandatory requirements.
- Strongly recommended: data that adds real value, encouraged rather than required.
- Voluntary: useful in some contexts, left to the company to decide.
The criteria behind the sort are spelled out: policy relevance, real-world value, feasibility, how hard the data is to share across the chain, and the risk of putting a disproportionate burden on smaller companies. Two things to take from it:
- the regulator is deliberately steering away from a maximalist data grab, which means your job is to get the essential tier solid before reaching for anything optional
- it confirms what the whole piece keeps circling: the goal is the right data, structured well, not the most data you can find
And you may already hold part of it
Back to the textile study, which is where the encouraging news sits. Those three identifier types aren't exotic; the study found GS1 identifiers (GTIN for products, GLN for operators) to be the most consistently used reference standards across the sector. If you already use them for trade and logistics, you are further along than you tend to assume. The foundation a passport rests on is, in part, already in your systems.
Why granularity is the real cost question
One choice predicts your cost better than any other, and both studies point at it.
- A DPP can be set at model level, batch or lot level, or individual item level (methodology).
- The methodology is blunt that this single choice is a key cost driver. Moving to item-level tracking where you don't already work that way is what gets expensive: more data to generate, more frequent updates, more identification infrastructure.
- The recommendation is to align with the traceability you already run, and to scale in. The textile study proposes exactly this phasing: model level as the baseline, batch level where things genuinely vary, item level on a voluntary basis so you grow into it.
Who sees what
A DPP is not a public dump of your data.
- Access is role-based. Different actors see different fields.
- Batteries already shows the structure: a light public layer for basic transparency, more detail for end users and professionals, technical and operational information for operators in the chain such as repairers and recyclers, and full access for authorities.
- For you, that means commercially sensitive data stays protected while the public-facing layer stays minimal.
The data itself has to clear a bar
This is the cluster most worth your attention, because the regulation sets requirements for the quality of the data, not only its content. The methodology is explicit that DPP data must:
- be easy for the right actors along the chain to access and understand
- support the verification of compliance with product requirements
- improve traceability of the product along the supply chain
- be accurate, complete, and up to date
- be built on open standards, machine-readable and interoperable, transferable without vendor lock-in
Read that list again with your own systems in mind—it is a description of structured, governed, portable product data. The regulation is, in its own words, asking for data infrastructure.
It's a living record, not a document you file
A passport has to stay accurate for the life of the product.
- Updates are triggered by defined events: placing on the market, repair or refurbishment, component replacement, change of ownership, end-of-life treatment.
- Someone has to own each update, and changes need logs, timestamps, and retained versions of specific fields.
- Each DPP is registered in an EU registry, linked verifiably to the data carrier on the product, and kept accessible for at least the product's expected lifetime.
What we take from this
The hardest part of a Digital Product Passport is a data problem before it is a compliance problem.
The regulation creates the deadline. The work it demands, getting product information structured, consistent, and shareable across organizations that don't share systems, pays off whether or not a deadline is attached to it.
That changes what a passport is for. Filed as a certificate, it's a cost. Built as a structured, reusable hold on your own product data, it becomes infrastructure: one reliable source of product identity that can serve customs, market surveillance, your sales team, and your customers without rebuilding the same information ten different ways.
The textile study's own observation, that the burden eases when a passport is a single shared reference rather than another portal to feed, is quietly an argument for exactly this.
It also explains what we keep seeing in practice. The organizations moving fastest on product-data infrastructure aren't always the ones under the most direct regulatory pressure.
Wholesalers, retailers, and industrial suppliers, some with no textile obligation at all, are building this because structured product data sharpens supplier evaluation, makes B2B sales and tendering more effective, and gives their teams something they can actually use day to day. The compliance conversation got them in the door, but the data is what made it worth staying.
One caution worth keeping, and the textile study makes it, as well: more data is not automatically more value. Consumers still prioritize price, quality, and fit, and some data points won't justify their cost. The goal is the right structured data, not the most.
So don't read either study only as a compliance roadmap. ESPR puts a date on a problem most supply chains have had for years, but the value of solving it was always there.
Where to start
- Find out what identifiers and structured data you already hold, GS1 included.
- Map where the real gaps are, which is usually the unstructured, upstream material and sustainability data.
- Build the structure before you try to fill every field, so you can scale into detail rather than starting from a blank sheet in 2027.
That's the work we do with brands, wholesalers, and manufacturers: turning fragmented product data into something structured, governed, and genuinely useful, with compliance as one outcome among several rather than the only point.
About the source The JRC is not the EU's lawmaker. It is the European Commission's science and knowledge service, and on the ESPR it acts as the scientific backbone, producing the research, methodologies, and evidence the Commission's rules are built on. These studies don't set requirements. They shape the proposals that become them, which is why they are worth reading early.
Sources
Both published by the European Commission under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) license.
Join the Newsletter
Get the latest news and insights directly in your inbox