A recyclability and compliance risk read by packaging format under Regulation (EU) 2025/40, with an EN 18120 design-for-recycling traffic light for plastic formats. This page explains the method and the design factors behind a rating; the per-format ratings are in the screener itself.
Each format carries two separate assessments. The first is a PPWR recyclability risk rating, based on the regulation text and the JRC preparatory guidance. The second is an EN 18120:2026 design-for-recycling traffic light: green for compatible, yellow for limited, red for incompatible, and out of scope for anything that is not plastic.
EN 18120:2026 (CEN/TC 261/SC 4/WG 10) is the European design-for-recycling standard for plastic packaging, developed under Commission mandate M/584 to feed the PPWR method. It is voluntary today and it is not the binding PPWR grade. The legal method is the pending Article 6(4) delegated act, due by January 1, 2028, and until that act applies the ratings here are for orientation and planning.
A format rarely fails because of its polymer alone. It fails because of what the polymer is combined with, how it behaves in a sorter, or how it separates in a wash step. These are the factors the screener scores against.
Near-infrared sorting equipment cannot see carbon-black pigment, so the pack is not detected at the sorter and falls to residue regardless of what polymer it is made from. This is the single most common cause of an otherwise recyclable rigid failing in practice.
PVC degrades PET during reprocessing and a small fraction contaminates a whole batch, which is why PVC sleeves and closures on PET bottles are treated as a high-risk combination rather than a minor detail.
Where layers cannot be separated in a standard recycling process, the pack is assessed on the whole rather than on its majority polymer. Mono-material constructions are the direct design answer.
Sleeve coverage affects both optical sorting and float-sink separation. Coverage ratio and sleeve polymer choice change the outcome even when the container itself is compatible.
Paper and board with a functional barrier is assessed by whether the fiber can be recovered in a standard mill, not by fiber content alone. Grease-resistant coatings also raise the separate Art. 5(5) PFAS question.
Closures, liners and inserts that do not separate by density in the wash step travel with the wrong fraction, which is why closure material is a recyclability decision rather than a cosmetic one.
Annex II sets a three-step scale of recyclability performance under the Art. 6(4) assessment: Grade A at 95 percent or more, Grade B at 80 percent or more, Grade C at 70 percent or more, and non-recyclable below 70 percent. From January 1, 2030, or 24 months after the Article 6(4) delegated acts enter into force, whichever is the latest, packaging must reach at least Grade C to be placed on the EU market. From January 1, 2035, or five years after the Article 6(5) implementing acts enter into force, whichever is the latest, the tougher recycled-at-scale test is added to the design-for-recycling test rather than replacing it, and from January 1, 2038 only Grade A or B may be placed on the market. Annex II defines three grades, A, B, and C; packaging under 70 percent is technically non-recyclable, not a lower grade.
Separately, and often missed, the Article 6(1) recyclability obligation itself applies from August 12, 2026. Only the grades wait for January 1, 2030, or 24 months after the Article 6(4) delegated acts enter into force, whichever is the latest.
Open the Format Risk Screener | Recyclability grades explained | Read Article 6