EU Textiles Product Passport Conference 2026: Key Insights from informal discussions
By Rabia Hassan from AAU
7th October 2026
Identified standardisation gaps
- Interoperability and common data exchange remain key gaps.The participants repeatedly highlighted the risk of fragmented and proprietary DPP solutions. SMEs in particular face difficulties when information is requested or exchanged through multiple systems, formats and mechanisms. Common infrastructure, shared protocols, vocabularies and interoperable data models will therefore be essential if information is to move efficiently between suppliers, brands, DPP providers and downstream actors.
- Data quality, trust and verification require further attention.A recurring point was that implementing a DPP platform does not automatically solve problems with the underlying data. Inaccurate, incomplete or poorly structured information will simply be reproduced through the DPP. Reliable evidence, certification and verification mechanisms are therefore needed alongside technical interoperability.
- Identifiers, data carriers and data models need continued alignment.Existing standards provide useful foundations for product identification, QR codes/Digital Link, RFID and data exchange. However, the final product-specific DPP attributes are not yet fixed. Work is therefore progressing with provisional data models that will need to adapt as regulatory requirements become clearer.
- Data ownership and access rights are also important standardisation/governance questions.Suppliers generate and hold much of the information needed throughout the value chain. Participants stressed that suppliers need mechanisms to structure this information while maintaining control over who can access commercially sensitive data and under what conditions.
ESPR and DPP insights
A strong message from the discussion was not to wait for every product-specific ESPR requirement to be finalised. The delegated acts will provide further detail on required attributes, granularity and other product-specific information, but companies can already work on product identification, data ownership, data systems, traceability, data carriers and information exchange. This is particularly important because textile collections, sourcing and production decisions can take place well before products reach the market.
Another important insight was that DPP implementation should not become an isolated compliance exercise. Much of the required information already exists within organisations and supply chains, but is dispersed across ERP/PLM systems, spreadsheets, certificates, PDFs, emails and other sources. Structuring information so that it can be reused across regulatory requirements could reduce duplicated supplier requests and administrative burden.
The DPP was also consistently discussed as an enabler for circularity and value creation, potentially supporting traceability, repair, resale, returns, sorting, recycling and new circular business models. This reinforces the importance of designing DPP systems around useful lifecycle information rather than treating them only as a regulatory reporting mechanism.
However, the STEPH Horizon project was particularly relevant. It focused on the footwear and home textiles sectors, addressing measurement methods development, environmental evidence, structured information, a verification-readiness dashboard, and a DPP-readiness demonstrator. The DPP represents only the visible “top of the iceberg”: robust measurement methods, supporting evidence, and structured information are needed underneath before reliable product information can be communicated through a Digital Product Passport.
