Table of Contents
Regulators and OEMs are demanding full material disclosure (FMD). SCIP, PFAS, REACH, RoHS, the compliance bar keeps rising.
You need a clear answer. Here's the truth, backed by trusted sources:
What is ChemSHERPA
- Developed by JAMP (Japan); XML-based, designed for full material disclosure from the start
- Built for complex, multi-tier Asian supply chains and aligns with digital product passports
IPC‑1752A/B Explained
- IPC-1752A (since 2010): Four declaration classes (A–D), with Class D enabling FMD
- IPC-1752B (July 2020): Added full support for SCIP submission via Class C + D
- 97% of SCIP notifications use IPC‑1752B — it matches ECHA’s format
ChemSHERPA or IPC‑1752A? Which Compliance Data Format Suits You Better
So Which One Should You Actually Use?
- Go ChemSHERPA if:
- You're heavy with Asian suppliers (Japan, Korea)
- You need FMD instantly
- You're navigating digital product passports or PFAS transparency
- Go IPC-1752A/B if:
- Your chain is EU or NA-driven
- You need SCIP compliance — go straight to 1752B
- You prefer modular reporting (Class A–D)
Don’t Trip on These
- Thinking Class A or B = compliance. It’s not.
- Sending outdated spreadsheets when your customer expects ChemSHERPA-CI.
- Trying to map REACH, RoHS, and SCIP without format validation tools.
Bottom Line
ChemSHERPA wins in Asia and for immediate FMD. IPC‑1752B is your go-to for SCIP-ready, modular reporting across global supply chains.
Need help integrating both? We design workflows that auto-switch based on your suppliers’ geo, no manual conversion or chasing notifications.
Topics
Speak to Our Compliance Experts
Questions about compliance, partnerships, or support? We're here to help.
Share
ChemSHERPA vs IPC‑1752A: Which FMD Format is Good for You
ChemSHERPA is a material declaration format developed by Japan’s JAMP consortium for full material disclosure across chemical and part supply chains. It aligns with Asian supplier ecosystems, supports rapid FMD generation, and integrates with Digital Product Passports and PFAS tracking workflows
IPC‑1752A , published in 2009, defines four declaration classes (A–D), with Class D supporting homogeneous substance-level FMDs. IPC‑1752B (2020) extends support for SCIP compatibility, aligning with ECHA's database and better serving EU port requirements
ChemSHERPA is optimized for Asian supply chains (Japan, Korea), simpler implementation, and immediate FMD compliance. IPC-1752B is global and modular, ideal for SCIP submissions, EU & North American regulatory reporting, and flexible class-based declarations
IPC‑1752B is preferred because its schema mirrors the ECHA SCIP database’s requirements . It supports direct upload of submissions and includes built-in DSL reporting modules for harmonized substance lists
Yes. Many companies operate a hybrid model requesting ChemSHERPA from suppliers in Asia for timely FMD, and IPC‑1752B for global or EU-facing workflows transitioning between formats automatically within compliance platforms
Confusing Class A or B declarations for full substance data (only Class D qualifies). Sending spreadsheet-based or outdated formats when customers expect XML (e.g. ChemSHERPA‑CI or IPC XML). Mapping substance lists like REACH or PFAS without schema validation tools can lead to data mismatches
ChemSHERPA is widely accepted across Japanese and Korean supply chains and offers better integration for Asia-driven disclosure protocols. IPC‑1752A/B is the standard for electronics and broader industries in the U.S., Europe, and North America and supports interoperability across global compliance systems