Commercially Connected shorts 19 August 2026

This week we look at:

• EU Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation
• Consultation on UK Zero Emission Vehicle Mandate
• Review of UK telecoms security framework
• UK: lessons from case law: third party rights

EU Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation

On 12 August 2026 the EU Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR) started to apply. It is the biggest change to EU packaging law in three decades. One core framework now governs packaging design, recyclability, recycled content, and labelling across the EU.

As the initial requirements come into force, many businesses are discovering the compliance challenge may be greater than expected. From 12 August 2026, economic operators should be ready to demonstrate compliance with the PPWR conformity framework. This includes the required technical documentation and, where applicable, the EU declaration of conformity for packaging placed on the EU market. New PFAS limits apply to food-contact packaging, and the operator roles take effect, each carrying its own duties.

The Regulation applies directly, with no national transposition needed. However, much of the framework around it is not yet in place; penalties, producer registers, and deposit systems must still be set up nationally, and several EU implementing acts remain unadopted.

Who is most affected?

The PPWR applies to all packaging placed on the EU market. Duties are allocated across “economic operators” which includes manufacturers, suppliers, importers, distributors, authorised representatives, final distributors, and fulfilment service providers, with responsibilities defined by each role. Non-EU companies selling into the EU will need to ensure that the EU-based actors in the chain can discharge the relevant PPWR obligations, supported by contractual information and documentation flows.

Food and beverage businesses will be impacted first. The PFAS limits for food-contact packaging apply from 12 August 2026 and are the earliest hard enforcement point. Consumer and retail businesses must assess large portfolios across many markets. Packaging manufacturers and material suppliers face rising demand for recycled content as the PPWR’s 2030 minimum-content targets approach.

Life sciences packaging may benefit from certain requirement-specific exemptions or transitional rules, for example for certain medicinal-product and medical-device packaging, but should not be treated as generally outside scope.

What should businesses be doing now?

• Work out your role, or roles. The PPWR allocates duties across different roles including manufacturers, suppliers, importers, distributors and fulfilment providers. Businesses should identify which roles each group entity performs for each packaging type, adjust contracts accordingly, and get the internal documentation in place. For sales packaging, the “manufacturer” who signs the Declaration of Conformity is, depending on the circumstances, often the company that fills the packaging, not the one that made it.
• Start collecting proof up the supply chain. Compliance needs to be documented, and the evidence sits with whoever made or filled the packaging. Manufacturers should ask suppliers for substance confirmations, PFAS test results, and proof that recycled content comes from post-consumer waste – factory offcuts do not count. Importers should ask the same of the manufacturers they buy from.
• Link packaging design to the fees you pay. Producers already pay fees in each EU country to fund packaging collection and recycling, known as extended producer responsibility. A poor recyclability grade is expected to feed into extended producer responsibility (EPR) fee modulation and may materially increase annual compliance costs across relevant markets. It is worth assigning clear ownership of that number within the business.
• Work backwards from 2030. Single-use bans, recyclability grades, and minimum recycled content all arrive on 1 January 2030. Redesign and new supplier qualification often take two to three years, so early budgeting is likely to pay off.

To read more see our briefing: EU Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation

For the requirements and deadlines in detail, see our PPWR Executive Compliance Guide: EU: Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation Compliance Guide.

On 14 August 2026 the European Commission opened a call for evidence on three acts under the PPWR, covering calculation and verification of plastic recycled content in packaging; sustainability criteria for plastic recycling technologies; and conditions for importing plastic recyclates or articles with incorporated plastic recycled content from non-EU countries. The call for evidence closes on 16 September 2026, and the acts are due to be adopted by the end of the year.

With thanks to Dominique Strieder, Annamaria Tothova, Thera Adam van Straaten, Claire Gregory, Catherine Detalle, Joanna Kulewska and Frank Eliasberg 

Consultation on UK Zero Emission Vehicle Mandate

On 14 August 2026 the Department for Transport, together with the devolved administrations, opened a consultation on the operation and effectiveness of the UK’s Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) Mandate, which is implemented through the Vehicle Emissions Trading Schemes (VETS) Order.

The ZEV Mandate is intended to increase the pace of ZEV deployment and to stimulate investment in the ZEV sector.

The review forms part of the Government's commitment to carry out a mid-point review of the regime by early 2027, and seeks views on whether the current framework remains effective in driving the transition to ZEVs while supporting consumers, industry and wider decarbonisation goals. Views are sought on current ZEV sales trajectories and annual sales targets, the effectiveness of existing compliance flexibilities, potential alternative policy approaches, and technical amendments. It also considers options for defining the phase-out of new petrol and diesel cars by 2030.

Consultation closes on 23 October 2026 and responses may inform future amendments to the VETS Order.

Vehicle manufacturers, importers and automotive supply-chain businesses should consider responding to consultation to influence the future design of the UK's vehicle decarbonisation framework. They should also monitor the review closely, as changes to targets, compliance mechanisms and/or phase-out rules could affect regulatory obligations, compliance costs and long-term product and investment strategies.

Review of UK telecoms security framework

On 17 August 2026 the UK Government opened a call for evidence to help inform the statutory review of the UK’s telecoms security framework. This framework comprises the Telecommunications (Security) Act 2021, the Electronic Communications (Security Measures) Regulations 2022 and the Telecommunications Security Code of Practice. The framework is intended to address risks to the security and resilience of UK public telecoms networks and services.

The purpose of the call for evidence is to obtain evidence on the impact and effectiveness of the framework, with a focus on whether it is achieving its objectives of improving cyber security standards, protecting network availability, confidentiality and integrity, and enhancing Ofcom’s regulatory oversight.

Responses are due by 12 October 2026 and all stakeholders should respond. While no legislative changes are proposed at this stage, the findings of the review could lead to amendments to the existing framework, potentially affecting compliance obligations, cyber security controls, regulatory expectations and enforcement activity across the telecoms sector.

UK: lessons from case law: third party rights

The High Court’s decision in E & TL Jones (Civils) Ltd v Vale of Glamorgan Council provides an important reminder that a third party seeking to rely on the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 (TPR Act) must fall squarely within the class of beneficiaries identified by the contract.

A project agreement contained provisions for the contractor to set-up a Project Bank Account (PBA), via which payments to the contractor and named sub-contractors would be made by the client. The claimant was a sub-contractor to the project. Before the PBA was set up the client made payments directly to the contractor. The contractor then became insolvent, so the sub-contractor did not get paid.

The claimant subcontractor therefore argued that it was entitled to enforce the PBA provisions in the main contract under Section (1)(b) of the TPR Act, which provides that a third party can enforce a contract term if the term purports to confer a benefit on them. The claimant argued that the PBA provisions were intended to protect, and therefore confer a benefit on, sub-contractors. This argument failed. The court held that the relevant contractual benefit was conferred only on “Named Suppliers”, defined as sub-contractors that had completed the contractual process for joining the PBA arrangements. Because the claimant had never become a Named Supplier, it did not satisfy the requirements of Section 1(3) of the TPR Act, which requires the third party to be expressly identified by name, as a member of a class, or as answering a particular description.

The judgment confirms that, while the TPR Act can give third parties direct enforcement rights, courts will closely analyse the contractual wording to identify exactly who the intended beneficiaries are. A person cannot rely on the TPR Act simply because they belong to a broader group that may benefit commercially from the contract.

If parties intend third party rights to arise, the contract should clearly define the relevant class of beneficiaries and the conditions for obtaining that status. Conversely, if no third party rights are intended to arise, the contract should specify this.