At first glance, the answer seems simple: yes, in principle the definition of packaging is the same in both approaches. Both the Estonian Packaging Act and the new EU Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation ((EU) 2025/40, PPWR), applicable from 12 August 2026, are based on the logic that packaging is an item used to contain, protect, handle, deliver, or present a product. The Estonian Packaging Act, whose latest amendments entered into force on 17 January 2026, provides a general legal framework definition of packaging. This is a broad starting point used to assess whether a specific item does or does not count as packaging.
The actual difference, however, lies not so much in the core of the definition as in how this concept is applied in practice. The Estonian Packaging Act gives businesses a general starting point: if an item fulfils a packaging function, it must be treated as packaging. This is a broad, systemic framework that also underpins the packaging categories, the obligations of packaging undertakings, and the logic of producer responsibility.
However, a draft implementation guidance for the Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR), leaked over the weekend (2 March 2026), points in a direction where the general definition alone is no longer actually sufficient. From now on, for each specific item, the question must be asked: does this item actually fulfil a packaging function, and is it or is it not an integral part of the product? It is precisely this function-based approach that makes the PPWR practically significant for businesses, since in borderline cases it is no longer possible to decide simply on the basis that if an item looks like packaging, then it is packaging.
This means that under the PPWR, the same items may be treated differently in different situations. For example, an empty drink cup sold as a separate item is not necessarily packaging under the guidance. However, if the same cup is filled with a drink at the point of sale and handed to the customer together with the product, it clearly fulfils a packaging function and is treated as packaging. The same logic applies to flowerpots, seedling trays, protective films, and other borderline cases: what becomes decisive is their actual function in the supply chain, not merely their form or name.
This is where the main risk lies for businesses. If one relies solely on the general wording of the Estonian Packaging Act's definition, an item may too readily be assigned packaging status, or conversely be mistakenly left out of account. In light of the PPWR guidance, however, a more precise substantive analysis must be carried out. This directly affects which items must be counted in packaging quantities, which obligations apply to them, and how to justify one's classification decisions in the event of supervision or an audit.
It can therefore be said that the Estonian Packaging Act provides the rule, while the PPWR implementation guidance provides the test. The law states what packaging is in general. The PPWR implementation guidance helps determine whether a specific item is packaging in a specific use or not. This makes the PPWR's approach narrower, more precise, and considerably more practical for businesses.
In conclusion, the two documents are not in conflict with one another. Rather, their relationship is such that the Estonian Packaging Act creates the general legal framework, while the PPWR clarifies its application in more complex and borderline situations. This is precisely why businesses should review their approach to packaging not only in light of the wording of the law, but also according to the function-based logic of the PPWR.