a product passport must be included with loose aluminium spare parts
No clear answer yet, but there is a traceable route
There is no ruling anywhere stating that loose aluminium spare parts require their own product passport, nor is there any ruling excluding them. The ESPR (Regulation (EU) 2024/1781) provides in Article 1 that the regulation establishes a framework for setting requirements for products placed on the market, with the aim of making them more sustainable, circular and energy-efficient. A spare part is in essence also a product placed on the market — so it does not automatically fall outside the scope of Article 1. However, whether a specific type of spare part will actually require a passport, and what content it will have, is determined per product group in a delegated act. For aluminium semi-finished products, this does not yet exist.
Which types of spare part are relevant and which are not
The question can actually be split into two parts. On the one hand, there are spare parts that are themselves an aluminium semi-finished product — a loose profile, a cast component, a sheet sold as a replacement part. For such products, the same reasoning in principle applies as for newly produced aluminium: it is a product that may fall within the scope of Article 1 of the ESPR, provided that the future delegated act for that product group also establishes it this way. On the other hand, there are spare parts that form part of a larger composite product, for example an aluminium fitting in a window frame or a cast component in a machine. Article 2 of the ESPR distinguishes between products, components and materials, and this distinction is exactly what matters: whether a component is separately subject to the rules, or only counts within the passport of the end product in which it is incorporated, depends on how the product group is defined in the delegated act. This has not yet been determined for aluminium.
What in any case remains outside the scope of this specific question: components that are not aluminium semi-finished products but for example plastic or steel fall under a different future product group regulation — that is a separate process within the same regulation. And spare parts that are not placed on the market but are used internally for own maintenance do not fall within the core of Article 1, which concerns the placing of products on the market.
When this becomes concrete and what applies in the meantime
No delegated act has yet been published designating aluminium semi-finished products as a product group, and therefore no act specifically addressing spare parts within it. As long as this act does not exist, there is no obligation for aluminium spare parts to have a digital product passport based on the ESPR. What is already established is the framework: Article 1 of the ESPR describes that the regulation works through such product group-specific delegated acts, not through a single general obligation that applies to all products at once. Further explanation of how this mechanism works can be found on what is a delegated act and why does it determine what I must do?. As soon as a concrete date for aluminium is known, it will be posted on alupas.eu and on the page that tracks this separately: when does the product passport become mandatory for aluminium?.
How to approach this in practice
For those already producing or importing aluminium spare parts, the first step is not to look at the spare part separately, but to check whether the underlying semi-finished product — the profile, the casting, the sheet material — will be subject to the ESPR in the future. This can be checked on does the digital product passport apply to my aluminium? and on the broader list of which products in the aluminium sector are subject to the ESPR?. Subsequently, the distinction between semi-finished product and end product is important, as a spare part can be an end product for one party and a semi-finished product for another that is further processed — this distinction is explained on a product passport must already be in place if my aluminium is still a semi-finished product. Then it is useful to look at whether it involves profiles, castings or packaging material, because the sector-specific pages on these (profiles and extrusion., aluminium packagingfurnish information on what is already known per sub-sector. Finally, it is practical to start now inventorying what data on origin, composition and recycling content are available, so that a passport — when the time comes — does not have to be built from scratch; an overview of what is typically requested in it is on what data are included in the aluminium product passport?.
Where that is stated: article 1 and article 2 of the ESPR
The basis for this lies in article 1 of the ESPR (Regulation (EU) 2024/1781), which describes the scope of the regulation as a framework for requirements applicable to products placed on the market, to be specified per product group through delegated acts. Article 2 of the same regulation provides the definitions that determine how a "product" relates to components and materials within it — and that distinction is precisely the key to the question of whether a spare part standing alone falls under the rules independently or only counts within a larger whole.
What to do now
Any company now supplying spare parts made of aluminium should best document from which semi-finished product they are made and what data on it are already available, and keep an eye on the pages mentioned above about their own sub-sector until a delegated act for aluminium is published — only then will it become clear whether and how spare parts are treated separately.
What this is based on
- Regulation (EU) 2024/1781 (ESPR), Article 1 (subject matter and scope)
- Regulation (EU) 2024/1781 (ESPR), Article 2 (definitions)
The regulation itself is on EUR-Lex. We refer per statement; you do not have to take our word for it.
What you must concretely do
What is expected of you
The ESPR (Regulation (EU) 2024/1781) sets out in article 1 that the regulation establishes a framework for requirements applicable to products, with the aim of making products more sustainable and ensuring that information on their environmental performance becomes available — including the digital product passport. Article 1 makes no general distinction between a complete product and a spare part supplied as a replacement. Whether a product passport is concretely required for a spare part depends on the delegated act drawn up for the relevant product group: that act determines which products within a group fall under the obligation. For aluminium semi-finished products, that act does not yet exist, so it is not yet clear whether and how spare parts are included in it.
Determining whether the component falls within the product group
A spare part made of aluminium — think of a loose profile, a casting or a container supplied as a replacement — must first be recognised as falling within a product group regulated by the ESPR. Article 2 of the ESPR provides the definitions that play a role in this, such as what is understood by "product". For a company of 10 to 100 employees, this means it is useful to check whether their own production actually falls within the scope of the regulation, which is covered in more detail on the page on which products from the aluminium sector fall under the ESPR. A spare part generally shares the fate of the main product for which it is intended: if the original profile or casting falls under a delegated act, it is obvious that the replacement component will be viewed in the same category.
Making the distinction between semi-finished product and finished component
Many aluminium spare parts leave the factory as a semi-finished product: a profile cut to size, a casting without further processing. Whether a passport is already required for it is linked to the question of when a semi-finished product falls under the obligation and when the finished product bearing it does. That distinction is explained on the page on whether a product passport is already required if the aluminium is still a semi-finished product. For a company supplying spare parts as a semi-finished product to an assembly company, it can make a practical difference who in the chain will then be responsible for creating and supplying the passport.
Documenting the origin of the aluminium
Spare parts are often made from a different alloy or casting batch than the original part, and sometimes from recycled material. Article 2 of the ESPR contains definitions that are relevant to how origin and composition are recorded. Whether it concerns primary or secondary aluminium is a distinction that can have implications for the data that will eventually appear in the product passport, as described in more detail on the page about whether it makes a difference whether aluminium is primary or secondary. For a medium-sized company that produces spare parts from varying batches of scrap or ingots, this means that careful registration of origin per production batch may become relevant in time, even though the precise requirement is not yet established.
Following the delegated act for the own product group
Because Article 1 of the ESPR sets the framework but the concrete obligation per product category is elaborated in a delegated act, following that act is the way to know when and how spare parts are exactly affected. What a delegated act entails and why it is decisive is explained on the page about what a delegated act is and why it determines what must happen. For a small business, this is mainly a matter of periodically checking for news, rather than setting up a complete passport system now for an obligation that is not yet established.
Where things go wrong in practice
A first situation is that a spare part is seen as "just a piece of aluminium" and therefore overlooked, while the original product for which it is intended falls within a regulated product category. The part may then be subject to the same obligation, even though it appears to be administratively separate.
A second situation arises when a company supplies spare parts to multiple customers who process the part in different end products. Without clear agreement, it is not established who is responsible for compiling the product passport: the supplier of the semi-finished product, or the party that incorporates the part.
A third situation is the absence of origin registration. Spare parts are often made in smaller series, sometimes from remaining batches or mixed material, making it impossible to reconstruct afterwards which alloy or what proportion of recycled aluminium was used.
A fourth situation is that a company thinks spare parts are automatically excluded because they are "not the main product", and therefore does not adapt when the delegated act for its own product category is published.
A fifth situation is confusion about the scope of its own obligation: smaller suppliers of spare parts sometimes assume that company size by definition provides exemption, while that depends on what is determined in the regulation itself about small businesses, as discussed on the page about whether the product passport also applies to small companies.
What you can document now
- An overview of which spare parts are produced and for which main product or product category they are intended.
- Origin data per production batch: alloy, proportion of primary or secondary aluminium, and any supplier of the base material.
- Agreements with customers about who is responsible for compiling and submitting the product passport when the spare part is supplied as a semi-finished product.
- A fixed procedure for monitoring new delegated acts that are relevant to its own product category, so that a change does not go unnoticed.
- Internal documentation about the distinction between semi-finished product and finished part within its own production process, as a basis for the moment when a passport actually needs to be created.
This is not legal advice. This page provides general information on the legislation that this platform covers. We do not know your situation. If in doubt about your own case, consult a lawyer or the competent supervisory authority.
Written with AI based on the sources above, checked by a human on 2026-09-05. Is something incorrect? Let us know — corrections are prioritised.