CPS-???? | Digital Product Passports

[david-a-clark]

Summary

This CPS addresses the need for standardized Digital Product Passport (DPP) implementations on Cardano to support EU ESPR regulatory compliance starting in 2026.

Problem

The Cardano ecosystem currently lacks standardized approaches for:

• Anchoring DPP data on-chain
• Creating product identity assets
• Enabling multi-party verification across supply chains

This fragmentation risks incompatible implementations and missed opportunities for Cardano to become leading infrastructure for supply chain transparency.

Stakeholders

• Manufacturers (SMEs and Enterprises) facing ESPR compliance requirements
• Supply chain partners needing multi-party coordination standards
• Retailers and brands requiring verified product information
• Cardano developers building DPP solutions

Request

Seeking community feedback and CIP editor review for acceptance as an official Cardano Problem Statement.

---

(latest rendered document)

[rphair]

Marking Triage to bring into review at the next CIP meeting around this time tomorrow (https://hackmd.io/@cip-editors/123).

In the meantime @david-a-clark it would be nice if you could massage the front matter, section headings (including their levels), and other features into the same form as they appear in the official CPS template.

Thanks @david-a-clark for developing & submitting such an intriguing & relevant idea and I look forward to discussing it at the meeting (you are welcome attend tomorrow & always) and elsewhere. Note I think this subject would attract some interested & perhaps some constructive review on the Cardano Forum CIP category: https://forum.cardano.org/c/developers/cips/122

[rphair]

@david-a-clark at the CIP meeting today we acknowledged this submission as timely with respect to both the Cardano Summit main presentation and the current economic developments in Europe.

After addressing the formatting problems as per #1114 (review) the editors would like to see some feedback, discussion and document review from other participants in the Digital Product Passports working group (and any others interested) before confirming this as a CIP candidate.

[david-a-clark]

@rphair Thanks for the review have applied the formatting changes as suggested, will follow up in relation to additonal feedback.

[rphair]

that's great @david-a-clark - looking forward to the discussion about the idea. In the meantime, following up on the last changes from ba0d03e:

• the suggestion in #1114 (comment) has demoted the Stakeholders subheading but left all the (sub-)subheadings below it at the same level... I think your intent for the document outline would be to also demote all those 1 level (as I originally suggested above), i.e. down to H4 (####).
• the related suggestion (Adoption Indicators) has left that heading duplicated... I think the sections below it are of appropriate rank (unless you consider Technical Validation and Ecosystem Development to be adoption indicators: which is conceivable).

[david-a-clark]

Thanks @rphair , Have made those minor amendments now.