背景

随着欧盟围绕产品可持续、供应链透明和循环经济持续推进相关要求，中国及亚洲出口企业正在面对一种新的合规现实：企业不仅要保留证书、检测报告和供应商声明，还需要能够按产品、SKU、包装结构和供应商维度，持续整理、验证、更新并输出合规数据。

欧洲客户、进口商、品牌方及其他业务伙伴提出的数据要求，可能包括产品和部件材料、包装组成与重量、可回收性或再生成分证据、供应商声明、文件有效期，以及在特定法规或客户场景下需要的原材料来源和供应链追溯信息。

需要说明的是，DPP、PPWR和EUDR的适用范围、义务主体及实施时间并不相同。项目启动时，应先结合产品类别、包装结构、交易路径、目标市场和企业角色，判断哪些要求已经适用，哪些属于客户数据准备或后续扩展场景，避免将不同法规简单合并为一套统一义务。

典型项目挑战

在本识、SX HUB接触的典型项目中，客户通常并不缺少文件，真正的问题是现有资料尚未形成可管理、可追溯、可复用的合规数据体系。常见情况包括：

• 产品、包装、供应商及证据文件分散在销售、采购、质量、研发、ESG、IT或工厂团队中；

• ERP、PLM或Excel中存在部分数据，但字段口径、版本和责任人不统一，无法直接用于客户回复或系统输出；

• 缺乏SKU级产品数据结构和包装BOM，无法准确关联材料、重量、供应商和支持文件；

• 供应商资料收集依赖邮件、聊天和临时表格，重复催收、遗漏和版本错误较多；

• 内部不清楚哪些信息可以披露，哪些环境声明需要进一步证据支持，存在不当披露或“漂绿”风险；

• 欧洲客户已经开始提出问询，但企业不希望在尚未明确项目边界前进行大规模系统投入。

合作方式与双方分工

本案例基于本识与SX HUB在欧盟产品合规数据准备和数字化落地方面的合作实践。双方并非仅帮助客户生成一个二维码或一份一次性文件，而是共同建立从适用场景判断、数据准备、证据采集到系统承载和对外输出的执行路径。

实施方法

双方采用“先验证、再扩展”的方法，将法规和客户要求转化为可执行的数据任务。典型实施路径包括：

1. 确定试点边界：选择具有代表性的产品、SKU或包装结构，确认目标国家、客户问询、交易路径和企业角色，避免一开始覆盖全部产品。

2. 建立共同数据入口：围绕产品、包装、材料、供应商、重量、市场、版本和证据文件建立统一字段及数据责任人，使不同团队使用同一套底层事实。

3. 采集并验证证据：整理现有ERP、PLM、Excel、检测报告、供应商声明和技术文件；识别缺失、过期、冲突或证据不足的数据，并分配补充责任。

4. 完成系统承载与集成：将已确认的数据结构和证据文件落入[合作产品名称]或客户现有系统环境，并根据项目需要完成接口、权限、版本及更新流程设计。

5. 形成可用输出：根据适用场景生成客户披露包、包装数据包、供应链追溯资料、DPP试点页面，或在适用情况下形成DoC-ready的数据输出。

6. 从试点扩展到规模化：在代表性SKU验证通过后，逐步扩展至更多SKU、供应商、产品线、目标市场和后续法规模块。

典型交付成果

在不披露客户商业秘密的前提下，典型试点可形成以下交付成果：

• 代表性SKU的产品与包装主数据集，以及包装BOM、材料、重量和版本关系；

• 供应商数据采集模板、证据文件索引、有效期信息及证据缺口清单；

• 产品、包装、供应商声明、检测报告、认证证书和支持文件之间的关联逻辑；

• 数据责任人矩阵和跨部门协同流程，明确由谁提供、审核、更新和批准各类信息；

• 根据项目需要形成客户披露包、包装数据包、DPP样板、追溯资料或DoC-ready输出；

• 可继续扩展至更多SKU和法规模块的系统化数据结构及实施路线。

项目价值

通过这一合作模式，客户获得的并不是一次性的模板或展示页面，而是一套能够持续更新和复用的产品合规数据准备能力。其核心价值包括：

• 减少重复Excel、反复聊天和多部门追数造成的时间消耗与版本错误；

• 提高欧洲客户问询回复的一致性、可追溯性和证据完整度；

• 使PPWR、DPP、EUDR或其他适用场景能够在同一套底层事实基础上按需调用，而不是为每项要求重复建立数据；

• 为后续系统集成、供应商协同、更多SKU覆盖及长期合规运营奠定基础。

如双方拥有可公开的实际数据，建议在正式网页中补充试点SKU数量、供应商数量、字段数量、项目周期、客户回复效率变化或系统覆盖范围，使案例结果更具可验证性。

JOINT CASE STUDY

Building EU Product Compliance Data Foundations for Chinese Exporters

Background

As the European Union continues to advance requirements relating to product sustainability, supply-chain transparency, and the circular economy, Chinese and Asian exporters are facing a new compliance reality. It is no longer sufficient to retain certificates, test reports, and supplier declarations; companies increasingly need to organize, validate, update, and deliver compliance data at product, SKU, packaging-structure, and supplier level.

European customers, importers, brand owners, and other business partners may request information on product and component materials, packaging composition and weight, evidence supporting recyclability or recycled content, supplier declarations, document validity, and, where relevant to a specific regulation or customer request, raw-material origin and supply-chain traceability.

DPP, PPWR, and EUDR have different scopes, responsible parties, and implementation timelines. At the start of a project, the relevant product category, packaging structure, transaction model, target market, and economic-operator role should therefore be assessed before the requirements are translated into data tasks. The three regulatory areas should not be presented as one universal obligation for all exporters.

Typical Project Challenges

In the typical projects addressed by the parties, clients usually do not lack documents. The real issue is that existing materials have not yet been converted into a manageable, traceable, and reusable compliance-data framework. Common challenges include:

• product, packaging, supplier, and evidence files are distributed across sales, procurement, quality, R&D, ESG, IT, and factory teams;

• some information exists in ERP, PLM, or spreadsheets, but field definitions, versions, and data ownership are inconsistent;

• there is no SKU-level product structure or packaging BOM linking materials, weights, suppliers, and supporting evidence;

• supplier-data collection relies on emails, messaging tools, and temporary spreadsheets, leading to repeated requests, omissions, and version errors;

• internal teams are uncertain which information can be disclosed and which environmental claims require stronger evidence, creating a risk of inappropriate or unsupported statements;

• European customers are already asking questions, while management prefers to validate the project scope before making a large-scale system investment.

Cooperation Model and Roles

This case study is based on the cooperation between Benshi and SX HUB in EU product-compliance data readiness and digital implementation. The objective is not merely to generate a QR code or a one-off document, but to establish an execution path from applicability and role analysis through data preparation and evidence collection to system deployment and external output.

Implementation Approach

The parties apply a “validate first, then scale” approach, translating regulatory and customer requirements into practical data tasks. A typical implementation path includes:

1. Define the pilot boundary: Select representative products, SKUs, or packaging structures and confirm target countries, customer enquiries, transaction paths, and company roles before expanding the scope.

2. Create a shared data entry point: Establish consistent fields and data ownership for products, packaging, materials, suppliers, weights, markets, versions, and evidence files so that teams work from the same underlying facts.

3. Collect and validate evidence: Organize existing ERP, PLM, spreadsheet, test-report, supplier-declaration, and technical-file information; identify missing, expired, conflicting, or insufficient evidence; and assign follow-up responsibilities.

4. Deploy and integrate the system: Implement the confirmed data structure and evidence files in [Product Name] or the client’s existing system environment and, where required, design interfaces, permissions, version control, and update workflows.

5. Generate usable outputs: Produce customer disclosure packs, packaging-data packs, supply-chain traceability materials, DPP pilots, or, where applicable, DoC-ready data outputs.

6. Scale beyond the pilot: After validation with representative SKUs, extend the model to additional SKUs, suppliers, product lines, target markets, and regulatory modules.

Typical Deliverables

Without disclosing client-confidential information, a typical pilot may produce:

• a product and packaging master-data set for representative SKUs, including packaging BOMs and relationships among materials, weights, and versions;

• supplier data-collection templates, an evidence-file index, validity information, and an evidence-gap list;

• linkages among products, packaging, supplier declarations, test reports, certificates, and supporting files;

• a data-owner matrix and cross-functional workflow defining who provides, reviews, updates, and approves each information category;

• customer disclosure packs, packaging-data packs, DPP pilots, traceability materials, or DoC-ready outputs, depending on the applicable scenario;

• a systemized data structure and implementation roadmap that can be extended to more SKUs and regulatory modules.

Project Value

Through this cooperation model, clients gain more than a one-off template or demonstration page. They build an updatable and reusable product-compliance data readiness capability. Key benefits include:

• reducing repeated spreadsheet work, fragmented messaging, supplier chasing, and version errors;

• improving the consistency, traceability, and evidentiary quality of responses to European customer enquiries;

• allowing PPWR, DPP, EUDR, and other applicable scenarios to draw from the same underlying facts rather than rebuilding data for each request;

• creating a foundation for future system integration, supplier collaboration, broader SKU coverage, and long-term compliance operations.

Where publishable metrics are available, the final webpage should include the number of pilot SKUs, suppliers, fields, project duration, improvement in customer-response time, or system coverage to make the outcome more verifiable.

Scope and Disclaimer

This article describes an anonymized project pathway and the parties’ cooperation capabilities. It does not constitute legal advice for any specific product, company, market, or transaction. Regulatory applicability, responsible parties, documentation requirements, and implementation timelines should be assessed based on the relevant product scope, packaging structure, contractual relationships, supply-chain path, target countries, and the rules applicable at the relevant time.