Digital Product Passport Implementation: A Practical Starting Guide

Key Takeaways

ESPR requires Digital Product Passports for batteries from 2027, expanding to textiles, electronics, and furniture through 2030. Timelines are tighter than they appear.
Most manufacturers already hold the required data. The problem is fragmentation across ERP, PLM, PIM, supplier emails, and shared drives.
PIM is the correct foundation for DPP, not ERP, not spreadsheets. It is the only system designed to centralize, structure, and maintain product attributes at the lifecycle scale.
Manufacturers already using PIM software typically hold around 80% of the required DPP data. The gap is in data architecture and publication, not collection from scratch.
AtroPIM is the only PIM on this list with a native DPP module covering data modeling, passport publication, and registry connectivity, available as a paid add-on.
Audit your product data before selecting any software. The gap analysis tells you everything else.

Most manufacturers using PIM software already hold around 80% of the data a Digital Product Passport requires. For them, the real challenge is not data collection. It is data architecture and publication. This guide walks through what digital product passport implementation actually involves, which software you need at each layer, and what to do first.

Why the clock is ticking

The EU's Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation (ESPR) requires Digital Product Passports for a growing list of product categories, starting with batteries and textiles, then expanding to electronics, furniture, and others through 2030. The EU Battery Regulation mandates DPPs for industrial and EV batteries from 2027.

The timelines are tighter than they look. Building a compliant DPP is not a two-week project. Data gaps alone push most manufacturer timelines out by months, and supplier onboarding adds more.

What data a DPP must contain

Exact requirements vary by product category, but the core structure is consistent across ESPR delegated acts:

Product identity: unique product identifier, manufacturer details, model, and batch information, materials composition
Sustainability attributes: carbon footprint, recycled content, repairability score, energy consumption
Supply chain data: supplier identities, country of origin, sourcing certifications
End-of-life information: disassembly instructions, recyclability, hazardous substance declarations

ESPR implementation is phased. Delegated acts for each product category specify exactly what is required and when. Start with the mandatory fields for your category and build the data infrastructure around them. Adding fields later is easier than rebuilding a broken foundation.

Where the data comes from and why that is the hard part

Most manufacturers already have much of this data. The problem is where it lives.

Product specs sit in PLM systems. Batch and serial data are in ERP. Supplier certifications are in email threads or shared drives. Material declarations arrive as supplier PDFs in inconsistent formats. Carbon footprint data may not exist at all.

This fragmentation is the single biggest delay factor. A mid-size apparel manufacturer might spend three months trying to manually compile DPP data from seven internal systems and fourteen suppliers. The data existed, but there was no consistent structure, no version control, and no way to push updates at scale. When a supplier changed a material, there was no reliable process to reflect that change in the product record.

We see the same pattern in electronics. A component manufacturer had accurate material declarations for every part, but they lived in fourteen different supplier spreadsheets, each formatted differently, with no shared taxonomy. Mapping those to a single DPP data schema took longer than the integration work that followed.

DPP requires that data stay accurate over a product's full lifecycle. That shifts the problem from a data collection task to an ongoing data management task.

Why PIM is the right foundation for digital product passport implementation

A PIM system centralizes, structures, and maintains product data across its full lifecycle. That makes it the most practical foundation for DPP, significantly better suited than ERP or spreadsheets.

ERP systems manage transactions and inventory. They are not designed to hold rich, structured product attributes, manage taxonomy, or output data in flexible formats. Spreadsheets have no versioning, no validation, and no capacity to manage supplier-contributed data at scale.

PIM handles all of this. You define the data model, set mandatory fields, control which attributes map to DPP data requirements, and manage updates centrally. When a supplier updates a material, you update it in PIM, and it flows through to the DPP output.

The manufacturers who handle digital product passport implementation most efficiently are the ones who already have a clean PIM in place. Those who don't spend the first phase building one.

Field-level mapping is where this pays off. A well-configured PIM holds product identity, material composition, sustainability attributes, and supplier data in structured, exportable fields that map directly to DPP data schemas. Without that structure, every export is a manual job.

Which PIM to choose

Several systems are worth considering, and the right choice depends on how complex your data model is and how much control you need over the configuration.

AtroPIM is one of the strongest options for manufacturers approaching DPP implementation, and the only PIM on this list with a dedicated DPP that covers the full publication stack. The module includes a built-in DPP data model and schema, a DPP landing page and viewer that renders when a carrier is scanned, and registry and API connectivity to push passport data downstream. That means manufacturers do not need to stitch together a separate DPP platform for the publication layer. AtroPIM handles data management and passport delivery in a single system. It is available as a paid add-on to the core platform.

Beyond the DPP module, AtroPIM is open-source-based and built around a fully configurable entity and attribute model, meaning you define the data structure yourself rather than fitting your products into a predefined template. For DPP, that matters: the data schemas vary by product category and are still being refined by regulators. A system you can reconfigure without vendor involvement holds its value longer than one that requires external development for every structural change. In several projects we are currently implementing, manufacturers are able to map DPP field requirements directly to custom attribute sets and push updates through to the live passport via API, without rebuilding the integration each time the schema changes.

Akeneo has broad adoption and a mature attribute model, and suits companies that want an enterprise-grade system with an established ecosystem, though it does not offer a native DPP publication layer. Other options include Salsify, inriver, and Plytix, each with different strengths by company size and sector. These PIMs, however, will require a separate DPP platform for passport delivery.

The software stack that delivers DPP to end users

PIM handles the data layer. To make a DPP compliant and accessible, you need several more components.

DPP-specific platforms

Purpose-built DPP platforms sit between your PIM and the end user. They handle unique identifier issuance, the structured DPP data model, and the registry connection:

Circularise: strong in plastics and chemicals supply chains
Spherity: focused on pharmaceutical and battery use cases
TrusTrace: built for fashion and textile supply chains

Industry-specific platforms typically come with an established data schema for their category. If one exists for your products, it is usually faster than building a generic integration. If not, a flexible platform with API connectivity to your PIM is the better path.

Carrier and identifier layer

The physical carrier connects the product to its DPP:

QR code: works on any printed surface, readable by any smartphone, cheap per unit, but easy to copy
DataMatrix: higher data density, common in pharmaceutical and electronics labeling, requires a scanner
RFID/NFC: embedded in the product or tag, harder to separate, supports automated logistics scanning, higher cost per unit

GS1 Digital Link is the emerging standard for structuring the URL behind the carrier. It encodes product identity in a standardized format and resolves to the DPP landing page. Using it from the start future-proofs your implementation against registry requirements that are still being finalized. (source: https://www.gs1.org/standards/gs1-digital-link)

Verification and registry layer

The EU DPP registry infrastructure is still under development. ESPR delegated acts will specify the technical requirements per product category. For batteries, the specification is further along and worth monitoring closely via the EU Battery Passport programme.

Some manufacturers use blockchain-based verification tools to provide supply chain provenance before the official registry is live. Platforms like Sourcemap and TextileGenesis handle this for textiles. Various Hyperledger-based implementations exist for other categories.

End-user access layer

End users need to read the DPP somewhere:

A DPP landing page, hosted by your DPP platform or your own infrastructure, that renders when someone scans the carrier
An embedded DPP viewer on your brand website or product page
A B2B portal for downstream supply chain actors who need machine-readable access to the full data set

The landing page approach is standard for consumer products. B2B portals matter more for industrial products where downstream manufacturers or recyclers need structured data access.

Digital product passport implementation steps in order

Audit your existing product data. Map every data source: ERP, PLM, supplier documents, and lab reports. Identify what you have, what is missing, and where gaps are largest.
Map mandatory DPP fields to your data gaps. Use the delegated act for your product category to identify which fields are required and by when. Close those gaps first.
Set up or restructure your PIM. Configure the data model to match DPP field requirements. If you don't have a PIM, select and implement one now. The data model you define here determines how clean your DPP output will be.
Build your supplier data collection process. Define what you need from suppliers, in what format, and how updates will be handled. Supplier onboarding typically adds two to three months to the project.
Choose and connect a DPP platform. Select based on your product category and existing integrations. Connect it to your PIM via API so data flows automatically.
Select and apply your carrier. Use GS1 Digital Link to structure the identifier. Apply it to packaging or the product itself in a way that survives the product's full lifecycle.
Set up end-user access. Configure the landing page or viewer that renders when the carrier is scanned. Test across devices and access scenarios.
Pilot on one SKU. Run the full chain on a single product before scaling. This surfaces integration issues, data gaps, and supplier friction early.
Scale and connect to registry. As ESPR registry requirements firm up for your category, connect your DPP platform to the official infrastructure.

Common mistakes in digital product passport implementation

Relying on ERP and spreadsheets to manage DPP data is the most common mistake. The data volume and update frequency DPP requires breaking both systems quickly.

Choosing a DPP platform before the data layer is ready is the second step. A DPP platform outputs what it receives. Unstructured input produces an unstructured passport.

Treating DPP as a one-time compliance filing causes the most long-term problems. The regulation requires the passport to stay accurate throughout the product's life. That means ongoing data management, not a one-time export.

Underestimating supplier onboarding is a consistent pattern. Suppliers vary widely in their ability to provide structured, digital data. Building that into the project timeline from the start is not optional.

Building a static DPP with no update path is the technical version of the same mistake. Whatever stack you build, the ability to push updates from PIM through to the live DPP is essential.

What to do first

Audit your product data before selecting software, before contacting suppliers, before anything else.

Map every data source you have. List what fields exist, where they live, and how reliable they are. Then pull up the DPP data requirements for your product category and mark the gaps.

That gap analysis tells you what your PIM needs to hold, what you need from suppliers, and how much restructuring lies ahead. It also tells you whether your existing PIM is configured correctly for the digital product passport implementation or needs to be rebuilt from scratch.

Most manufacturers find that the audit reveals more gaps than expected. Finding them early is the point.