A company manufactures the product. Another company sells it under its own brand. A third company imports it into the European Union. Who is responsible for the Digital Product Passport (DPP)?
This is one of the most important questions companies face when preparing for European product transparency requirements, and one of the most frequently misunderstood. In many industries, particularly batteries, textiles, electronics and industrial equipment, the company that physically manufactures a product is not necessarily the company legally responsible for placing it on the market. Once a Digital Product Passport becomes mandatory, that distinction matters.
The good news is that European legislation provides a framework for identifying responsibilities. The challenge is translating those legal obligations into a practical process for collecting, validating, publishing and maintaining product data across several organisations.
1. Manufacturing a product does not always mean owning its regulatory responsibility
Consider a common industrial scenario. Company A manufactures rechargeable industrial batteries. Company B buys these batteries, sells them under its own brand and distributes them across Europe.
Company A holds most of the technical information:
- battery chemistry and composition;
- manufacturing location and production information;
- technical specifications;
- test reports and supporting documentation;
- performance and safety information.
Company B controls the brand and the commercial relationship with the European market. Which company must provide the battery passport?
Article 3(33) of Regulation (EU) 2023/1542 defines a manufacturer as "any natural or legal person who manufactures a battery or has a battery designed or manufactured, and markets that battery under its own name or trademark or puts it into service for its own purposes". Consequently, the brand owner can be the manufacturer in the legal sense even when another company physically produces the battery.
For batteries that need a passport (from 18 February 2027: LMT batteries, industrial batteries above 2 kWh and electric vehicle batteries), Article 77(4) adds a second, separate rule: "The economic operator placing the battery on the market shall ensure that the information in the battery passport is accurate, complete and up to date. It may give written authorisation to any other operator to act on its behalf." The same operator attributes the unique identifier behind the QR code (Article 77(3)).
That distinction is essential: data preparation can be delegated, but legal responsibility is not transferred to a technology provider or supplier through an operational arrangement. Article 78(d) even limits what an authorised operator may do with the data it stores: nothing "beyond what is necessary for the provision of the relevant storing or processing services".
2. Four typical supply-chain scenarios
Scenario A: A manufacturer sells products under its own brand
This is generally the most straightforward situation. The company manufactures the product, markets it under its own brand and carries the manufacturer obligations of Article 38: compliance with the product requirements, technical documentation, conformity assessment, EU declaration of conformity, CE marking and identification of the battery.
If it also places a passport-bound battery on the market, it must ensure the passport information is accurate, complete and up to date. It may obtain much of that data from suppliers, and suppliers of battery cells and modules must provide "the information and documentation necessary to comply" free of charge (Article 39), but it remains responsible for the result. We cover that supplier duty in detail in Missing Battery Data from Suppliers?.
Scenario B: An OEM manufactures products for another brand
This is common in batteries, consumer electronics, automotive components and textiles. The OEM controls production and generates the technical documentation, while the brand owner places the finished product on the market under its own name.
For batteries, the brand owner will usually fall under the manufacturer definition quoted above, depending on the actual contractual and market situation. The OEM remains an essential data contributor, but the legal roles follow the definitions of the regulation, not who owns the factory. A practical DPP process should therefore separate:
- who generates the data;
- who reviews and approves it;
- who publishes the passport and registers its identifier;
- who is legally accountable for its accuracy.
These are different responsibilities, even when they concern the same product.
Scenario C: An EU importer buys products from a non-EU manufacturer
Under Article 3, an importer is a person "established within the Union who places on the market a battery from a third country". Article 41(2) requires the importer, before placing a battery on the market, to verify that the manufacturer has drawn up the EU declaration of conformity and technical documentation and carried out the conformity assessment, that the battery bears the CE marking and is labelled correctly, and that it comes with the required documents and instructions.
Importing a product does not by itself make the importer its manufacturer. Article 44, however, treats an importer or distributor as a manufacturer, subject to Article 38, where:
- the battery is placed on the market or put into service under its own name or trademark;
- it modifies a battery already on the market in a way that could affect compliance;
- it modifies the purpose of a battery already on the market.
One point deserves attention. The passport duty of Article 77(4) is tied to "the economic operator placing the battery on the market", not to the manufacturer as such. For a battery from a third country, placing it on the EU market is precisely what defines the importer, so an importer should not assume that the passport is only the foreign manufacturer's concern. The practical question is therefore not simply who imports the product? but what legal role does this company perform under the regulation governing this product?
Scenario D: A product is refurbished, repurposed or remanufactured
Responsibility does not stay fixed for the product's whole life. An economic operator that prepares a battery for re-use or repurposing, repurposes or remanufactures it, and then places it on the market or puts it into service, is considered a manufacturer (Article 38(11)).
Article 77(7) applies the same logic to the passport: the Article 77(4) responsibility "shall be transferred to the economic operator that has placed that battery on the market or has put it into service", and the battery "shall have a new battery passport linked to the battery passport or passports of the original battery or batteries". When a battery becomes waste, responsibility passes "either to the producer or", where appointed, the producer responsibility organisation, or the waste management operator selected under Article 57(8). The passport ceases to exist once the battery has been recycled (Article 77(8)).
A Digital Product Passport system should therefore support lifecycle events and changes of the responsible operator, rather than treating the passport as a fixed document created once at the factory. We explore this difference in Digital Product Passport vs Digital Twin.
3. Distributors, authorised representatives and fulfilment service providers
Not every company that handles a battery carries passport responsibility. The Battery Regulation gives the other economic operators narrower duties:
| Role | Main obligations (Regulation (EU) 2023/1542) |
|---|---|
| Distributor | Act with due care; before making a battery available, verify that the producer is registered, the CE marking and labelling are present, and the required documents accompany the battery (Article 42) |
| Authorised representative | Performs the tasks in a written mandate from the manufacturer; the Article 38(1) obligations and drawing up the technical documentation cannot be part of the mandate (Article 40) |
| Fulfilment service provider | Ensures warehousing, packaging, addressing and dispatching do not jeopardise compliance, and performs certain cooperation tasks (Article 43) |
A distributor that rebrands or modifies a battery leaves this table and becomes a manufacturer under Article 44.
4. What about textiles and other DPP-regulated products?
The Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation (ESPR), Regulation (EU) 2024/1781, sets the general framework for Digital Product Passports across product groups. It uses similar roles: a manufacturer is a person that "manufactures a product or that has a product designed or manufactured, and markets that product under their name or trademark" (Article 2(42)), and importers or distributors are considered manufacturers when they place a product on the market under their name or trademark or modify it in a way that affects compliance (Article 34).
Under ESPR, manufacturers and importers must ensure that a DPP is available, including a back-up copy stored by a DPP service provider (Articles 27(1)(c) and 29(2)(c), referring to Article 10(4)). The economic operator placing the product on the market uploads the unique identifiers to the EU DPP registry (Article 13(4)). For batteries, Article 77(10) of the consolidated Battery Regulation requires the operator placing the battery on the market or putting it into service to upload the unique identifier to the same registry. Read more in The EU DPP Registry: What It Validates.
The detailed rules, however, depend on product-specific delegated acts. Under ESPR Article 9(2), these acts specify among other things whether the passport is established at model, batch or item level, which actors have access to which data, and "the actors that are to create a digital product passport or update the data" and what data they may introduce or update. Companies should therefore not apply the Battery Regulation's detailed rules automatically to textiles, furniture or other product categories.
The underlying business challenge is nevertheless similar: information comes from several organisations, while legal obligations stay attached to specific economic operators.
5. The biggest challenge: sharing data without losing control
Consider a brand selling products sourced from 15 manufacturing partners. Each supplier uses different systems and formats: some keep data in ERP applications, others in spreadsheets or technical reports. The brand needs reliable information but may have no direct access to the underlying production systems.
A scalable DPP process needs more than an online form. It needs a structured collaboration model in which suppliers contribute information while the responsible operator keeps oversight of the final product data. For example:
| Activity | Typical operational owner |
|---|---|
| Generate technical specifications | Manufacturer or OEM |
| Provide materials and component data | Suppliers |
| Provide test reports and conformity evidence | Manufacturer or relevant testing organisation |
| Review required DPP information | Responsible economic operator |
| Publish and maintain the DPP | Responsible operator or an operator authorised to act on its behalf |
| Upload the identifier to the EU registry | Economic operator placing the product on the market |
| Update lifecycle information | Actors authorised under the applicable rules |
This table illustrates a possible operating model, not a universal legal allocation of responsibility. The objective is to make each step explicit, auditable and manageable.
6. Five questions every company should answer before starting
Before selecting a DPP solution, companies should settle five things:
- Who is the responsible economic operator? Identify the legal entity and its regulatory role for each product and market.
- Who owns each required data point? Map mandatory information to the organisations and systems where it originates.
- How will information be verified? Decide who checks completeness, consistency and supporting evidence before publication.
- Who can update the passport? Define permissions, approval processes and responsibilities when product information changes. The Battery Regulation requires the rights to introduce, modify or update passport information to be restricted according to access rights (Article 78(f)).
- What happens if a supplier, manufacturer or service provider changes? Ensure continuity of data access and traceability. The battery passport must remain available even after the responsible operator ceases to exist or ceases its activity in the Union (Article 78(e)); see our article on DPP backup providers.
These questions often matter more to a successful deployment than the design of the passport page.
7. How GoodsTag can help
GoodsTag approaches the Digital Product Passport as an information management challenge, not simply as a QR code attached to a product. Its DPP platform helps companies structure product information, connect identifiers to digital records and organise the data required for different products and regulatory frameworks.
This provides a foundation for processes around supplier contributions, product identification, data publication and lifecycle information management. The aim is to let manufacturers, brands and their partners work with one consistent digital product record while keeping operational responsibilities and legal accountability clearly apart. The legal role of each company remains its own to determine.
The key takeaway
The company that manufactures a product, the company that provides its data and the company responsible for its Digital Product Passport are not always the same. Successful DPP implementation starts by defining those roles clearly. If you are planning such a project, contact GoodsTag.
Sources
- Regulation (EU) 2023/1542 on batteries and waste batteries, Articles 3, 38 to 44, 57, 77 and 78 (consolidated version of 13 August 2026)
- Regulation (EU) 2024/1781 (Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation), Articles 2, 9 to 13 and 27 to 34
- European Commission: Digital Product Passport
Last regulatory review: 10 October 2026. This article provides general regulatory information and does not replace a product-specific legal assessment.
