Digital Product Passports for Importers: What Data and Evidence You Need From the Manufacturer

An EU importer can carry the obligation without holding the facts. The manufacturer chose the materials, commissioned the tests, built the technical file and knows which product version was made. The importer may first see the goods through a commercial invoice, a packing list and whatever information the supplier sends with them. That gap is the operational problem. For products covered by an ESPR delegated act, Article 29 of the Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation requires the importer, before placing the product on the EU market, to ensure that the manufacturer has carried out the required conformity assessment and drawn up the technical documentation, that the required product information accompanies the product and that a DPP is available, including the required back-up copy. The importer must also keep the EU declaration of conformity and be able to make technical documentation available to authorities for the relevant retention period. That does not create a universal DPP data checklist for importers. It creates a verification job whose contents depend on the product-specific rule. The right workflow is therefore: product scope first, manufacturer handoff second, border and selling-channel mechanics third.

The importer checklist only switches on when the product rule does

The ESPR is a framework. It does not make every product on the EU market carry a DPP today.

Its Article 9 says that the product-specific delegated act specifies the DPP data, carrier, product level, pre-contract access, role access and who may create or update the passport. The Commission's current DPP FAQs make the same point: implementation is progressive and product by product.

That is why an importer should not adopt a generic vendor checklist containing fields such as carbon, repairability, recycled content, composition and origin and treat it as law for every category.

Some of those fields may become required for a particular product. Others may not. Some sector legislation has its own DPP model outside an ESPR delegated act.

The first line of the handoff should therefore be the applicable legal instrument and product scope, not a spreadsheet of assumed fields.

Use Digital Product Passport Requirements by Product Category and the relevant product page to settle that question before building the importer pack.

What the manufacturer-to-importer handoff should contain

This is not a statutory form. It is a practical way to hold the evidence needed to perform the importer's verification job without turning a commercial email chain into the control system.

1. Product identity and scope

Record the exact product family and the level at which the requirement applies.

At minimum, the handoff should make it possible to connect:

• the supplier's product reference;
• the identifier used for the EU product record;
• the model, batch or item level required by the applicable rule;
• the version or revision being supplied;
• the relevant product category and legal act.

This is the control that stops a correct document for one model being used to support another.

The ESPR explicitly allows the DPP level to be specified as model, batch or item by the product-specific act. Do not assume the supplier's SKU hierarchy matches the legal granularity.

2. Conformity-assessment and technical-documentation status

For products covered by an ESPR delegated act, Article 29 requires the importer to ensure that the appropriate conformity assessment has been carried out by the manufacturer and that the manufacturer has drawn up the technical documentation.

The importer does not need to recreate the manufacturer's technical file. It needs a controlled way to establish that the required work exists, is current and can be made available when needed.

The useful handoff therefore records:

• which conformity procedure applies;
• the declaration of conformity or other required conformity record;
• the technical-documentation owner;
• the version/date of the technical documentation;
• where the documentation is held;
• who can provide it to the importer or authority;
• any expiry, replacement or material-change trigger.

Under ESPR Article 29(7), the importer keeps a copy of the EU declaration of conformity and ensures that technical documentation can be made available to market surveillance authorities, normally for 10 years unless the product-specific act sets a different period.

That is a stronger control than "supplier confirmed compliant".

3. The information the product is legally required to carry

Article 29 also requires the importer to ensure the product is accompanied by the information required under Article 7 and the applicable delegated act.

This is another reason not to collapse the entire job into the DPP. Some information may be on the product, packaging, instructions, labels or accompanying documents. Some may be in the passport. The product-specific act decides the arrangement.

The handoff should therefore distinguish where the information is required to appear, not merely whether the supplier has sent a value in Excel.

4. The current DPP and its back-up

Where the product-specific rule requires a DPP, the importer has to ensure that the passport is available in accordance with Article 9 and the delegated act. Article 29 specifically includes the back-up copy required by Article 10(4).

The useful upstream record therefore captures:

• the DPP identifier or resolvable reference;
• the product level it represents;
• the current passport version or update date;
• the data carrier / unique product identifier relationship specified by the rule;
• confirmation that the required back-up is in place;
• the responsible DPP owner or service provider contact;
• the change process if the underlying product or evidence changes.

Do not treat a screenshot of a passport page as proof that the operational obligation is solved. The record has to remain available, current and tied to the correct product.

5. Evidence behind the fields that matter

The passport is the publication and access layer. The importer still needs to know where the values came from when the legal or commercial decision depends on them.

A useful handoff does not ask for the same evidence depth for every field. It records, for each required value:

• the value;
• the source document or system;
• the source owner;
• the date/version;
• the product, batch, facility or supplier scope it covers;
• whether the evidence is direct, derived or declared;
• the next review or change trigger.

The depth is a property of the fact, not of the supplier relationship. Use how far up the chain you actually need to go before demanding traceability that adds no support to the field.

6. Change control

Import failures are often caused by a handoff that was correct once.

A supplier changes a component. A test certificate is replaced. A product identifier changes. A passport is updated. The importer keeps the old attachment and continues placing goods under it.

The handoff should therefore name the events that force a re-check:

• product design or component change;
• supplier or manufacturing-site change where relevant;
• new model, batch or item identity;
• conformity-document update;
• certificate expiry or replacement;
• change to a required DPP field;
• change to the applicable product rule;
• change to the party responsible for creating or maintaining the DPP.

A controlled handoff is a living relationship, not a one-off supplier questionnaire.

What you should ask the manufacturer for

A useful request is specific enough to answer.

Instead of:

Please send all DPP and compliance data for this product.

Use a request that names the product, the legal scope and the evidence needed. For example:

• confirm the exact model / batch / item identity covered;
• confirm the applicable EU product rule used for the assessment;
• provide the current declaration of conformity where required;
• identify the technical-documentation owner and current version;
• provide the required DPP identifier or access route where applicable;
• confirm the DPP back-up arrangement required by the legislation;
• provide source evidence for the specific required fields that you need to verify;
• confirm the process for notifying the importer of product or evidence changes.

For generic missing-data triage, use route a missing product fact. That page owns the decision between internal records, supplier evidence, authoritative external sources, specialist help and a controlled unknown.

The importer is not the authorised representative by default

A non-EU manufacturer can appoint an authorised representative for tasks within a written mandate. That does not automatically remove the importer role from the company that places imported goods on the EU market.

The ESPR also limits what can be delegated. Article 28 says the manufacturer's Article 27(1) obligations and the drawing up of technical documentation do not form part of the authorised representative's mandate.

Do not use an authorised-representative contract as a substitute for working out who actually imports and places the product.

The legal-role architecture stays on who carries the obligation. This page assumes that exercise has already identified you as the importer.

If you sell online as well, that is a second job

An importer can also be a dealer or online merchant. The roles can sit in the same company without becoming the same obligation.

When a product-specific DPP rule applies, the ESPR separately deals with pre-contract access and distance selling. Article 9 requires the product-specific act to specify how the DPP is accessible before the customer is bound by a contract. Article 10 requires the economic operator placing the product on the market to provide dealers and online marketplace providers the carrier or unique product identifier needed to make it accessible when the customer cannot physically access the product. Article 31 then requires dealers to ensure the DPP is easily accessible to customers and potential customers as the applicable rule specifies.

That channel layer belongs in online listing and DPP access gates, not in the importer evidence file.

GPSR online-listing information is a parallel product-safety layer. Use What Product Information Must an EU Online Listing Show Under the GPSR? when that is the question.

The border is downstream of the handoff

The border can feel like the moment to solve DPP compliance because it is where an import can be stopped. Operationally, that is late.

If the product is covered by an applicable DPP rule, the importer should already have verified the upstream conformity, documentation and passport position before the shipment reaches the customs process.

The DPP Registry is now operational, but the legal and technical relationship between the Registry and customs has its own timetable and mechanics. Do not copy those details into an importer checklist that will go stale.

Use what actually happens at the EU border for the current customs position and the relevant Registry pages only when your journey reaches registration or Registry operations.

A small importer can run this without a PIM

The control does not depend on buying a product-information platform.

A small importer can begin with:

• a controlled product register;
• one row per legally relevant product level;
• links to current declarations and technical-document references;
• a DPP identifier / status field where applicable;
• an evidence-reference column for each required fact;
• an owner and last-checked date;
• a change log;
• a supplier request log for unresolved evidence.

That is enough to expose the real gap: not "we do not have DPP software" but "we cannot yet prove this value for this product" or "the manufacturer has not supplied the current record".

For the operating model, use How to Organise Product Data Without a PIM.

The handoff fails in predictable ways

A generic all-product field list

The importer collects carbon, composition, recycled content, repairability and origin for every product because a vendor called them "the DPP fields".

Why it fails: the legal requirement is product-specific. The list mixes current law, future possibilities and useful commercial data.

A declaration with no product scope

The supplier sends a declaration but the importer cannot tell which model, variant or production revision it covers.

Why it fails: the evidence cannot be tied reliably to the goods being placed on the market.

A passport with no evidence map

The DPP resolves and looks complete, but nobody can answer where a material value came from.

Why it fails: publication has been mistaken for substantiation.

A technical file that exists only in the manufacturer's language and inbox

The supplier says the file is available if needed, but there is no owner, response route or controlled version.

Why it fails: "available" has not been operationalised.

No change notification

The manufacturer changes the product and updates its own file. The importer keeps using the old evidence pack.

Why it fails: the handoff was treated as onboarding rather than a maintained control.

Customs becomes the first validation point

The business waits until a shipment is in transit before checking whether the required DPP record and identifiers exist.

Why it fails: a verification problem has been moved to the most expensive point in the chain.

What an importer should do now

1. Confirm your role. Use who carries the obligation if the route to market is not clear.
2. Confirm product scope. Find the product-specific act and whether a DPP requirement actually applies.
3. Build one controlled handoff per product family. Tie identity, legal scope, conformity status, technical-document references, DPP status and evidence together.
4. Ask for specific missing items. Do not ask the manufacturer for "everything".
5. Record evidence depth by fact. Go only as far upstream as the field needs.
6. Add change triggers. Make the supplier tell you when the product or evidence changes.
7. Route the next job separately. Border, marketplace listing and Registry operations each have their own canonical Knowledge owner.

The goal is not to make the importer hold every document the manufacturer has. It is to make sure the importer can verify the required work, retain what the law requires it to retain and get the rest when an authority or business process needs it.

Direct questions

Does every EU importer need a Digital Product Passport today?

No. Under the ESPR, DPP obligations switch on product by product through applicable delegated acts. Sector-specific legislation can also create DPP requirements for particular products.

What does ESPR Article 29 require an importer to check?

For a product covered by an ESPR delegated act, the importer must ensure the manufacturer carried out the required conformity assessment and drew up technical documentation, that required information accompanies the product and that a DPP is available where required, including the required back-up copy. The importer also has record-retention and authority-cooperation duties.

Should an importer ask the manufacturer for every possible DPP field?

No. Ask for the fields and evidence required by the applicable product legislation and for the information needed to perform the importer's own verification duties.

Does the importer have to hold the manufacturer's entire technical file?

Not necessarily. Under ESPR Article 29, the importer must keep a copy of the EU declaration of conformity and ensure that technical documentation can be made available to authorities. The exact product-specific act can add or change requirements.

Does a DPP prove that every value inside it is correct?

No. A DPP is the record and access layer. The business still needs evidence and provenance behind regulated or consequential values.

Is a customs broker responsible for solving the upstream DPP evidence gap?

No. Customs and declaration mechanics are downstream. The importer should have the required product and passport position under control before the shipment reaches that point.

What if I am both importer and online seller?

Treat them as overlapping roles. Do the importer verification job, then separately satisfy the online-listing and DPP-access rules that apply to the selling channel.

Sources

• Regulation (EU) 2024/1781, Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation, especially Articles 9, 10, 27, 28, 29, 31 and 36. Official Journal / EUR-Lex

  View official source

• European Commission, Digital Product Passport: Economic operators. Checked 3 September 2026

  View official source

• European Commission, Digital Product Passport FAQs. Checked 3 September 2026

  View official source

• European Commission, Digital Product Passport Registry. Checked 3 September 2026

  View official source

• Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/1778 establishing the DPP Registry. EUR-Lex

  View official source

• Regulation (EU) 2023/988, General Product Safety Regulation, including Article 22 for online marketplace providers. Consolidated text checked 3 September 2026

  View official source