To ensure compliance with material regulations such as REACH, RoHS, and others, one thing is essential: data. Without data, there is no compliance. These data must be researched and validated throughout the supply chain in a legally compliant manner. A common tool to support the necessary measures is a so-called material data system. However, standard systems and services for (material) data collection are often insufficient to adequately demonstrate legally secure compliance. This raises the question: what requirements must a material compliance tool meet to provide legal certainty for a company?
Product-related regulations are steadily increasing in number and set out far-reaching requirements—especially in the area of material compliance—that must be implemented at the product level. Compliance with these requirements is critical both to maintain the marketability of the product and to minimize extensive liability risks. To monitor compliance with material regulations in products, the use of a communication platform is essential—both to query suppliers about compliance and to consolidate and document the company’s own product compliance. Over the past decade, some companies have firmly established themselves in this field, and new ones continue to emerge. Manufacturers and distributors are usually unable to provide the required proof of compliance using their own resources and therefore seek software providers and service partners to support them in this compliance process. Unfortunately for many companies, the landscape of providers is as heterogeneous as the regulatory requirements arising from the field of material compliance. A particular challenge here is distinguishing the most reliable suppliers from the less reliable ones in order to ensure compliance while also implementing a resource-efficient and economically sound process.
What Requirements Must a Material Compliance Software Meet?
Legislators and customers usually provide only absolute requirements. For example, a regulation may prohibit a substance such as lead in a product. What is not specified, however, is how to achieve this goal or when enough has been done to meet it. It is understood by all parties—whether legislators, enforcement authorities, or customers—that a 100% solution is impossible. This, however, creates a significant risk for manufacturers or distributors, particularly since noncompliance with a material-specific requirement often carries substantial liability risks with far-reaching business consequences.
A practical illustration can be drawn from a simple example in trades: a painting company is tasked by its client to paint a white wall green. This raises several questions for the painter. First is the choice of paint, which varies in quality, workability, and price. Next is the decision on the quality of the work itself—for example, whether an untrained worker, a journeyman, or a master will perform the task. Finally, the number of coats applied is critical, as more coats generally improve coverage. This example shows that the quality of the wall’s finish depends on the paint’s quality and workability, the workers’ qualifications, and the number of applications. Naturally, all these factors also influence the cost of the job.
This example can be directly applied to the situation companies face in material compliance. The paint represents material compliance requirements set by legislators, customers, or the market. Variations in paint correspond to the heterogeneity of material compliance requirements. For illustration, consider green paint as a synonym for REACH compliance. Company personnel must decide which green paint to use—that is, which tools ensure REACH compliance, specifically which communication system will be used to verify supplier compliance. As with choosing paint, there are significant differences among software tools and providers. So which requirements must a material compliance communication software meet, and what functionalities should it offer to reduce liability risks?
1. Integration of DIN EN IEC 63000
A mandatory requirement is compliance with IEC 63000, which defines the state of the art for implementing material compliance regulations such as RoHS and other substance-specific requirements, including:
- Assessment of data quality
- Regular communication with suppliers, including evaluation of supplier reliability
- Article-specific inquiries and risk assessments for items with missing data
- Legally compliant and reproducible documentation
2. Ease of Use and Transparency
The quality of paint depends not only on the color itself but also on its workability. The same applies to a communication platform. The platform must be user-friendly and intuitive, enabling compliance with minimal resources. The system must not have opaque gaps; just as a green wall must not show white patches or inconsistent coverage, a material compliance platform must not have unclear data fields. The software must check data quality and, if necessary, alert users to incomplete or unclear fields.
3. Employee Qualification and Supplier Development
As illustrated, the skill level of those performing the work is critical. This applies both to internal staff and third parties, such as suppliers, who interact with the communication platform. Employees must be trained and continuously updated to meet compliance requirements, while also adhering to GDPR guidelines. Ideally, platform providers offer training for all users, including customers and suppliers, in multiple languages. Failure to properly train employees can constitute organizational negligence in the event of a compliance issue.
4. Multi-Level Communication Process and Personal Supplier Engagement
Just as multiple coats affect the quality of paint, the structure and number of communication steps are crucial to obtaining high-quality data from suppliers. The quality of supplier responses depends on the platform’s embedded communication process and, importantly, on the personnel managing it.
Supplier engagement is a key differentiator. Some platform providers offer basic data services, contacting a supplier only once to prompt data submission; if no response is received, the service is considered complete. Extended supplier engagement—multiple contacts and active supplier development—is often not included. Consequently, both data quantity and quality can be insufficient. Returning to the painting example, the painter would finish the job prematurely, leaving an uneven wall, yet could claim contractual completion.
5. Reflecting the State of the Art
It is clear that such work can be offered at a comparatively low cost. But does the result actually meet the customer’s requirements? The legal precedent is unequivocal: material data communication is only sufficient if the state of the art has been implemented. The state of the art is described in particular in the standard DIN EN IEC 63000 introduced under point 1, but also in:
- Testing guidelines issued by market surveillance authorities
- Statements from industry associations such as VDMA, CIVD, Spectaris, or ZVEI
- Case law and existing court rulings
- Statements from insurers, who, in the event of a claim, individually assess the implementation of the state of the art and determine whether and to what extent they will cover the loss
This is how to select a provider for a long-term, successful partnership!
What does this mean for companies that need a “green wall”? When selecting a provider or service partner, evaluate not only the color used or the qualifications of the personnel performing the work, but above all, the number of processing steps. Ultimately, what matters is the quality of the coating, not impressive sales presentations, undocumented promises, or, most importantly, low-cost offers. What is crucial is that the quality and quantity of the data are sufficient to demonstrate product compliance in accordance with the state of the art. Only then is the investment of resources justified, and liability risks can be effectively reduced.