DPP interoperability: why open standards beat proprietary systems

DPP interoperability: why open standards beat proprietary systems

The Digital Product Passport represents a fundamental shift in how supply chain transparency and circular economy transitions are enabled across Europe. Yet the success of this infrastructure depends critically on DPP interoperability—the ability of systems, stakeholders, and data flows to connect seamlessly across organizational boundaries. Recent peer-reviewed research demonstrates that open standards, rather than proprietary approaches, are essential to realizing the systemic benefits that Digital Product Passports promise.

The challenge is not merely technical. King, Timms, and Mountney (2023) conducted a comprehensive analysis of Digital Product Passport Ecosystems (DPPE) using systems thinking and engineering frameworks. Their research reveals that effective DPP implementation requires systemic interoperability spanning entire organizations and multi-tier supply chains. Critically, they identify nine core capabilities that must function in concert—from data capture and storage through to information disclosure and lifecycle management. This finding underscores a fundamental principle: DPP ecosystems cannot succeed through isolated, proprietary implementations. They demand agreed structures for data sharing, transparent governance models, and incentive alignment across competitors and partners alike.

The governance dimension of interoperability

Interoperability challenges are not unique to product data. Governments have wrestled with the same problem for years: the Mexican state of Quintana Roo built an inter-agency interoperability programme (2016–2022) so that public systems could share data instead of making citizens carry it from office to office—a real-world example of government interoperability.

Interoperability in DPP contexts extends beyond technical protocols. Ducuing and Reich (2023) examine digital product passports through a data governance lens, revealing a critical gap in current frameworks. While much industry focus has centred on technical standards and data schemas, their research demonstrates that sustainable DPP implementation requires robust governance structures balancing open data access with legitimate stakeholder protections. Data quality, trust mechanisms, and decision-making authority over shared information all present governance challenges that purely technical solutions cannot resolve. Open standards address this by establishing clear, collectively-maintained rules for data access and use—rules that proprietary systems cannot guarantee will persist or remain neutral across stakeholders.

Piétron, Staab, and Hofmann (2023) build on this insight through their analysis of data governance frameworks enabling circular economy platforms. Their empirical work on product cases demonstrates that strategic data governance modifications—aligned with European DPP requirements—are necessary to facilitate material-level traceability and enable collaborative circular ecosystems. Open standards form the backbone of such collaboration, because they are maintained by neutral bodies (such as GS1 for the GS1 Digital Link standard), ensuring that no single commercial actor can unilaterally alter data access rules or system requirements.

Confidentiality and data-sharing reluctance

A persistent implementation barrier emerges from stakeholder reluctance to share commercially sensitive information. Battery manufacturers, component suppliers, and recyclers often fear competitive exposure through data disclosure. Berger, Rusch, Pohlmann, and colleagues (2023) directly address this concern through their conceptualization of confidentiality-preserving data exchange mechanisms for DPPs. Their work demonstrates that machine learning and privacy-protecting techniques can enable sustainable product management across the electric vehicle battery value chain without requiring stakeholders to disclose proprietary information. Critically, these technical solutions depend on open standards for data structure and exchange protocols. Proprietary systems lack the transparency and interoperability required to implement privacy-preserving techniques at ecosystem scale.

When confidentiality-preserving mechanisms are built into proprietary platforms, stakeholders must trust a single vendor to implement and maintain these protections. Open standards allow multiple vendors to implement the same privacy techniques under transparent, auditable specifications—reducing single points of failure and distributing governance authority across the ecosystem.

Why open standards enable systemic interoperability

Open standards such as GS1 EPCIS 2.0 and GS1 Digital Link exemplify interoperability infrastructure that proprietary alternatives cannot replicate. These standards define common vocabularies, data structures, and communication protocols that enable any system—regardless of vendor or platform—to participate in the DPP ecosystem. King et al. (2023) identify data-sharing incentives as essential to circular economy transitions; open standards make those incentives explicit and enforceable, because they establish neutral ground where all participants operate under the same rules.

Proprietary systems, by contrast, create information silos. A manufacturer using one vendor’s DPP platform struggles to interoperate with recyclers or regulators using alternative platforms. This fragmentation undermines the core promise of Digital Product Passports: transparent, machine-readable product information flowing seamlessly through value chains. Regulatory compliance becomes vendor-dependent rather than standard-compliant. Data quality governance falls to proprietary vendors rather than collaborative standards bodies. The result is ecosystem lock-in—where stakeholders become dependent on specific vendors rather than empowered to switch or integrate multiple systems.

Regulatory momentum toward open standards

European regulation increasingly mandates open standards for DPP implementation. The emerging EU Product Passport framework, alongside provisions in the EU Data Act, reflects policy recognition that data portability and interoperability require standardized, open technical infrastructure. King et al. (2023) highlight how their research synthesized stakeholder requirements from EU consultations, revealing broad consensus that DPP governance must support circular economy transitions through systemic transparency—not fragmented proprietary visibility.

Ducuing and Reich (2023) further argue that data governance principles established across the broader European data economy agenda should inform DPP frameworks. These principles consistently favour open, transparent, and interoperable data systems over closed alternatives. Regulations like the Data Act explicitly envision data portability as a mechanism for breaking proprietary lock-in—a goal incompatible with vendor-specific implementations.

Practical advantages for stakeholders

For manufacturers and supply chain participants, open standards reduce implementation costs and technical debt. Rather than building custom integrations with proprietary DPP platforms from multiple vendors, stakeholders implement against a single, stable standard. Piétron et al. (2023) document how strategic data governance frameworks aligned with open standards facilitate material-level traceability—enabling manufacturers to track components through multiple lifecycle stages without negotiating separate data-sharing agreements with each vendor.

For regulators, open standards enable auditable compliance verification. When DPP systems use transparent, open protocols, regulators can independently verify that product information meets required standards without relying on vendor attestations. This is essential for emerging Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) schemes and circular economy regulations that depend on reliable product data.

For circular economy stakeholders—recyclers, refurbishers, and material recovery operators—open standards create access to consistent, machine-readable product information regardless of which platform the original manufacturer used. Berger et al. (2023) emphasize this benefit in their battery ecosystem analysis: confidentiality-preserving techniques built on open standards allow recyclers to access necessary composition and hazard data without exposing proprietary manufacturing information.

The ecosystem perspective

King, Timms, and Mountney (2023) employ systems thinking to demonstrate that DPP ecosystems function as interconnected networks where no single actor controls outcomes. Open standards recognize this reality by distributing authority and capability across participants. Proprietary approaches, by contrast, concentrate control within vendor organizations—creating misaligned incentives where vendors benefit from lock-in rather than ecosystem efficiency.

Piétron, Staab, and Hofmann (2023) observe that collaborative circular ecosystems require governance frameworks supporting transparency and shared material-flow visibility. Open standards provide this foundation by establishing common data models and exchange protocols that all ecosystem participants inherit.

Challenges and ongoing work

Transitioning from proprietary to open-standards-based DPP infrastructure presents implementation challenges. Ducuing and Reich (2023) identify critical gaps in current DPP governance frameworks that standards alone cannot resolve—particularly around data quality assurance, stakeholder conflict resolution, and incentive design. Standards provide the technical foundation for interoperability, but governance structures, stewardship models, and enforcement mechanisms must complement them.

Berger et al. (2023) note that confidentiality-preserving techniques for open standards are still evolving. Implementing privacy-protecting mechanisms at scale across heterogeneous stakeholders requires ongoing refinement of both technical approaches and governance frameworks.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the difference between open standards and proprietary DPP systems?

Open standards like GS1 EPCIS 2.0 define common data structures and communication protocols maintained by neutral bodies and available for any vendor to implement. This enables interoperability across systems. Proprietary systems are vendor-controlled, restricting data exchange to participants using that specific platform. King et al. (2023) demonstrates that systemic DPP implementation requires the transparency and multi-stakeholder alignment that open standards provide.

How do open standards support confidentiality in DPP ecosystems?

Berger, Rusch, and colleagues (2023) show that privacy-protecting techniques—such as data masking and federated learning—can be implemented within open standard frameworks, allowing stakeholders to share necessary product information without exposing proprietary details. Open standards make these mechanisms transparent and auditable, reducing reliance on vendor trust.

Why does regulatory policy favour open standards for DPPs?

Ducuing and Reich (2023) and King et al. (2023) both highlight that effective circular economy transitions require systemic transparency and data portability—goals that proprietary lock-in undermines. European regulations including the EU Data Act explicitly mandate interoperability and portability, which open standards enable at scale.

References

• King M.R.N.; Timms P.D.; Mountney S. (2023). A proposed universal definition of a Digital Product Passport Ecosystem (DPPE): Worldviews, discrete capabilities, stakeholder requirements and concerns. Journal of Cleaner Production. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.135538
• Ducuing C.; Reich R.H. (2023). Data governance: Digital product passports as a case study. Competition and Regulation in Network Industries. https://doi.org/10.1177/17835917231152799
• Berger K.; Rusch M.; Pohlmann A.; Popowicz M.; Geiger B.C.; Gursch H.; Schöggl J.-P.; Baumgartner R.J. (2023). Confidentiality-preserving data exchange to enable sustainable product management via digital product passports – a conceptualization. Procedia CIRP. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2023.02.060
• Piétron D.; Staab P.; Hofmann F. (2023). Digital circular ecosystems: A data governance approach. GAIA – Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society. https://doi.org/10.14512/gaia.32.S1.7