How will stricter regulations affect total cost of ownership in 2026?

The key regulatory changes in 2026 are the EU Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR), expanded Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) schemes and stricter ADR regulations for the transport of dangerous goods. These new rules introduce minimum recycling rates, mandatory reusability criteria and more onerous reporting obligations.

The PPWR requires companies to use at least 30% recycled material in their packaging by 2026. For industrial packaging, this means that traditional material combinations may no longer be permitted. In addition, stricter requirements will be imposed on the sortability and reusability of packaging.

EPR schemes are being extended to more product categories and countries. This means that, as a company, you will become financially responsible for the entire life cycle of your packaging, including collection and processing after use. The costs for this will be passed on via higher EPR rates.

For companies transporting dangerous goods, ADR regulations are being tightened with new testing methods and certification requirements. This particularly affects the medical and chemical sectors, where special protective packaging is required.

For Faes, regulatory compliance is not treated as a separate checkbox at the end of a packaging project. In many high-tech, medical and defence-related environments, compliance decisions have a direct impact on engineering choices, material selection, documentation, testing, maintenance and the usable lifetime of a packaging solution. That is why we approach packaging compliance as part of the total cost of ownership from the start.

A packaging solution that meets the relevant requirements on paper can still create unnecessary costs in practice. For example, when materials are difficult to reuse, when components are not easy to inspect or replace, when documentation is incomplete, or when the packaging is not aligned with the way products are handled, transported, stored or deployed. These factors can increase the risk of product damage, delays, rejected shipments, additional testing, premature replacement or operational downtime.

Translating requirements into practical packaging specifications

At Faes, we translate regulatory, technical and operational requirements into practical packaging specifications. This can include the required protection level, material choices, reusability, cleanability, traceability, repairability, documentation, labelling, testing requirements and integration with the customer’s wider logistics or operational process. By combining packaging development, custom engineering, production, assembly and system integration, we help customers design packaging that is not only compliant, but also robust, repeatable and workable in daily use.

This is especially relevant for organisations working with critical, high-value or mission-ready equipment. In those situations, the lowest initial packaging cost is rarely the best indicator of value. A well-specified and properly tested packaging solution can reduce lifecycle costs by preventing damage, simplifying inspections, extending service life and supporting compliance with changing requirements. In that sense, stricter regulation does not only create extra obligations. It also creates an opportunity to make packaging more controlled, more predictable and better aligned with long-term operational performance.

Stricter regulations influence TCO calculations by adding new cost items and increasing existing costs. Compliance costs, higher material costs due to sustainability requirements and more extensive reporting obligations can increase total cost of ownership by 15–25%.

The direct impact is felt across various cost components. Material costs rise because recycled and bio-based materials are more expensive than traditional alternatives. Certification and testing costs increase due to stricter quality requirements and new testing methods that must be repeated regularly.

Operational costs are rising due to more extensive administration and reporting. You now need to keep detailed records of which materials you use, where they come from and what happens to your packaging after use. This requires new systems and additional staff.

On the other hand, some costs may actually fall. Reusable packaging has higher initial costs, but lower costs per use in the long term. More efficient designs can reduce transport costs through improved stackability or weight reduction.

Reactive compliance means waiting until regulations come into force and then making changes quickly. Proactive compliance involves anticipating regulations and investing early in future-proof solutions. Proactive strategies result in lower total costs and a stronger market position.

With a reactive approach, you wait to see what happens and only react once new rules come into force. This may seem cheaper in the short term, but often leads to rushed work, more expensive stopgap solutions and potential fines for non-compliance. You are dependent on what suppliers can deliver at that moment.

A proactive strategy means investing now in sustainable materials, circular designs and compliance systems. You work with suppliers to develop new solutions and test them before they become mandatory. This requires a higher initial investment, but prevents costly adjustments later on.

The difference in TCO can be significant. Proactive companies can often benefit from grants and tax incentives for early adoption. They also have more time to find cost-effective solutions and can adapt their supply chain gradually rather than having to implement abrupt changes.

The medical, high-tech and defence industries will experience the greatest TCO impact from the regulations coming into force in 2026. These sectors use complex, specialised packaging with strict safety requirements that are difficult to adapt to new sustainability rules without significant reinvestment.

In the medical sector, sterile packaging and protection against contamination are of vital importance. New regulations require this packaging to also be recyclable and reusable, which often conflicts with sterility requirements. Developing new materials and processes that meet both requirements demands significant investment in R&D and certification.

High-tech companies often transport highly sensitive and expensive components that require protection against static electricity, shocks and vibrations. Traditional ESD packaging is often non-recyclable. Finding sustainable alternatives that offer the same protection can double packaging costs.

The defence sector faces both military standards (MIL-STD) and new sustainability requirements. Equipment often needs to be stored for years under extreme conditions. Combining this long-term reliability with circular principles calls for innovative solutions.

Companies can optimise their packaging TCO by investing early in modular, reusable designs, forming partnerships with specialist suppliers and utilising packaging management services that combine compliance and cost optimisation. This approach can reduce total cost of ownership by 20–30%, despite stricter regulations.

The key lies in redesigning your packaging strategy around circularity. Instead of replacing single-use packaging with sustainable single-use packaging, it is better to invest in robust, reusable systems. These have higher initial costs but lower costs per use, particularly at high volumes.

Modular designs give you the flexibility to package different products using the same basic components. This reduces stock costs and makes it easier to comply with various regulatory requirements. For example, foam interiors can be replaced by reusable, modular inserts.

Collaborating with specialist partners who have expertise in both compliance and cost optimisation is often more cost-effective than doing everything in-house. They already have the knowledge and systems to comply with new regulations and can offer economies of scale that individual companies cannot achieve.

Data-driven decision-making helps to understand the true TCO. By closely monitoring the usage, lifespan and costs of different packaging solutions, you can make informed choices about where best to invest for the highest return on investment.