The chemistry used to produce a garment or a sneaker remains one of the least visible parts of the fashion supply chain, even though it affects dyeing, finishing, material performance, and process safety. A new study by ChemForward attempts to make it more transparent: the non-profit organization, which assesses chemical substances, has published a baseline dedicated to apparel and footwear with the support of Nike, Lululemon, Patagonia, and Target.
The most significant aspect is not merely the scope of the assessment, but the method that made it possible. In fact, the report stems from the willingness of multiple stakeholders to pool information that, across the supply chain, often remains scattered among chemical manufacturers, material suppliers, factories, and brands. For an industry where commercial formulations, incomplete safety sheets, and proliferating variants complicate every audit, building a shared database can reduce redundant efforts and make the transition toward less hazardous substances more tangible.
From nearly 44,000 entries to fewer than 3,000 distinct profiles
ChemForward examined 15,000 safety data sheets provided by manufacturers. The documentation listed 43,898 substances associated with apparel and footwear manufacturing; 38,326 were identified by a CAS number, the benchmark code used to identify chemical substances.
These initial figures clearly illustrate the sector's administrative and industrial complexity, but they do not reflect the number of truly distinct substances requiring assessment. By eliminating duplicates, ChemForward narrowed the sample down to 2,829 unique chemical profiles. This represents a crucial shift: the challenge does not vanish, but it transitions from the perception of tens of thousands of seemingly unrelated entries to a more defined dataset, enabling stakeholders to focus priorities, verifications, and investments.
This does not mean that 2,829 substances are a small number, nor that a centralized assessment can replace the responsibilities of individual actors. Safety also depends on quantities, exposure, combinations, conditions of use, and disposal methods. The baseline, however, suggests that data fragmentation is at least partly a manageable obstacle: when the same substance reappears across different products, facilities, and categories, studying it separately each time entails costs and delays that structured sharing can mitigate.
What emerges on declared materials
An identification was provided for 87.3% of the substances evaluated by ChemForward. Within this share, 69% were classified as safer substances, while 15.8% received a hazard rating in bands D or F—those signaling substances of greater concern within the system adopted by the organization.
This snapshot should not be read as a free pass for the sector. A substance deemed safer does not automatically settle the matter of responsible management throughout the entire supply chain; at the same time, identifying critical substances is only the first step before substitution, reformulation, or usage control. The value of the research lies in the ability to establish an order of priorities: understanding where to intervene first, what information is missing, and which assessments can be shared by multiple companies.
An opaque area of just over 12% of the total also remains, consisting of undeclared substances. In the textile and footwear supply chain, the absence of data is often attributed to the protection of confidential information. However, ChemForward's analysis downplays this explanation as the primary cause: the share attributable to genuinely confidential or proprietary content is around 2%, while nearly 11% stems from the poor quality of the available information.
This is perhaps the dossier's most actionable takeaway. If a substantial portion of the missing data is due to deficient documentation, unclear classifications, or improperly completed sheets, improvement does not necessarily require resolving every dispute over trade secrets. It requires more rigorous procedures in collecting and transmitting information, alongside more consistent demands from buyers.
A responsibility that spans the value chain
The presence of Nike, Lululemon, Patagonia, and Target signals that the issue does not belong to a technical niche. Brands can influence demands placed on suppliers and help establish common conditions for those producing chemicals, textiles, and components. However, their involvement does not equate to a uniform solution across the entire market: the supply chain is made up of thousands of entities, often with vastly different capabilities when it comes to tracking ingredients and updating documentation.
This is why ChemForward places collaboration and transparency at the core. A supplier responding to different requests from multiple clients can find itself repeating similar checks, filings, and assessments. A shared foundation—if built on reliable criteria accessible to relevant stakeholders—can alleviate this duplication. For brands, the potential benefit is improved visibility into critical pain points; for manufacturers, the opportunity not to shoulder the cost of assessments alone; and for design and product development teams, faster insights when selecting materials and finishes.
Interoperability matters beyond fashion, too. According to ChemForward, 99.9% of the substances in the analyzed dataset also appear in other sectors the organization has worked with. This finding shifts the focus from an individual wardrobe to industrial chemistry as a whole: many assessments are not solely useful to textile or footwear manufacturers, and the ripple effects of data-sharing can extend across industries.
The baseline is a starting point, not a certification
The report provides an initial map, not a definitive list of approved or banned materials. Its limitations are those inherent to the data itself: a portion of the substances remains unidentified, and even among known compounds, hazard assessments do not replace risk evaluation under specific conditions of use. Furthermore, safety data sheets reflect the quality of the information submitted by manufacturers; where that quality is lacking, any reading of the entire supply chain inevitably remains incomplete.
The next step will therefore be turning the baseline into industrial practice. For supporting brands, this means using the findings to direct requests to partners and encourage the correction of incomplete data. For ChemForward, it means keeping assessments up to date and bringing more stakeholders into data sharing. For the industry, the toughest test will be translating greater knowledge into verifiable changes in formulations and sourcing decisions.
Fashion tends to frame innovation around fibers, silhouettes, and finished materials. This investigation shifts the focus back to what happens earlier, in the chemical steps that determine the color, hand feel, water repellency, elasticity, and durability of many items. Having a common vocabulary and more reliable data does not single-handedly solve the supply chain's environmental and health issues, but it makes them harder to ignore behind the opacity of technical documentation.
