must my subcontractor also provide product passport data

What you must concretely do

What is expected of you

A product passport does not come from a single source. The manufacturing data, the origin of components, the repair and recycling information — that is distributed throughout the chain, including at parties that are not themselves designated as a "manufacturer". The ESPR recognizes this and therefore lays down requirements in Article 38 (Regulation (EU) 2024/1781) for actors in the supply chain, in addition to the obligations that Article 27 places on the manufacturer itself.

Make information available to whoever compiles the passport

If you supply a component or module for an electronic product, you may be asked to provide information that is relevant to the passport of the final product. Article 38 of the ESPR identifies this as a requirement for actors in the supply chain. For a company with 10 to 100 employees that operates as a subcontractor, this means in practice: the data needed to comply with Article 10 of the ESPR (the content of the digital product passport) must come from somewhere, and if the subcontractor does not provide it, the manufacturer or importer must reconstruct or request it themselves. The latter takes time and is error-prone.

The manufacturer remains ultimately responsible

Article 27 of the ESPR places the obligations for the passport with the manufacturer. This does not change because part of the product is made by a subcontractor. The manufacturer who provides or has the passport compiled remains the point of contact for the data contained in it — even if that data actually comes from a supplier. For companies working with subcontractors, this means that responsibility does not automatically shift to whoever makes the component. What can shift is the practical task of requesting, checking and passing on the correct data.

Subcontractor is not automatically a "manufacturer"

Whether a subcontractor themselves falls under the obligations of Article 27 depends on the role that this party plays in the chain — does the party make its own product that is placed on the market, or does the party supply a component to another party that places the final product on the market. This distinction is not predetermined for every cooperation arrangement. For those unsure whether their own product falls under the digital product passport at all, it is useful to first check whether the product falls under the digital product passport for electronics, before the question about subcontractors is explored.

Where things go wrong in practice

The subcontractor supplies only physical components, not data. A production contract often covers specifications, delivery times and quality requirements, but not who documents the origin or material data needed for the product passport. If this has not been agreed, the data requirement only arises when the product passport actually has to be compiled — often too late.

The subcontractor in turn works with suppliers. A component produced by the subcontractor is itself made up of raw materials or sub-components from third parties. The question "where does this come from" can then be several layers deep in the chain, and by definition no one in the supply chain has visibility of the whole picture.

There is no contractual agreement on delivery, only a verbal expectation. Without a documented agreement, there is little leverage if the subcontractor does not deliver the data, delivers it late, or delivers it incompletely. This problem is substantively similar to the situation in which a supplier does not provide the data, and the approach — documenting what is needed and when — is also the starting point here.

Multiple subcontractors supply the same component, with slightly different compositions. When procuring the same component from different suppliers, the material composition may differ slightly, while the product passport expects one set of data per product. This applies in a similar way as with multiple suppliers for the same component.

The supplied data is not checked. A subcontractor supplies a list of materials or a certificate, and that data goes into the product passport unseen. If a component turns out to be incorrect, the inaccuracy is attributed to whoever compiled the product passport — not automatically to the subcontractor who supplied the data.

What you can document

• An overview of which data per component is required, derived from what article 10 of the ESPR expects from a digital product passport. That overview can serve as a permanent annex to every new contract with a subcontractor or supplier, similar to the question what data is requested from an electronics supplier.
• A contractual provision on delivery, form and timing. When, in what format, and upon which change in the component again. For the precise wording of this, there is a worked example in agreements on passport data in the purchase contract.
• A documented verification step before supplied data is incorporated into the product passport — who reviews the data and on the basis of which underlying documents. See also how supplied data is checked for accuracy.
• A list of subcontractors and suppliers per component, including who supplied which information and when. This makes it traceable where a data point comes from if a question arises about it later.
• A procedure for batch changes or composition switches, so that an adjustment at the subcontractor does not leave an outdated product passport unnoticed — relevant for products that vary per batch.
• A note of the agreement made if a subcontractor does not want to cooperate with the requested data supply, including the alternative that was chosen. This aligns with the approach described under what to do if a supplier does not want to adjust the purchasing terms.