The CRA gives the same legal effect — manufacturer status by behaviour — two separate articles, addressed to two separate audiences. Article 22 catches integrators, system integrators, re-importers, and other third parties. Article 21 catches importers and distributors. The split is structural rather than substantive: the legislator decided that the rules for someone already inside the EU economic operator system (importer, distributor) should sit in their own article, and the rules for everyone else should sit in another. Reading either article without the other gives an incomplete map of who can become a manufacturer by what they do.
The Article 21 text is one paragraph. An importer or distributor who places a product on the market under their own name or trademark, or who carries out a substantial modification of a product already on the market, becomes a manufacturer for the purposes of the Regulation, with the full Articles 13 and 14 obligations attached. The Regulation does not ask whether the importer or distributor wanted this status. It does not ask whether they signed any paperwork. It looks at what they did to the product and assigns the consequence.
§ 01The two triggers, in importer/distributor flavour
Trigger 1 — rebranding. An EU distributor takes a connected product placed on the market by an APAC manufacturer, and resells it under their own brand — their name on the housing, their logo on the packaging, their listing on the EU retailer site. The product itself may be physically identical to what shipped from the APAC factory. Article 21 says the rebranding alone is sufficient to make the distributor the manufacturer for the rebranded variant. No firmware change required. No hardware change required. The behavioural fact of marketing the product under a different name is what triggers the reclassification.
Trigger 2 — substantial modification. An EU importer purchases stock of a connected industrial product from an APAC OEM, reflashes the firmware to add region-specific connectivity features before resale (without changing the brand), and ships the modified product to EU customers. The firmware reflash, if it changes Annex I compliance or modifies intended use, is a substantial modification under Art 3(39). Article 21 makes the importer the manufacturer for that modified version — the original APAC manufacturer's conformity assessment does not transfer with the modified product.
The two triggers can occur together (rebrand + modify, common in private-label retail) or separately. Either is sufficient on its own. The same product can have multiple "manufacturers" under the CRA — the original APAC entity for the unmodified, originally-branded version still on the market, and the EU importer or distributor for each modified or rebranded variant. Each manufacturer carries the Article 13 stack for their version.
§ 02Why the split into two articles matters in practice
Reading Article 21 and Article 22 separately, an APAC supplier may not realise that both apply to its supply chain at different points. The APAC manufacturer ships unmodified product to an EU importer (still APAC manufacturer's product); the importer reflashes the firmware (now Article 21 makes the importer the manufacturer for the reflashed version); the importer's distributor in another Member State applies its own brand sticker on the casing for retail (now Article 21 makes the distributor the manufacturer for the rebranded version); a system integrator in a third Member State buys ten of the rebranded units, replaces the embedded OS with a hardened build, and resells the result to a critical-infrastructure customer (now Article 22 makes the integrator the manufacturer for that integrated product). Same physical product, four different manufacturers in CRA terms, depending on what each entity did.
For the original APAC manufacturer, the practical implication is that contracts with EU partners need to anticipate which articles apply to which counterparty. An importer contract reaches Art 21 if rebranding or modification is contemplated. An integrator contract reaches Art 22. The contract's job is not to override the article — the public-law transfer happens regardless — but to allocate the operational work of compliance to whoever can actually do it, and to require notification before the qualifying behaviour completes.
§ 03Article 21 and Article 22 together: one map
The cleanest mental model is: Article 13 defines the obligation stack; Article 3(13) defines the front-door manufacturer; Articles 21 and 22 define the two side doors that can put a different entity into the manufacturer position by behaviour. Article 21 is the side door for importers and distributors. Article 22 is the side door for everyone else — integrators, SIs, re-importers, and consultancies that bundle products with services. The doors are in the same wall and they lead into the same room. The CRA simply gives them different numbers because the addressees are categorically different.
This map is what makes the manufacturer category in the CRA structurally porous. The membership is not closed at Art 3(13). It is continuously open, by behaviour, through Articles 21 and 22, throughout the support period of every product on the EU market. Any entity that touches the product in a way that triggers either article acquires the membership for that variant, regardless of contract, regardless of self-description, regardless of intent. The companion essay on Article 22 covers the consequences in detail. Article 21 is the same consequence with a different addressee; this short essay exists to make sure neither pathway hides behind the other.