As of July 2026, no fashion or textile brand is legally required to publish a Digital Product Passport, the delegated act that will create that obligation is expected in 2027, not adopted. A textile passport you publish today is a voluntary transparency passport, and the brands building them now are doing it to get their identifiers, product data and supplier pipeline in order before the rules land.
This page reflects the rules as of 10 July 2026. Regulatory dates are dated and may change, confirm against the current instruments or with qualified advisers.
The Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation, Regulation (EU) 2024/1781, in force since July 2024, created the Digital Product Passport as a legal instrument. But the ESPR is a framework: it does not, by itself, require a passport for any specific product. Each product group gets its own delegated act setting out what data its passport must carry, at what granularity, and from when.
For textiles and apparel, that delegated act does not exist yet. The Commission's first ESPR working plan (COM(2025) 187, adopted April 2025) names textiles and apparel as a priority product group, with an indicative adoption date of 2027. Some industry analyses expect a Commission draft in late 2026 with adoption following in 2027; the Commission's own plan points to 2027. Either way, as of July 2026 there is no adopted textile DPP rule, and obligations are expected to apply only after a transition period, roughly 18 months from adoption, which puts the first binding textile passports in 2028 or later.
The practical consequence is worth stating plainly: any textile DPP created today is voluntary. It can be a genuinely useful transparency tool, and it can be built on the structures the regulation is converging toward, but it is not compliance, because there is nothing yet to comply with. Any vendor telling a fashion brand otherwise is selling ahead of the law.
The sequence so far: the ESPR entered into force in July 2024. The first working plan (COM(2025) 187, April 2025) confirmed textiles as a first-wave product group alongside iron and steel, with tyres, furniture, mattresses and aluminium also prioritised. In May 2026, the Commission's Joint Research Centre published its draft data specification for apparel passports, with a public consultation that closed on 26 June 2026. The next step is the Commission turning that scientific groundwork into a legal text, the delegated act, indicatively in 2027.
Separately, the ESPR requires the Commission to establish a central DPP registry, with July 2026 as the target under the regulation; the delegated act covering registry operation, data carriers and service-provider requirements is expected in late 2026. These are the shared plumbing every product group's passports will eventually connect to.
Dates in this chain have already moved once and may move again. Treat every "expected" date here as exactly that, expected, as of July 2026, and subject to the Commission's actual adoption schedule.
In May 2026 the Joint Research Centre published a Science for Policy report proposing the data content of the textile apparel passport. It is a draft, an input to the delegated act, not the act itself, and the final legal text can add, drop or reshape any of it. With that caveat, it is the most concrete picture yet of what a textile DPP will contain.
The draft proposes roughly 49 data points in four categories: product identification (GTIN, model and batch identifiers, customs codes, product category); producer identification (manufacturer, importer and facility identifiers with names and contact details); product information (fibre composition, durability and recyclability scores, recycled content and how it was recycled, substances of concern, carbon and environmental footprint, care and warranty information); and compliance documentation (conformity certificate or self-declaration with the parameters needed to verify it).
The proposed minimum granularity is the production batch, not one passport per garment, but not one generic page per style either. Each batch would carry its own record, including which facilities produced it. The draft scopes in ten apparel categories (t-shirts, shirts, sweaters, jackets, trousers, dresses, leggings and socks, underwear, swimwear, textile accessories) and scopes out smart textiles, PPE, medical devices, toys and intermediate products, again, all subject to change in the final act.
Strip away the draft's formal structure and the expected content is the information a buyer, reseller, repairer or recycler actually needs. Materials: full fibre composition, including blends, the single hardest data point for brands whose composition data lives in supplier PDFs. Care and durability: care instructions, warranty terms, and the durability and repairability information the ESPR is explicitly designed to surface. Circularity: recycled content percentages with the type of recycling behind them, and recyclability of the finished garment. Chemistry: substances of concern present in the product, which reaches deep into dye-house and finishing data. And supply chain: which facilities made the batch, identified specifically enough to be meaningful.
Almost none of this data lives in one system at a typical brand today. Composition sits in PLM or on spec sheets, facility data with sourcing teams, chemical declarations with suppliers, footprint numbers with a sustainability consultant. The multi-year work of a textile DPP is not the web page, it is assembling this data, batch by batch, from a supply chain that has never been asked for it in structured form.
Given that nothing is mandatory yet, the case for acting early is practical rather than legal. First, the supplier problem has a long lead time. If your passport needs facility identifiers, recycled-content certificates and substance declarations from tier-2 and tier-3 suppliers, the time to build that data pipeline is before the delegated act starts an 18-month countdown, not after. Brands that begin requesting structured supplier data now find the gaps while the gaps are cheap.
Second, identifiers are foundational and available today. A passport needs a product identity that machines can resolve, in practice a GS1 GTIN carried in a QR code using GS1 Digital Link, where scanning resolves via the GTIN to the product's record. That standard exists now and is the widely expected carrier pattern for DPPs; putting it on products today means the physical labelling and data-model work is done once, not redone in 2028.
Third, the scan-the-label transparency page has commercial value independent of regulation. A QR on the care label that opens a page showing composition, origin, care and repair information is a customer-facing trust asset, and several large fashion brands run voluntary versions already. The honest framing matters: this is a transparency passport a brand chooses to publish, not a compliance artefact, and copy that implies otherwise will age badly.
Known, as of July 2026: the ESPR framework is in force (Regulation (EU) 2024/1781); textiles are a confirmed priority in the first working plan (COM(2025) 187); the JRC has published a draft data specification (May 2026) with ~49 data points in four categories at batch-level granularity; and its public consultation closed on 26 June 2026.
Not known: the final data points, the delegated act may differ from the JRC draft, and the consultation exists precisely to change it. The exact adoption date, indicatively 2027, and capable of slipping. The application date, dependent on adoption plus a transition period, so plausibly 2028–2029 for the first obligations. The final scope, which textile categories are in the first act and which wait. And the operational detail of the central registry, data carriers and verification, which sits in a separate act expected late 2026.
Anyone who gives you a single confident deadline for textile DPP compliance is guessing. The defensible position is a range, a source, and a date on which the statement was true.
Passfolia hosts voluntary product passports today: a structured product record, a public passport page, a QR code that resolves via GS1 Digital Link, and versioned records so every change to a product's data is auditable. For collecting the data the JRC draft asks for, composition, certificates, facility details, there is a supplier-data workflow: you send a supplier a tokenised link and they complete their section directly, so the data arrives structured instead of buried in email attachments.
On the regulatory question, Passfolia's position is deliberate: for textiles it gives you a compliance-ready structure, aligned to adopted rules where they exist, tracked where they don't. The textiles category is clearly marked as pending, with a public changelog and a verified-as-at date, and when the delegated act is adopted the schema tracking updates with it. What Passfolia does not do, and does not claim: it does not integrate with the EU DPP registry (not yet operational for product groups), does not offer regulator or recycler access roles, and does not make any textile passport "compliant", because as of July 2026, no such compliance exists for anyone to sell.
No. As of July 2026, no delegated act requiring textile DPPs has been adopted, so there is no legal obligation for any fashion or textile brand. The requirement is expected to arrive via a delegated act under Regulation (EU) 2024/1781, indicatively adopted in 2027, with obligations applying after a transition period. Anything you publish before then is a voluntary transparency passport.
The Commission's working plan (COM(2025) 187) gives 2027 as the indicative adoption date for the textile delegated act, and obligations are expected to apply roughly 18 months after adoption, so plausibly 2028–2029 for the first collections. These dates are expectations as of July 2026 and have already shifted once; treat any single confident deadline with suspicion.
The final list is not fixed. The JRC's draft specification (May 2026) proposes about 49 data points across four categories, product identification, producer identification, product information (fibre composition, durability, recycled content, substances of concern, footprint, care) and compliance documentation, at batch-level granularity. It is a draft input to the delegated act, and the consultation that closed in June 2026 exists to change it.
Because the slow part is the data, not the web page. Collecting composition, facility and certificate data from tier-2 and tier-3 suppliers takes longer than the transition period the delegated act will allow, and identifiers (GTIN plus a GS1 Digital Link QR) can be put in place once, now. A voluntary passport also works today as a scan-the-label transparency page for customers, as long as it is presented as transparency, not compliance.
Nobody can honestly promise that, because the act is not written. What you can do is structure your data along the JRC draft, the best current signal of what will be asked, and use a system that tracks the rule as it moves from draft to adopted. Passfolia marks textiles as a pending category with a verified-as-at date and updates the structure as the legal text firms up; it does not claim compliance for a rule that does not yet exist.
Under the JRC's May 2026 draft, the minimum granularity is the production batch, each batch gets its own record, including the facilities that produced it, rather than one generic page per style. Item-level passports remain possible and some brands will choose them, but the draft floor is the batch. This is draft detail and could change in the final delegated act.
Publish a passport today, free for your first three products, full schema, real QR codes.
Start free