An unlabelled glass pump bottle, a frosted glass cream jar with its lid leaning beside it, a matte white tube, a folded sheet of kraft paper board and two unprinted cream paper cards on a pale oak table in natural light, with a ceramic vase of small white flowers behind on the left

AI-generated image.

The short answer: the duties attached to your container sit outside the Cosmetics Act

When a brand chooses a container, it usually checks two things: whether the container suits the formula, and what has to be printed on the label. The second is addressed by the labelling and marking provisions of the Cosmetics Act.

The container and packaging decision also pulls in duties that the Cosmetics Act does not address at all. Those come from the Act on the Promotion of Saving and Recycling of Resources and the instruments beneath it, and they run in three separate lines. The first governs how much empty space and how many layers a package may have. The second requires the packaging material and structure to be assessed and the result to be printed on the outside of the packaging. The third is the separate-disposal mark. The three lines rest on different provisions, and the party bound can differ from provision to provision.

The provisions cited in this article do not deal with product approval or registration; they set packaging duties and assessment and marking procedures. Those duties attach to things that are settled during design: the resin and colour of the body, how the label is applied, how the closure is built, and the volume of a gift-set carton. Many of those are the items that cannot be reversed later without redoing a mould and a print run.

This article sets out those three lines as the provisions themselves put them. The scope is the law of the Republic of Korea, and every provision cited here was read in the original on the Korean Law Information Center on 30 September 2026. Packaging rules in export destination markets are not covered. This is not legal advice on a specific matter.

Key takeaways

1. The same Act assigns these duties to different parties

The first thing to sort out is who has to comply, because the three lines do not share a duty holder.

The packaging-method line is broad. Article 9(1) of the Act requires "a person who manufactures, imports or sells a product (hereinafter referred to as a 'manufacturer or other person')" to comply with the matters in its subparagraphs, for products prescribed by Presidential Decree, in order to curb the generation of packaging waste and promote recycling. Subparagraph 1 is the standard on packaging materials and packaging methods, and a parenthesis defines packaging method as "the packaging space ratio and the number of packaging layers". Selling, not only manufacturing and importing, brings a company inside this provision.

The material and structure line is narrow. Article 9-2(1) requires "a producer subject to the recycling obligation for packaging under Article 16(1)" to comply with the standards on packaging material and structure prescribed and published by the Minister of Climate, Energy and Environment, and Article 9-4(2) and (3) require the same producers to undergo the assessment and to mark its result on the outside of the packaging. A company that is not such a producer is not reached by those two provisions.

The scope of that producer is defined in Article 16(1). It covers manufacturers and importers of the products and packaging prescribed by Presidential Decree, with one parenthesis attached: "in the case of packaging, this includes sellers of products using the packaging." For packaging, therefore, the provision can reach not only the company that made the container but also the company that sells the product filled in it.

There is an exemption. Article 16(2) allows a producer subject to the recycling obligation to be exempted from it where the producer operates a workplace of a business type and scale prescribed by Presidential Decree, and in that case the producer must prove its eligibility for the exemption in the manner prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Climate, Energy and Environment. Those business types and scales are in Attached Table 4, to which Article 19 of the Enforcement Decree refers. Attached Table 4 sets the sales and import value criteria alongside the shipment and import volume criteria for each business type, and Note 2 defines an exempt workplace as one that falls under "either the sales and import value criteria or the shipment and import volume criteria". Meeting either set is enough. Taking only the rows that include cosmetics, for the manufacture and import of cosmetics and pet shampoo and rinse using paper cartons, metal cans or plastic packaging other than foamed plastic, the value criteria are annual sales of less than one billion won in the preceding year for a manufacturer, or annual imports of less than 300 million won for an importer. The volume criteria for the same row are an annual shipment volume of less than four tonnes for a manufacturer, or an annual import volume of less than one tonne for an importer. For the same product group in glass bottles, the volume criteria are less than ten tonnes shipped or less than three tonnes imported.

One distinction has to be kept here. The exemption concerns the recycling obligation; the separate-disposal mark is a different matter. Subparagraph 1 of Article 3 of the Guidelines on Separate-Disposal Marking defines the parties who must mark the packaging referred to in subparagraph 1 of Article 16 of the Enforcement Decree as "manufacturers and others of the product using that packaging, including those eligible for the recycling-obligation exemption set out in Attached Table 4 of the Decree". Being exempted from the recycling obligation because of scale leaves the separate-disposal marking duty in place.

In a commissioned-manufacturing arrangement, these provisions alone do not settle which party carries which duty. The parenthesis in Article 16(1) brings sellers within scope for packaging, and Note 3 to Attached Table 4 defines the packaging in rows 1 and 2 as "packaging of a branded product that is shipped or imported already packed together with the contents of the product at the manufacturing stage". The provisions show that the party selling under its own mark is relevant to the analysis. They do not, however, provide that a contract can reallocate the statutory duty holder, so which party a given structure falls on is better confirmed with both the Korea Environment Corporation and the contracting party. It is worth settling that with the manufacturing side while development is being commissioned. How the Cosmetics Act itself divides responsibility between manufacturing and selling is covered in what the brand owner still has to do.

2. Cosmetic containers are named as packaging subject to the recycling obligation

Whether the provisions above actually bite is answered by Article 18 of the Enforcement Decree, which lists the "products and packaging prescribed by Presidential Decree" referred to in Article 16(1) of the Act.

Subparagraph 1 covers paper cartons (only those with plastic or aluminium foil attached), glass bottles, metal cans and plastic packaging used to package the products listed in its items. The entry for plastic packaging carries a parenthesis: it includes containers, film and sheet packaging and tray-type containers, while excluding the packaging of the products listed in the items of subparagraph 2 of the same article.

Item (d) among those items is cosmetics under the Cosmetics Act, together with pet shampoo and rinse. Because cosmetics are named as a product category, glass bottles and plastic containers used for cosmetics are packaging within this regime.

The part of the same article other than its subparagraphs carries a proviso. It excludes products and packaging that a manufacturer or importer has manufactured or imported for the purpose of export, sample specimens of research products and packaging imported by an institution or organisation under Article 14(1) of the Basic Research Promotion and Technology Development Support Act, and products and packaging that have been returned and discarded. A product or package manufactured or imported for the purpose of export must be considered under this proviso first. Which provisions of the Cosmetics Act fall away and which remain for export-only goods is set out separately in export-only cosmetics.

The position of that proviso does need to be read precisely. The export exclusion sits in Article 18 of the Enforcement Decree, the article that defines packaging subject to the recycling obligation. Article 7 of the Enforcement Decree, which defines the products subject to the packaging-method standards, and the main text of the Rule on Standards for Product Packaging Materials and Packaging Methods contain no equivalent sentence. That statement is the result of comparing the main text of those provisions, and no conclusion is drawn here from it. Whether the packaging-volume standards apply to an export-only product is better confirmed case by case.

3. The assessment happens before sale, and you run it yourself first

What most often goes wrong with the material and structure assessment is the order and the timing. The provisions read as follows.

Article 3-6(1) of the Enforcement Rule requires a producer subject to the recycling obligation to carry out a self-assessment of the packaging, against the assessment standards under Article 9-4(1) of the Act, before the packaging and any product using it are manufactured, imported or sold. A parenthesis clarifies that, for a product using packaging, the subject of the assessment is that packaging. This is a step taken before launch, not one completed afterwards.

Paragraph 2 requires the producer, after completing the self-assessment, to file an application for a packaging material and structure assessment with the Korea Environment Corporation, attaching the self-assessment result and the documents evidencing that result. The evidence requirement carries its own parenthesis: where the self-assessment result falls in the lowest grade, the evidencing documents are not required.

Paragraph 3 requires the Corporation to review the documents filed and to issue an assessment result form within 10 days of the date it received them. Paragraph 4 allows a producer that disagrees with the result form to file an objection within 30 days of the date of notification, and paragraph 5 requires the Corporation to notify the outcome within 10 days.

That is not the end of it. Paragraph 6 requires the producer, after manufacturing, importing and selling assessed packaging and products using it, to submit to the Corporation a list of those products and information on the material and structure of the packaging by 15 April of the year following the year of manufacture, import and sale. It is an annual filing.

Article 6 of the Standards for Grading the Ease of Recycling of Packaging designates the Korea Environment Corporation as the body that actually performs the assessment work.

One provision on evidence connects directly to development practice. Attached Table 2 of the same notice, which sets out the determination methods, distinguishes visual determination from instrumental analysis and then provides that, besides the analytical methods it prescribes, the material and structure may also be established through certain documents, in which case the outcome is treated as equivalent to an instrumental analysis result. Those documents include a test report issued by a testing and inspection body accredited under Article 23 of the Framework Act on National Standards, and a test report issued by the packaging manufacturer together with documents such as a packaging purchase specification and a delivery confirmation bearing the seal of the company concerned. A proviso adds that where two or more analytical methods produce different results, the result under the determination method set out in that table prevails. In other words, the purchase specification you receive from the container supplier is used at this point. The way supplier documents should be read is the same principle covered in raw material documents.

The same Attached Table 2 also provides that any material or structure which the producer subject to the recycling obligation has itself determined to be difficult to recycle is excluded from the determination. That runs in the same direction as the evidence proviso in Article 3-6(2) of the Enforcement Rule: accepting the lowest grade yourself reduces the evidential burden for that part.

4. There are four grades, and in practice only one is printed

This is the point in the regime that is most often misread.

Article 3 of the Standards for Grading the Ease of Recycling of Packaging divides the assessment grades into "best for recycling", "excellent for recycling", "ordinary for recycling" and "difficult to recycle". Subparagraph 1 of Article 4 of the Standards for Marking Packaging Material and Structure Grades likewise requires one of those four to be marked according to the assessment result.

Article 5 of that same notice then sets out exemptions from the marking duty, and its subparagraph 1 is "packaging that received an assessment result of 'best for recycling', 'excellent for recycling' or 'ordinary for recycling'". That exemption occupies the space that the proviso to Article 3-7(1) of the Enforcement Rule leaves open, by allowing the assessment result not to be marked in the cases published by the Minister of Climate, Energy and Environment. The practical result is that the wording actually printed on the outside of a package narrows towards "difficult to recycle". That is why the mark consumers see on products is effectively of one kind.

The other exemptions in the same article are worth reading alongside it. Subparagraph 2 covers packaging excluded from separate-disposal marking under the items of subparagraph 1 of Article 16 of the Enforcement Decree, while food wrap film made of polyvinyl chloride (including polyvinylidene chloride) is taken back out of that exemption. Subparagraph 3 covers packaging graded difficult to recycle where changing the material or structure is hard because of a concern such as impairment of the product's function. The cases it lists include glass bottles used to package fruit wine and whisky under the Liquor Tax Act, cases where the producer subject to the recycling obligation has been recognised as able to meet collection-rate thresholds through its own collection system, and cases recognised after review by the packaging material and structure review committee. For cosmetics, the relevant entries are the latter two rather than the glass-bottle entry.

The deadline for marking is also in the provisions. Article 3-7(1) of the Enforcement Rule requires the result to be marked on the outside of packaging being manufactured or imported, and of products being sold using it, within six months of the date the assessment result is notified. Paragraph 2 requires a producer that cannot mark within six months, for a reason such as a needed change to the manufacturing process, to file an application to postpone the deadline with the Corporation, and paragraph 3 allows the Corporation to postpone the marking deadline by up to nine months.

The method of marking is set by Article 4 of the Standards for Marking Packaging Material and Structure Grades. Subparagraph 2 requires the mark to be printed or engraved on, or applied by label to, at least one surface of the product or packaging concerned. Subparagraph 4 places the mark above, below or beside the separate-disposal mark, and where there is no separate-disposal mark, on the front, the side, or above, below or beside the bar code, together with the packaging material. Subparagraph 5 allows the assessment result to be marked on only one separate-disposal mark where the packaging carries two or more of them. Subparagraph 6 applies the product's manufacturing date as the reference date for the mark.

One caution about provision numbers. Article 1 of the Standards for Marking Packaging Material and Structure Grades cites Article 9-3 of the Act and Article 3-4 of its Enforcement Rule as its basis, while Article 1 of the Standards for Grading the Ease of Recycling of Packaging cites Article 9-4 of the Act. In the Act as currently in force, the material and structure assessment is Article 9-4, and that article carries a note recording that it was moved from the former Article 9-3 by the amendment of 28 March 2023. In the Enforcement Rule the assessment is Article 3-6 and the marking of its result is Article 3-7, each carrying a note that it was moved from the former Article 3-3 and Article 3-4 respectively by the amendment of 11 April 2024. When checking a legal basis here, searching by the name of the mechanism is safer than searching by number.

5. What makes packaging "difficult to recycle"?

How the grades divide is set out in Attached Table 1 of the Standards for Grading the Ease of Recycling of Packaging. The determination structure comes first.

Item (b) of the assessment criteria in Attached Table 1 awards the grade for a "material and structure easy to recycle" where the detailed criteria for easy recycling are all satisfied and none of the criteria for difficult recycling applies. Item (c) awards a "material and structure difficult to recycle" where any one of the difficult criteria applies. Item (d) classifies packaging that falls into neither category as a "material and structure of limited ease of recycling", that is, ordinary for recycling. A single failing entry moves the packaging down.

The assessment is also broken into components. Item (b) of the basic principles in Attached Table 1 states that components are separated into the body, the label, and the closure and other accessories, according to the function and form of each packaging material, and that the effect of each component on recycling is analysed. Item (f) provides that for glass bottles, polystyrene paper, PET bottles and plastic containers and trays, packaging that satisfies all of the conditions for the excellent grade and also satisfies the conditions for the best grade falls in the best grade for recycling. The example beneath it states that a PET bottle whose body is ordinary while its label is best falls in the ordinary grade.

Where a cosmetic container actually divides can be read in two entries of the detailed criteria.

In the entry for plastic container and tray packaging, excluding PET bottles and foamed plastic, a body easy to recycle is a single material, and where PET is used it must be colourless. A note excludes biodegradable resin. The materials and structures difficult to recycle include a body in which glycol-modified PET resin is mixed, a coloured PET body, polyvinyl chloride, and a case where a material other than plastic is combined with the plastic such that the two cannot be separated. The note to that last entry states that it includes plastic into which calcium carbonate, biodegradable resin, minerals and the like have been mixed to form a single material.

For the label and the closure and other accessories, the criteria then vary with the material of the body. Two entries appear on the difficult side throughout: polyvinyl chloride, and a component of a material different from the body that cannot be separated from it. A note excludes an inner lid that can only be used once it has been fully separated from the body. There are relaxations in the other direction as well. A body of single-material PET with no label, closure or other accessories falls in the best grade, while an adhesive label or direct printing on the body falls in the ordinary grade. Where the body is PE or PP and the label, closure and other accessories are of a different olefin-based material, they are treated as the same material, and the note gives a body in PP with a label in PE as an example of the excellent grade.

PET bottles have their own entry. A body easy to recycle is a single material, colourless, with a lightweighting index of 1 or less, and a note limits the lightweighting index to PET bottles for bottled water and beverages. The materials and structures difficult to recycle include a body in which glycol-modified PET resin is mixed, a single-material PET bottle other than for bottled water or beverages in a colour other than green, a coloured body in the case of bottled water and beverages, and a composite material. A cosmetic PET bottle is not bottled water or a beverage, so the second of those entries applies to it. If it is colourless it satisfies the criterion for easy recycling; if it is green it fails the colourless condition but does not meet any difficult criterion either, so under item (d) above it remains ordinary; any other colour meets a difficult criterion. On the label side, direct printing on the body appears among the difficult criteria, with expiry-date and manufacturing-date markings excluded from that judgment. Adhesives that cannot be separated under hot alkaline conditions, and polyvinyl chloride, non-plastic and metal-blended materials, are also on the difficult side.

Translated into design decisions, the first items to check are a coloured plastic body or one blended with glycol-modified PET, a closure, pump or label of a different material that does not separate, polyvinyl chloride, and a composite structure in which a non-plastic material cannot be separated. The grade is determined against the whole set of detailed criteria, though, so it is safer not to reduce the checklist to that list. The ingredient- and formula-related considerations in choosing a container are covered in choosing ingredients and packaging and formula compatibility.

6. The Cosmetics Act rescues one grade

The assessment criteria in Attached Table 1 contain one entry that reaches into other statutes. Item (e) classifies as ordinary for recycling those cases where separation is impossible in order to comply with the safety standards on child-protective packaging under the Act on the Safety Management of Household Chemical Products and Biocidal Products, the special packaging under the Regulations on Safety Containers and Packaging and Dosing Measures for Drugs, or the safety containers and packaging required under the Cosmetics Act.

Because impossibility of separation is otherwise a criterion that pushes packaging onto the difficult side, this entry works as a rescue, lifting separation that exists for a safety reason from difficult up to ordinary.

How far that rescue reaches, however, is set by the Cosmetics Act. Article 9(1) of that Act requires cosmetics responsible distributors and custom cosmetics sellers, when selling cosmetics, to use safety containers and packaging so that accidents in which a child misuses a cosmetic and harms the human body do not occur. Paragraph 2 delegates the items and the standards to Ordinance of the Prime Minister. Article 18(1) of the Enforcement Rule confines those items to three: nail enamel remover and nail polish remover containing acetone; products in a liquid state that are not in emulsion form, such as children's oil, containing 10 percent or more hydrocarbons per individual package with a kinematic viscosity of 21 centistokes or less at 40 degrees Celsius; and products in a liquid state containing 5 percent or more methyl salicylate per individual package. The proviso to that paragraph excludes single-use products, spray container products whose container mouth is operated by a pump or a trigger, and pressurised spray container products. Paragraph 2 requires safety containers and packaging to be such that they are not difficult for an adult to open but are difficult for a child under five years of age to open, and provides that the specific standards for the degree of difficulty and the test methods follow what the Minister of Trade and Industry prescribes and publishes.

So this rescue matters where the product falls within those three items in Article 18(1) of the Enforcement Rule and separation has become impossible because of that safety packaging. The fact that a closure on an ordinary skincare container does not detach is not explained by this entry.

Imported products have one further entry. Item (c) of the basic principles in Attached Table 1 provides that, among labels or inspection certificates whose attachment after packaging is unavoidable, a label attached for Korean-language marking under instruments such as the Act on Labeling and Advertising of Foods and the Cosmetics Act is graded against the packaging material and structure as it stands before that label is attached, and a parenthesis limits this to imported products and packaging. A Korean-language label does not by itself lower the grade.

7. The separate-disposal mark is a further duty

The separate-disposal mark rests on a different basis from the material and structure assessment. Article 14 of the Act requires manufacturers and others of the products and packaging prescribed by Presidential Decree, being products and packaging for which a separate-collection mark is needed in order to promote the recycling of waste, to apply a separate-disposal mark in accordance with the guidelines prescribed and published by the Minister of Climate, Energy and Environment.

The scope is in Article 16 of the Enforcement Decree. Subparagraph 1 covers the packaging referred to in subparagraphs 1 through 3 of Article 18 of the Enforcement Decree, and its items exclude three categories: containers of products that include a resource circulation deposit; film and sheet packaging that bears no marking of any kind on its surface, whether printed, engraved or applied by label; and packaging that meets the criteria prescribed and published by the Minister of Climate, Energy and Environment, such as packaging on which separate-disposal marking is difficult because of surface area, capacity or material.

The criteria for that third category are in Article 6(1) of the Guidelines on Separate-Disposal Marking: packaging whose surface area is less than 50 square centimetres, or less than 100 square centimetres in the case of film packaging; packaging whose contents are 30 millilitres or 30 grams or less; packaging on which marking by printing, engraving or labelling is technically impossible because of its material or structure; wrap film of a thickness of less than 20 micrometres; and packaging such as after-sales service parts that the producer subject to the recycling obligation collects, sorts and discharges directly without passing through a general consumer. These are the criteria a brand checks first for small-volume samples and sachet products.

The method of marking is in Article 5 of the same guidelines. Subparagraph 1 requires the mark to be printed or engraved on, or applied by label to, at least one surface. Subparagraph 2 sets the minimum size of the mark, excluding the material text, at 8 millimetres or more in each direction. Subparagraph 4 places the mark on the front, the side, or above, below or beside the bar code, and allows marking on the base or the lid where the form or structure of the packaging makes those positions impossible.

Packaging made of several parts has its own rule. Subparagraph 5 requires a mark on each separating part or packaging component of multi-part packaging where two or more separated packaging components are used or separate, with a proviso allowing a single consolidated mark on one principal part for multi-part packaging that forms an integral whole without separating, and for multi-part packaging that contains packaging falling under subparagraphs 1 through 3 of Article 6(1). Multi-part packaging in which paper and plastic form an integral whole may carry the consolidated mark on the paper component without a separate designation and approval procedure. Subparagraph 6 requires composite-material packaging to be marked on the principal material component, taking into account the surface area and weight of the components, with that principal material name shown in the mark and the other material names permitted as a consolidated entry. Subparagraph 3 of Article 2 of the guidelines defines composite-material packaging as packaging in which two or more materials are mixed or are used by a method such as coating or lamination.

One entry applies to cosmetics directly. Subparagraph 9 allows cosmetics imported with their outer packaging already in place to carry the separate-disposal mark together with the container particulars required under Article 10 of the Cosmetics Act. Subparagraph 10 applies the product's manufacturing date as the reference date for the mark.

There is a checking step as well. Article 7 of the guidelines requires the head of a city, county or district to survey, at least once a year and by means such as sample surveys of products and packaging, whether the separate-disposal marks on products and packaging in distribution are appropriate.

One connection is worth remembering. Article 9(4) of the Act requires the Minister of Climate, Energy and Environment to recommend that manufacturers and others mark the packaging method and the packaging material on the outer surface of the packaging, and the method of that marking is Attached Table 2 of the Rule on Standards for Product Packaging Materials and Packaging Methods. Note 1 to that Attached Table 2 allows the packaging material entry to be omitted where the material is marked under related legislation such as the separate-disposal mark under Article 14 of the Act. It is the provision that keeps the recommended marking from duplicating the mandatory one.

8. Sets and gift packaging carry numbers

Moving to packaging volume brings out figures that apply to cosmetics by name.

The scope is set by Article 7 of the Enforcement Decree. Subparagraph 1 defines the products that must comply with the standard on packaging materials under Article 9(1)1 of the Act as "all products that use packaging". Subparagraph 2 lists the products that must comply with the standard on packaging methods, and its item (b) is cosmetics, including air fresheners. Item (h) is composite products, defined as products in which two or more minimum sale units of the same or different kinds are packaged together, while stating that a dedicated measuring tool for the main product or its components, small quantities (30 grams or 30 millilitres or less) of non-retail sample or complimentary items, and reference materials such as instructions, specifications and memo cards are not regarded as products constituting a composite product. The products covered by item (h) are primary foods and the products in items (a) through (f), so the cosmetics of item (b) are included.

The figures are in Attached Table 1, to which Article 4(2) of the Rule on Standards for Product Packaging Materials and Packaging Methods refers. Cosmetics as unit products are split into two rows. Human and hair cleansing products have a packaging space ratio of 15 percent or less and are limited to two layers of packaging. Other cosmetics, including air fresheners, have a packaging space ratio of 10 percent or less, with perfume excluded in a parenthesis, and are also limited to two layers. Perfume falls outside the parenthesis in the space-ratio cell but follows the two-layer limit in the same row. Composite products appear as a single row listing the product kinds, with cosmetics among them, at a packaging space ratio of 25 percent or less and a limit of two layers.

The notes are used more often in practice. Note 1 defines unit products and composite products and repeats the exclusions found in item (h) of subparagraph 2 of Article 7 of the Enforcement Decree. Note 2 provides that, for a unit product whose characteristics require each piece to be packaged individually before several are packaged together, the packaging of the individual pieces is not regarded as packaging subject to the packaging space ratio and the number of layers. Note 4 provides that each unit product constituting a composite product must itself comply with the standards for its product type, and that the packaging space ratio and number of layers of the unit product are not counted towards those of the composite product. Note 5 lowers the packaging space ratio to 20 percent or less for a composite product that uses a tray or cushioning material made of composite plastic, polyvinyl chloride or synthetic fibre. Putting a tray or cushioning material of one of those three materials inside a gift box changes the applicable figure itself.

One note exists only for cosmetics. Note 7 provides that a film attached to the outside of the secondary packaging of a cosmetic unit product in order to protect the contents and prevent damage is not regarded as packaging subject to the number of layers, and a parenthesis limits this to transparent film. A printed film does not fall within that relaxation.

Measurement and verification are also provided for. Note 8 requires the packaging space ratio to be measured under the Korean Industrial Standard for measuring the packaging space ratio of commercial packaging (KS T 1303) under Article 12 of the Industrial Standardization Act, or by the simplified measurement method prescribed and published by the Minister of Climate, Energy and Environment. Article 9(3) of the Act allows the Mayor of a Special Self-Governing City, the Governor of a Special Self-Governing Province, or the head of a city, county or district to order a manufacturer or other person found, on measurement by the simplified method, to have breached the standards to undergo an inspection by a specialised institution within a set period, and Article 5(1) of the Rule names those institutions as the Korea Environment Corporation, the Korea Environmental Industry and Technology Institute, and bodies designated and published by the Minister of Climate, Energy and Environment from among the testing and inspection bodies accredited under Article 23 of the Framework Act on National Standards. Paragraph 2 of the same article requires a manufacturer or other person that receives such an inspection order to submit the inspection report issued by the specialised institution to the head of the ordering body within 20 days of receiving the order.

9. Packaging shipped to a consumer follows different figures

If online sales are being prepared at the same time, the rules draw one more distinction.

Article 2(1) of the Rule provides that the Rule does not apply to product packaging intended for transport. Paragraph 2 then provides that, notwithstanding paragraph 1, Article 4 applies to product packaging intended for transport to a consumer within the meaning of the Framework Act on Consumers. Because Article 4 is the article carrying the packaging-method standards, packaging shipped to a consumer comes back within their scope.

The applicable figures are in Note 11 to Attached Table 1. For single-use packaging used to ship unit products and composite products to a consumer, the packaging space ratio is 50 percent or less and the number of layers is limited to one. Two provisos attach. The packaging space ratio standard does not apply to packaging whose combined width, length and height is 50 centimetres or less, and neither the packaging space ratio nor the number of layers applies where the packaging is done by a person whose average sales and similar figures, calculated under Article 7 of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on Small and Medium Enterprises, are less than 50 billion won. The second proviso turns on who performs the packaging, so where logistics are outsourced, the analysis depends on which party packs.

10. On the material side there are outright prohibitions

Separately from the grades, some choices are closed off altogether.

Article 3(3) of the Rule provides that a manufacturer or other person must not use packaging that has been laminated, shrink-wrapped or coated using polyvinyl chloride, and a parenthesis states that this "includes labels affixed to product containers and the like". A sleeve or shrink label applied to a container is the subject of that sentence. The proviso to the same paragraph permits shrink-wrapped packaging using polyvinyl chloride for five kinds of product, and only where not using it would risk impairing the function of the packaging. Those five are: petroleum products under Article 2(2) of the Petroleum and Alternative Fuel Business Act, drugs under Article 2(4) of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act, animal and vegetable oils, chemicals and agricultural pesticides, and products requiring refrigeration. Cosmetics are not among those five. That statement is the result of comparing the main text of the paragraph with its proviso.

Repackaging is prohibited too. Article 11 of the Rule provides that a person who manufactures or imports a product, and a person who sells packaged products in a large retail store under Article 2(3) of the Distribution Industry Development Act or in a store of 33 square metres or more, must not repackage a product that was produced already packaged and then manufacture, import or sell it. The proviso excludes cases where repackaging is unavoidable and falls within the grounds published by the Minister of Climate, Energy and Environment. How a gift set is bundled therefore touches both this article and the composite-product figures in Attached Table 1 above.

There are also two duties of endeavour. Article 3(1) of the Rule requires manufacturers and others to use packaging that is easy to recycle, to refrain from manufacturing or distributing packaging made of materials containing heavy metals, and to endeavour to comply with the recommended standards under paragraph 2 of the same article. Article 10(1) of the Rule applies to persons who manufacture the products it lists, and requires them to endeavour to ensure that the share of the total production of the product concerned made up of products whose packaging containers can be reused reaches at least 10 hundredths for colour cosmetics (make-up and stage make-up) among cosmetics, and at least 25 hundredths for shampoos and rinses among hair cosmetics. Because the operative verb is "shall endeavour", those figures are not framed as the measure of a breach.

11. What follows a failure to comply?

The sanctions are gathered in Article 41 of the Act.

Article 41(2) lists the grounds for an administrative fine of up to three million won. Subparagraph 1 is failure to comply with the standards under Article 9(1) on product packaging materials, packaging methods, and annual reduction targets for plastic packaging. Subparagraph 2 is failure to comply with an inspection order under Article 9(3). Subparagraph 2-2 is failure to undergo the packaging material and structure assessment in breach of Article 9-4(2), or obtaining an assessment by false or other improper means; subparagraph 2-3 is failure to mark the assessment result on the outside of the packaging, or marking it falsely, in breach of paragraph 3 of the same article. Subparagraph 4 is failure to apply the separate-disposal mark, or marking it falsely, in breach of Article 14.

Article 41(1) sets out two grounds for an administrative fine of up to ten million won, and its subparagraph 2 is failure to submit the materials required under Article 16(6), or submitting false materials. Because Article 16(6) is the duty to submit materials on shipment volumes of products and packaging, the maximum fine for failing to file shipment-volume data is higher than the maximum fine for the marking breaches.

The material and structure standards carry their own line of orders. Article 9-2(2) allows an order requiring a producer subject to the recycling obligation that manufactures or imports packaging, or sells products using it, in breach of paragraph 1 to take the measures needed to meet the standards, for a period set within one year. Paragraph 3 allows the improvement period to be set separately where there are grounds for finding that improvement within one year is difficult, such as a request to extend the improvement period because a change to the manufacturing process is needed. Paragraph 4 allows an order to suspend the manufacture, import and sale of the packaging where the party ordered fails to comply.

The procedure is in Article 3-3 of the Enforcement Rule. The improvement order is served as an order form; the producer must submit an implementation plan within three months of the date it receives the order form; and where it has complied, it must submit the outcome in writing within 10 days of the end of the improvement period.

There is a monetary sanction in place of a suspension order. Article 9-3(1) of the Act allows a penalty surcharge of up to one billion won in place of suspension, in the manner prescribed by Presidential Decree, where suspension of manufacture, import and sale would have to be ordered but the manufacture, import and sale of the packaging or product concerned is found to be unavoidable, and paragraph 3 makes surcharges so collected revenue of the special account for environmental improvement.

12. What to confirm before the container is fixed

Separately from the statutory duties, what brings those duties forward in time is a choice made early in development. These are the items worth confirming before the container and packaging are finalised.

Which decisions are fixed at which stage of development is set out in the development process, and material reviewed alongside containers is collected in the formula library. If a review against a project already under way would help, let us know through the contact page.

13. Frequently asked questions

If the factory that made the container has been assessed, does the brand still need to be?

The provisions alone do not settle it. Article 16(1) of the Act defines a producer subject to the recycling obligation as a manufacturer or importer of the products and packaging concerned, with a parenthesis that, for packaging, includes sellers of products using it. Note 3 to Attached Table 4 of the Enforcement Decree likewise defines the packaging in rows 1 and 2 as packaging of a branded product shipped or imported already packed with the contents at the manufacturing stage. The provisions show that the party selling under its own mark is relevant. They do not provide that a contract can reallocate the statutory duty holder, so which party a given structure falls on is safer confirmed with both the Korea Environment Corporation and the contracting party.

If a container is graded "difficult to recycle", can it still be used?

That grade does not by itself close off sale. The duty in Article 9-4(3) of the Act is to mark the assessment result on the outside of the packaging, and subparagraph 1 of Article 4 of the Standards for Marking Packaging Material and Structure Grades sets the wording used. Separately, however, Article 9-2 requires compliance with the published standards on material and structure, and a breach can lead to an improvement order under paragraph 2 of that article, a suspension order on manufacture, import and sale under paragraph 4, and a penalty surcharge under Article 9-3. The marking duty and the compliance duty are different provisions.

Does a 30 millilitre sample need a separate-disposal mark?

Subparagraph 2 of Article 6(1) of the Guidelines on Separate-Disposal Marking treats packaging whose contents are 30 millilitres or 30 grams or less as meeting the exemption criteria for item (c) of subparagraph 1 of Article 16 of the Enforcement Decree. The surface-area criterion in subparagraph 1 of the same paragraph is a separate entry: packaging whose individual surface area is less than 50 square centimetres, or less than 100 square centimetres for film packaging, falls within the same exemption, and meeting either one of the two criteria is enough.

Does a complimentary miniature in a gift set count towards the composite-product calculation?

Item (h) of subparagraph 2 of Article 7 of the Enforcement Decree and Note 1 to Attached Table 1 both address this. A dedicated measuring tool for the main product or its components, and small quantities of non-retail sample or complimentary items, are not regarded as products constituting a composite product, and that small quantity is 30 grams or 30 millilitres or less. Reference materials such as instructions, specifications and memo cards are treated the same way. That entry is the test for counting the products that constitute a composite product, though, and it is safer not to read it as an exemption from measuring the packaging space ratio itself.

Does the packaging material have to be marked on the outside?

Two lines have to be kept apart. Article 9(4) of the Act requires the Minister of Climate, Energy and Environment to recommend that manufacturers and others mark the packaging method and the packaging material on the outer surface of the packaging, and Attached Table 2 of the Rule, which sets that method, is a form for recording inspection results. That line is a recommendation. The separate-disposal mark under Article 14 of the Act, by contrast, is mandatory, and subparagraph 6 of Article 5 of the Guidelines on Separate-Disposal Marking requires the principal material name of composite-material packaging to be shown in the mark. Note 1 to Attached Table 2 of the Rule then allows the packaging material entry on the recommended marking to be omitted where the material is marked under related legislation such as the separate-disposal mark.

14. Next steps

Container and packaging decisions begin before the formula is final, and because moulds and print runs hang on them, they are among the items most expensive to reverse. Putting the three lines in this article into the development brief early reduces the chance of redrawing a finished design because of a grade or a mark.

EVAS carries out planning, design, research, manufacturing, logistics and brand content with its own organisation. Material reviewed alongside containers is collected in the formula library, and ingredient-side information is in the ingredient library. Brand-level work can be seen under brands. If a review against a plan already under way would help, let us know through the contact page.

Sources