Japan Business Council in Europe

…24 April 2023 JBCE’s views regarding the call for feedback on the Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR). Being a cross-sector association with member companies operating in different industries and stages in the supply chain, JBCE welcomes the opportunity to contribute to the call for feedback on the proposal for a Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR). 1. Introduction JBCE supports the overall aim of reducing packaging waste as this contributes to a sustainable design that covers the entire packaging lifecycle and thus helps to achieve a circular economy. In addition, we would like to further detail our views and insight on the PPWR proposal. 2. Details 2-1. General aspects: ➢ We welcome the idea of transforming the current applicable directive into a regulation.

Details 2-1. General aspects: ➢ We welcome the idea of transforming the current applicable directive into a regulation. A consistent EU-wide framework, which does not require the transposition of the measures into national law, will be essential to improve the recycling efficiency and reduce packaging waste. Packaging plays an important role in protecting valuable goods. When certain packaging design is required in one Member State and forbidden in another, this counters the logic of the Single Market, which is one of the founding principles of the EU. Thus, the harmonization of requirements on Union level is welcomed. Ref. Ares(2023)2870273 - 24/04/2023 ➢ This regulation will affect not only EU stakeholders but also non-EU stakeholders regarding the packaging materials used when placing products on the market in the EU.

…but also non-EU stakeholders regarding the packaging materials used when placing products on the market in the EU. There are still many unclear points in forming effective rules, and we believe that clear guidance, explanations through workshops, and dialogues with stakeholders outside the EU will be extremely important to enable them to fully understand the requirements set by this regulation and comply with them. The same clarity should apply to secondary legislations. The adoption of the numerous Delegated and Implementing Acts foreseen by the proposal should happen within certain clearly defined deadlines to ensure legal certainty for all operators. ➢ The regulation will apply 12 months after its entry into force, which seems to already be challenging considering the extent and complexity of its provisions.

…its entry into force, which seems to already be challenging considering the extent and complexity of its provisions. However, we noticed that an exemption for products that have already been packaged before the entry into force of the requirements (e.g., transitional periods and rules on exhaustion of stocks) is missing. Such transitional periods are of crucial importance to provide clarity to all operators and avoid any disruption in the production and distribution processes. 2-2. Comments on specific articles: Art. 4 Free Movement: ➢ Member States are allowed to implement further labelling requirements related to Extended Producer Eesponsibility (EPR) or deposit and return systems (like the Triman logo in France or the sorting instructions in Italy).

(EPR) or deposit and return systems (like the Triman logo in France or the sorting instructions in Italy). However, the same provision adds that Member States cannot impede the placing on their market of packaging that would not fit their national requirements. This measure is therefore contradictory and creates legal uncertainty. Art. 5 Requirements for substances in packaging: ➢ The consistency with already existing legislation should be ensured, in particular with Annex XVII of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (REACH restriction), Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 on the classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures (CLP), and Regulation (EC) No 1935/2004 on food contact materials, as these already provide for the possibility to restrict substances based on concerns related to human health or the environment.

…for the possibility to restrict substances based on concerns related to human health or the environment. Packaging usually does not consist of a single packaging material. It is common to use printing inks, adhesives, and composite materials for durability. It should be kept in mind that these are usually already regulated under other legislation such as REACH. ➢ The very wide definition of ‘substance of concern (SoCs)’ includes not only SVHCs on the Candidate List or substances in Annex XVII of REACH, but also skin and respiratory sensitizers, substances forming a chronic hazard to the aquatic environment, STOT SE and RE. At a later stage, endocrine disruptors, PBT, vPvB, PMT and vPvM substances will be added as well. This staggered, dynamic process makes it very difficult and burdensome for industry to keep on track with SoCs.

…well. This staggered, dynamic process makes it very difficult and burdensome for industry to keep on track with SoCs. Especially in global supply chains, knowledge of the presence of such substances cannot be expected, nor will it be easy to obtain such information that is often considered confidential. We therefore call on the Commission to support industry by publishing clear guidance and a list of ‘substances of concern’ to refer to, e.g., based on the existing harmonised classification of substances. ➢ Substances that are an obstacle to recycling, but do not meet the hazard criteria of ‘substances of concern’, should be listed separately taking into account the respective recycling technology. Mechanical recycling should not be considered the default recycling technology for identifying substances of concern.

Mechanical recycling should not be considered the default recycling technology for identifying substances of concern. ➢ Packaging for consumers and packaging for industry serve different purposes and should therefore be clearly distinguished when defining packaging design, required performance standards and also substances of concern, as the exposure profile is different between consumer and professional industrial users. Packaging for B2B products is often different for each customer, according to the equipment and handling procedures in the customer’s facility and is not uniformly designed. The requirements related to design of the packaging are not applicable. Therefore, only material requirement should be applied for B2B products. ➢ If the Commission is adopting Delegated Acts in accordance with Art.

…should be applied for B2B products. ➢ If the Commission is adopting Delegated Acts in accordance with Art. 5 (5) (a), active stakeholder participation in their development as well as public consultations are needed. Additionally, appropriate transition periods must be granted. ➢ Derogations for industrial packaging for hazardous substances or mixtures have to be considered, especially in cases where the packed substances/mixtures are/contain SoCs and mechanical recycling would not be an option. Art. 6 Recyclable packaging: ➢ We welcome the introduction of an EU-wide and clear definition of ‘recyclable packaging’ and the proposal to assess packaging recyclability against Design for Recycling (DfR) criteria.

‘recyclable packaging’ and the proposal to assess packaging recyclability against Design for Recycling (DfR) criteria. However, we hope that the Delegated Act related to DfR will be issued timely and that economic operators will be involved in preparatory discussions in order to bring their views and expertise. ➢ Trade-offs between (mechanical) recyclability and the necessary performance of a packaging to appropriately protect the packed goods should be carefully considered. For certain consumer products like food and cosmetics, but also for sensitive industrial products, e.g., pharmaceuticals, photosensitive materials, and membrane filters, only high barrier multilayer packaging can provide the necessary protection and performance. The use of such packaging materials should be permitted although they cannot be recycled mechanically.

…and performance. The use of such packaging materials should be permitted although they cannot be recycled mechanically. ➢ The “recycled at scale” criterion is too vague, as there is no threshold indication of what a sufficient recycling scale is. In addition, this criterion does not only depend on manufacturers but also on the recycling industry. This needs to be taken into account when the requirements linked to this criterion are set. ➢ If the EU Commission were to submit a report under the Delegation as required by point 4, 9 months before the end of the five-year period after the entry into force of this Regulation (by four years and three months), and then adopt delegated acts, the promulgation of the delegated acts would be roughly the same time of the implementation of the 'recyclable packaging' requirement set out as 1 January 2030 in the point 2 and 3 of this Article.

…of the 'recyclable packaging' requirement set out as 1 January 2030 in the point 2 and 3 of this Article. This will not allow producers to prepare for complying with the design for recycling criteria laid down by the delegated act. Producers need at least a three-year preparation period to make design changes and reflect them in the actual product. Therefore, the compliance date of the design for recycling criteria should be the later of “1 January 2030” and “three years after the promulgation of the delegated acts set out in point 4”. Or, obligating the EU Commission to complete the delegated acts by 31 December 2026 would be manageable for producers. Art. 7 Minimum recycled content in plastic packaging: ➢ According to the OECD report1, recycled plastics are expected to grow rapidly. However, it is also expected to satisfy the demand for only 12% of all plastics by 2060.

30 → 12

originalus šaltinis (PDF) ↗

…1 29 April 2020 GDPR roadmap: Feedback from JBCE JBCE’s submission to the European Commission’s request for feedback on the two-year review exercise of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Introduction The Japan Business Council in Europe (JBCE) is a European association representing over 80 multinational companies of Japanese parentage in EU policy discussions. Our members are active in Europe across many sectors, including digital, information and communication technologies, electronics, automotive, pharmaceuticals and chemicals. JBCE aims to be a bridge between the EU and Japan to strengthen ties and cultivate understanding among European decision-makers of the contribution of Japanese companies to Europe. Feedback JBCE’s Digital Innovation Committee (DIC) thanks the European Commission for providing the opportunity to provide feedback on its GDPR evaluation roadmap.

(DIC) thanks the European Commission for providing the opportunity to provide feedback on its GDPR evaluation roadmap. The GDPR continues to hold a number of positive aspects for JBCE’s members, most notably, facilitating global data flows, improving global standards for privacy and data protection, and bringing some clarity to the application of data protection rules in the European Union. However, considering the significant resources mobilised by JBCE’s members to ensure they are fully compliant, there remain both: i) challenges in interpreting the GDPR, ii) and a need for greater harmonisation. I. Challenges in interpreting GDPR Specific points to raise include: • Guidelines on Data Protection Impact Assessments (DPIAs) and cloud service providers. The JBCE would appreciate if the EU could prepare a set of common guidelines for global cloud service providers.

The JBCE would appreciate if the EU could prepare a set of common guidelines for global cloud service providers. These guidelines could give a safety approval for those providers. Especially as global cloud service providers have not always provided full replies to the questions in the DPIAs, making it more difficult for JBCE members to properly evaluate the security risks. • Simplifying Binding Corporate Rules (BCR). Considering the fact that Standard Contractual Clauses (SCC) are forcing Japanese companies to take on a heavy workload, despite the adequacy decision between the EU and Japan, BCRs should be a desirable option in the long- term thanks to its comprehensiveness. However, it takes approximately 15 to 24 months to secure the necessary approvement of the rules - a delay that could act as an obstacle to the widespread use of these measures.

…the necessary approvement of the rules - a delay that could act as an obstacle to the widespread use of these measures. With that in mind, JBCE would appreciate if the EU could consider measures to simplify the procedure and shorten the necessary time required for BCR certification. • On Legitimate Interest. The JBCE would ask the European Commission to oversee and monitor the interpretation of the Legitimate Interest principle by National Data Protection Authorities Ref. Ares(2020)2297231 - 29/04/2020 2 (DPAs) to ensure a harmonized approach. The JBCE would appreciate the EDPB to provide guidelines ensuring the right balance between citizens’ privacy rights and the legitimate interest of data processors. Avoiding situations in which Member States introduce national requirements on top of the GDPR would be the key objective here.

…situations in which Member States introduce national requirements on top of the GDPR would be the key objective here. It would also be important not to exclude a priori commercial interests and profit maximization from the “three steps Test” (Purpose test, Necessity test and Balancing test). • On the use of bio-metric data. The JBCE appreciated the guidance provided by the EU Data Protection Board on the use of biometric data in the context of video recording, especially for data processors as there remains a very fragmented approach between EU countries. • Securing compliance with other rules that are of important public interest. The GDPR has created problems for companies trying to secure compliance with other rules that count as important public interest. For example, tackling bribery and corruption.

…compliance with other rules that count as important public interest. For example, tackling bribery and corruption. To avoid involvement in corrupt practices, many public enforcement agencies within the EU and outside (in the U.S. notably), expect their companies to have robust compliance programs in place with a proper screening of business partners. However, if such screening should uncover criminal convictions for private individuals, even if this is only reporting in public news media, this could pose problems under national law where processing of personal information concerning criminal convictions are only authorized in very narrow circumstances or authorized only for some sectors (such as in the financial sector).

…are only authorized in very narrow circumstances or authorized only for some sectors (such as in the financial sector). In a few Member States, such as Denmark, processing of such information is possible where there is a strong legitimate interest that clearly overrides the interests of the data subject. This should be the case across the entire EU, not just for bribery prevention, but for any other important public interest, such as avoiding fraud or similar. II. The need for harmonised implementation Specific points to raise include: • Cooperation among DPA. Strong cooperation among DPAs is essential for a coherent enforcement of the GDPR. JBCE’s members appreciate the efforts made by the European Commission to avoid conflicting interpretations between DPAs, but we still see a lack of harmonisation and diverging national interpretations of Europe’s data protection rules.

…but we still see a lack of harmonisation and diverging national interpretations of Europe’s data protection rules. JBCE members will continue to support the existing implementation dialogue and processes underway at national level as much as possible, but we underline that progress should be made towards a more coherent and harmonised European solution to implement the GDPR. • The benefits of pan-European Codes of Conduct and certification mechanisms. Codes of Conduct can be effective in helping companies throughout the supply chain, regardless of size and risk profile, in demonstrating their compliance with the GDPR’s principles. The current approach of decentralising Codes of Conduct according to national criteria has limitations.

…principles. The current approach of decentralising Codes of Conduct according to national criteria has limitations. It risks weakening the effectiveness of adoption because of its higher cost and timing constraints, obstacles that are felt especially strongly by the SMEs that depend on JBCE’s members for continued prosperity. The GDPR was always envisaged as a business enablement mechanism, and for these codes to be truly effective they should span multiple industry sectors in which processing operations are similar. Pan-European codes would ensure a greater ease of adoption and help ensure a more consistent approach. Moreover, greater harmonisation 3 across the EU is critical for the successful adoption of certification mechanisms.

Moreover, greater harmonisation 3 across the EU is critical for the successful adoption of certification mechanisms. The EU can adopt a certification programme that simplifies adoption requirements; allows for risk-based differentiation based on, for example, the size of the organisation; and earn international recognition. Duplication and fragmentation risk diluting the effectiveness of this mechanism, making widespread adoption by the business community unaffordable. EU-wide harmonisation can help generate the scale necessary for JBCE’s members to see a real value in certifying. • More harmonised rules on cookies.

…generate the scale necessary for JBCE’s members to see a real value in certifying. • More harmonised rules on cookies. Companies operating across the EU continue to see diverging guidance from national DPAs on the use of cookies (consent), partly related to a patchy implementation of the ePrivacy Directive, with some Member States, including Germany, having yet to implement all of the Directive’s requirements. This increases the burden on companies. • More harmonised approach on data breach notifications. Currently, each DPA employs its own method on how companies can submit data to them. This includes different submission modalities (e.g. web page, e-mail, word document) and varying requirements for information disclosure, with some DPAs requiring detailed and granular submissions, some not. These different approaches significantly increase reporting time and administrative costs.

…submissions, some not. These different approaches significantly increase reporting time and administrative costs. Ideally, all DPA should request the same information with the same level of information granularity. Ideally, organisations should be able to submit details in a human-readable form (e.g. PDF) but also in a machine-readable format (e.g. XML). Allowing organisations to automate submission processes, bringing benefits to everyone. Organisations will know exactly what information they need to collect, submission process can be streamlined and DPAs will also be able to streamline their processes. The ultimate solution would be that DPAs seamlessly share information between them so that an organisation can use any DPA to report issues irrespective of which Member State is involved (in line with one-stop-shop idea). • Stronger oversight at EU level.

13 → 12

originalus šaltinis (PDF) ↗

…8 January 2026 1 POSITION PAPER FEEDBACK ON EXEMPTIONS FROM REUSE OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE DRAFT DELEGATED ACT ON PACKAGING AND PACKAGING WASTE (PLASTIC WRAPPINGS AND STRAPS) INTRODUCTION The Japan Business Council in Europe (JBCE) welcomes the opportunity to submit its opinion regarding the exemptions from reuse obligations for plastic wrappings and straps. JBCE endorses the objectives of the Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation1 (PPWR) and the EU’s transition toward a circular economy, while calling for practical implementation measures that do not impose excessive burdens. We also recognise the importance of promoting reuse and resource efficiency across the entire packaging value chain and highly value the Commission’s pragmatic approach in addressing sector- specific challenges through the proposed delegated act.

…value the Commission’s pragmatic approach in addressing sector- specific challenges through the proposed delegated act. JBCE supports the direction of the draft delegated act to exempt pallet wrapping films and straps from the 100% reuse requirement for intra-company and domestic transports. This recognises current economic and technological constraints and helps safeguard load stability and worker safety while the market scales viable alternatives. However, key implementation details remain undefined (scope, conditions, reporting). These could set a precedent for future guidance or other packaging formats. We consider it important to help shape a practical outcome that minimises administrative overhead and avoids excessive conditions or complex certification.

…a practical outcome that minimises administrative overhead and avoids excessive conditions or complex certification. 1 Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation KEY MESSAGES ❖ Clarifying the Scope of Exemptions and Conditions for Application Clarify the scope and material definitions, define how Article 29(1) applies, and ensure practical, transparent conditions without unnecessary complexity. ❖ Design with SMEs in Mind Prevent disproportionate burdens on SMEs through standardised formats and simplified reporting requirements. ❖ Technological Development and Standardisation Support R&D, harmonise performance and safety testing, and ensure interoperability of data and labelling. ❖ Considering Phased Implementation Combine pilots, milestones, and periodic reviews to allow flexible adaptation in line with technological progress. Ref.

…pilots, milestones, and periodic reviews to allow flexible adaptation in line with technological progress. Ref. Ares(2026)144996 - 08/01/2026 8 January 2026 2 POSITION PAPER 1. Clarifying the Scope of Exemptions and Conditions for Application The direction of the exemption criteria is reasonable and can be evaluated as a practical measure to achieve the reuse obligation. However, the current draft leaves some points that would benefit from further clarification. First, it does not clearly specify whether the exemption applies only to commonly used Low-Density Polyethylene (LDPE) stretch wrap or also extends to other plastic materials with different technical characteristics. Therefore, further clarification of the scope of the exemption, particularly regarding the material definition of pallet wrapping films and straps, would be highly beneficial.

…particularly regarding the material definition of pallet wrapping films and straps, would be highly beneficial. In addition, the applicability of Article 29(1) of the PPWR in this context may need to be addressed. Article 29(1) sets an annual aggregate reuse target and allows lower-reuse formats to be offset by higher-reuse formats. However, in one-way inbound logistics from outside the EU, the reuse rate of pallet wrapping films and straps is often beyond operators’ control, making this compensation mechanism difficult to apply in practice and creating structural compliance risks. From this perspective, we believe it would be appropriate to consider the possibility of extending the scope of the exemption to Article 29(1).

…believe it would be appropriate to consider the possibility of extending the scope of the exemption to Article 29(1). Furthermore, the draft does not specify the details of the exemption conditions or reporting requirements, leaving companies with uncertainty in terms of preparation and investment decisions. This lack of clarity may also affect the design of future regulations, including other packaging formats and related guidance. Accordingly, we recommend clarifying the scope of the exemption and defining the materials covered, explicitly addressing how Article 29(1) applies in this context, and ensuring that conditions and reporting requirements remain practical and consistent without unnecessary complexity.

…ensuring that conditions and reporting requirements remain practical and consistent without unnecessary complexity. Enhancing transparency and avoiding unnecessary reporting burdens or complicated certification processes will be key to smooth implementation and maintaining the credibility of the regulation.

…certification processes will be key to smooth implementation and maintaining the credibility of the regulation. 2. Design with SMEs in Mind The proposed exemption reduces the burden of reuse obligations, but if the conditions or reporting and certification mechanisms become overly complex, SMEs may face a disproportionate impact. Specifically, additional data collection and reporting requirements, fixed costs associated with certification, and the need to secure specialised personnel could pose significant challenges. These burdens are particularly severe for SMEs, which have limited resources and staffing compared to large enterprises. Therefore, in designing the framework, it is essential to avoid unnecessary complexity and ensure practical measures such as simplified requirements, standardised reporting formats, and clear guidance. 8 January 2026 3 POSITION PAPER

…such as simplified requirements, standardised reporting formats, and clear guidance. 8 January 2026 3 POSITION PAPER 3. Technological Development and Standardisation for a Sustainable Transition The exemption is based on the current technical and economic challenges of fully applying reuse obligations. However, in the long term, accelerating technological development and standardisation will be essential to enable the implementation of reuse models. In designing exemption conditions and transition schedules, it is also important to take into account the technological availability and development, as well as the cost impact. Advancing standardisation through CEN/CENELEC and supporting R&D for robust materials and automated equipment will lay the foundation for safe and efficient reuse systems. Furthermore, harmonising performance and safety testing, establishing interoperable data and…

…efficiency in logistics. These efforts are expected to drive a successful transition toward a circular economy. 4. Considering Phased Implementation Instead of requiring 100% reuse from a single start date, we recommend adopting a flexible, phased model. Combining pilot implementation, transition milestones, measurable KPIs, and periodic reviews based on technological progress and market conditions will help achieve an effective and sustainable transition while avoiding disruption to supply chains. Such an approach provides predictability for businesses, prevents excessive burdens, and strengthens the credibility of the system. 5. Reducing Reporting Burden and Digital one-stop-shop (OSS) platform While clarifying and simplifying exemption conditions is essential, further alleviating the operational burden on businesses also requires streamlining reporting obligations.

…essential, further alleviating the operational burden on businesses also requires streamlining reporting obligations. In its Communication entitled ‘Simplifying for Sustainable Competitiveness’,2 published in December 2025, the European Commission reaffirmed simplification and digitalisation measures that are envisaged under the forthcoming Circular Economy Act, setting out the following orientations. These measures are also relevant for the implementation of PPWR, where reducing reporting burdens and advancing digitalisation will be key to practical compliance. • Establishing an annual reporting frequency cap and promoting simplified data submission. • Relaxing the obligation to appoint authorised representatives in each Member State, thereby reducing burdens for cross-border operators.

…to appoint authorised representatives in each Member State, thereby reducing burdens for cross-border operators. 2 Simplifying for Sustainable Competitiveness 8 January 2026 4 POSITION PAPER • Advancing the integration and harmonisation of Extended Producer Responsibility schemes through digitalisation, with plans to develop a future One Stop Shop platform. These initiatives align with JBCE’s call for practical and coherent implementation and are expected to reduce administrative burdens for companies while ensuring environmental objectives. Conclusion JBCE welcomes the European Commission’s proposal to exempt pallet wrapping films and straps, recognising the value of its pragmatic consideration of sector-specific constraints.

15 → 12

originalus šaltinis (PDF) ↗