Digital Product Passport by WIARA

Home
Bulgaria
Plovdiv
Digital Product Passport by WIARA

Digital Product Passport (DPP) Transparency, sustainability, and compliance with European regulations.

A single digital dossier for your products – from origin to recycling.

02/10/2026

One passport a month, one token, one person at a desk. That works fine.

Now make it a hundred a month. Every sealing needs someone with the token in the reader, with the right PIN, on a day they are in the office. The passport waits for that person. :hourglass_flowing_sand:

The DPP registry user guide (v1.02, 24 August 2026) accepts a qualified seal from either a token you hold or a qualified remote service run by a trust service provider. Both are qualified. What differs is who has to be present at the moment of sealing.

Our expectation, which we have not measured: the more often your passports change, the more likely you are to want sealing to happen inside your own system instead of at one person's desk.

So before choosing a route, work out how many seals a month you expect, and who covers when the token holder is away.

How many people in your company could seal a passport today?

30/09/2026

"Our suppliers outside the EU will just walk away rather than do this."

A fair worry, and it assumes the passport is the supplier's job.

Under ESPR, the duty sits with whoever places the product on the EU market: the manufacturer, or an importer based in the Union (Articles 27 and 29). The supplier's address doesn't move it.

What reaches them is your request. For textiles, its biggest item is old news: fibre composition has travelled with garments sold in the EU since 2012 (Regulation 1007/2011).

Staying depends on the ask. One declaration per fabric, reused across every garment, is easy to agree to. A new spreadsheet every order is not. :thread:

If a supplier only self-declares, our passports say so next to the value.

When did you last read your supplier form from their side of the desk?

29/09/2026

"How do we know that what you told us in the summer is still true?"

Fair question. Ask it of every source you use, us included.

Our answer is a date. :date: Every regulation page we publish shows the day it was last verified against the source, in all eight of our site languages. When a check turns up a change, it goes on a dated changelog page.

Here is why the date does the work. The Commission's DPP registry user guide is on version 1.03, last published 16 September 2026. It says: "Currently, it is not possible to successfully register DPPs." That was still true when we re-read it today, 29 September.

It will stop being true one day, and you will only know if someone goes back and reads it again.

A claim with a date on it is one you can check yourself. Without the date, you are trusting whoever said it last.

When regulatory advice gets forwarded around your company, does the date travel with it?

28/09/2026

A furniture maker in Plovdiv writes one line in Bulgarian: "frame made with 40% recycled steel". A buyer in Lyon reads it in French. A retailer in Vienna reads it in German.

The buyer in Lyon never sees your Bulgarian. They order and advertise on the French line. If a translation turned it into "made from recycled materials", that is now a claim nobody at your company wrote and nobody can stand behind.

Since Sunday, with the EU's new green-claims rules applying, the sentence a buyer reads is the one they will ask you to back up.

So our passports don't hide machine translation. Every translated page says so, with one click back to your original wording, and a person can check and correct any language before it goes out.

Who reads your product sheets after they leave your language?

25/09/2026

"If we publish a passport and then find a mistake in it, are we stuck with it?"

No. A published passport can be corrected.

The part worth thinking about is what a correction leaves behind. Under the EU registry act, Implementing Regulation (EU) 2026/1778, the registry versions the data you register and stores a Commission timestamp for every update (Article 10(2)). You can fix a registration. The fix itself is on record.

So the check that matters happens earlier, inside your own system. Two questions to try this week.

Can the person who edits a spec also put it live, with nobody else looking at it first?

If a fibre percentage changed last month, can you still pull up what it said before?

In our platform a draft stays invisible until someone publishes it, and every publish creates a new version. The audit log records who changed what, with the before and after values. Editors can change a passport but can't delete one.

If you try the second question on your own records today, tell us what you found.

24/09/2026

Picture a town hall buying office chairs or staff uniforms. Under the ESPR, the EU can one day tell that buyer which environmental performance to demand.

How it should decide when to do that is the subject of a 73-page Joint Research Centre method, published on 16 February 2026.

We read all of it looking for the Digital Product Passport. "Passport" appears zero times. So do "DPP" and "data carrier".

The method picks its instrument from two inputs: price difference and market availability. Whether a buyer can check a supplier's claim is not one of them. Verification does appear, in the list of drawbacks, as a cost.

The report says it does not necessarily reflect the Commission's position, and it sets no requirement for any product group. It is a gap in a method document.

If that town hall one day asks for recycled content, someone has to prove the figure. A passport is one place that proof can sit.

Have you ever answered a tender that asked for evidence you had but couldn't easily hand over?

21/09/2026

Second-hand write-ups have handed the same deadline to more than one EU law this month.

A date is the part people remember. The instrument number is not. So the date travels and the law underneath it changes.

A regulation applies as written in all 27 member states. A directive becomes 27 national laws first, and the dates move.

The ESPR is a Regulation, (EU) 2024/1781, in force since 18 July 2024. Explainer copy calls it a directive anyway. It sets no passport duty on its own: those come through Article 4 delegated acts, group by group.

Every date that reaches us goes against a dated clock table. A month with no instrument behind it does not survive it.

Take the nearest deadline in your plan. What would have to be true for it to bind you?

18/09/2026

The figure doing the rounds from the EU procurement proposal is right. What it measures got swapped.

Article 98(4) of the 9 September text reads "at least 30 % of total points awarded". Points awarded. Contract value stays out of it. 50% where the subject-matter is labour-intensive.

Those points go to quality: technical merit, staffing, after-sales, security. Environmental criteria can fill part of that share and count inside it. The Commission's release: buyers keep "full discretion over which quality criteria to apply and in which proportion".

Recital 28 of the same proposal feeds the mix-up: construction is about 30% of public-contract value. We merged the two ourselves for a day.

Would your bid team catch a brief quoting the wrong one?

15/09/2026

A sentence came back in a search on 9 September. Good for us, if it were true.

It said green claims need passport-backed substantiation from 27 September.

Directive (EU) 2024/825 requires substantiation. It amends two consumer directives, 2005/29/EC and 2011/83/EU. It creates no passport. The words do not appear in it. We read it on EUR-Lex, ELI 32024L0825, on 11 July.

The passport lives in Regulation (EU) 2024/1781. No delegated act yet makes one due for textiles, furniture, construction materials or steel.

A durability claim needs the same product data either way. The duty does not travel.

The error points at our product. It is still an error.

If it reaches you, ask which article says "passport." What number comes back?

14/09/2026

The DPP standards leave the code on your label unsecured. Two scope statements say so.

EN 18220, the data-carrier standard, puts "secure elements and other cryptographic security features" out of scope and hands them to the security pair, EN 18239 and EN 18246.

EN 18246 puts "cryptographic security features for unique product identifiers" and "secure elements related to data carriers" out of its own scope. Nothing in JTC 24 picks it up.

EN 18246 does define the Electronically Signed Data Construct: passport data signed by its issuer, verifiable by anyone downstream. That covers what the passport says. The printed code is a separate purchase.

We work at the data layer.

What does your carrier supplier's security claim actually name?

Address

Plovdiv

Website

https://digiproductpass.com/, http://wiara.com/

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Digital Product Passport by WIARA posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.