🇩🇪Germany

Redundante Migrationstest-Kampagnen und mehrfache DAkkS-Laborberichte

3 verified sources

Definition

Manufacturers must conduct overall migration limit (OML) testing and specific migration limit (SML) testing per EC 10/2011 via accredited labs. Manual coordination between materials development, quality, and external labs (Fraunhofer IVV, TÜV Rheinland, SGS) results in: (1) Duplicate test orders for the same material, (2) Inefficient lab scheduling, (3) Excess turnaround time (2–4 weeks per test), (4) Unnecessary expedited shipping for rush orders.

Key Findings

  • Financial Impact: €2,500–€5,000 per standard migration test (OML + SML for one material); duplicate orders: 10–20% of test budget; expedited lab processing: +30–50% cost markup; idle capacity: 2–4 weeks per cycle × 5–10 materials/year = €15,000–€50,000 annual waste.
  • Frequency: Bi-weekly to monthly (triggered by new formulations or customer requirements)
  • Root Cause: Lack of centralized test request repository; manual email coordination with labs; no status visibility across teams; missing deduplication logic for similar material compositions

Why This Matters

This pain point represents a significant opportunity for B2B solutions targeting Packaging and Containers Manufacturing.

Affected Stakeholders

Materials Engineer, Quality Assurance Manager, Procurement Officer, Project Manager

Deep Analysis (Premium)

Financial Impact

Financial data and detailed analysis available with full access. Unlock to see exact figures, evidence sources, and actionable insights.

Unlock to reveal

Current Workarounds

Financial data and detailed analysis available with full access. Unlock to see exact figures, evidence sources, and actionable insights.

Unlock to reveal

Get Solutions for This Problem

Full report with actionable solutions

$99$39
  • Solutions for this specific pain
  • Solutions for all 15 industry pains
  • Where to find first clients
  • Pricing & launch costs
Get Solutions Report

Methodology & Sources

Data collected via OSINT from regulatory filings, industry audits, and verified case studies.

Evidence Sources:

Related Business Risks

Unzureichende LFGB-Dokumentation und BfR-Empfehlungen führt zu Marktblockade

€5,000–€50,000 per product rejection; typical recall/destruction: €10,000–€100,000 per batch; market access delays: 3–6 months (lost revenue: 5–15% of quarterly sales); BfR audit fines: €1,000–€10,000 per violation.

Verzögerte Kundenzahlung durch unvollständige Compliance-Dokumentation

DSO increase: 15–45 days (typical: +20 days × 3% cost of capital = €50,000–€150,000 per €10M revenue annually); payment holds: 10–15% of monthly invoices; contract cancellations due to slow delivery: 2–5% of annual revenue (€200,000–€500,000 for mid-sized supplier).

Manuelle Compliance-Prüfung blockiert Produktentwicklungs-Pipeline

8–12 week delays per product (vs. 3–4 week optimal) = 4–8 week capacity waste × €500–€2,000 per week × 20–30 products/year = €400,000–€1,200,000 in lost revenue; idle equipment: 15–20% utilization during approval cycles; failed quarterly launches: 2–3 per year × €300,000–€500,000 = €600,000–€1,500,000.

Rework und Kundenbeschwerden durch fehlerhafte DoC-Deklarationen

Refunds: 2–5% of revenue per non-compliant shipment (€50,000–€200,000 per incident); rework/retest: €5,000–€20,000 per corrected batch; customer litigation: €10,000–€100,000 per lawsuit; warranty claims: €5,000–€50,000 annually; regulatory fines: €1,000–€10,000 per incident.

Leerlauf durch falsche Artwork-Versionen

10-15% Kapazitätsverlust = €100,000+ jährlich bei Mid-Size Drucker

Changeover-Zeit und Ausfallzeiten

-25% Changeover-Zeit, Minuten statt Stunden Planung

Request Deep Analysis

🇩🇪 Be first to access this market's intelligence