Table of Contents
In brief. ChemSHERPA and IPC-1752 are the two dominant formats for collecting full material disclosure (FMD) from suppliers. ChemSHERPA, developed by Japan's JAMP, is XML-based, built for full material disclosure, and dominant across Asian electronics and automotive chains. IPC-1752 (current version IPC-1752B, published 1 July 2020) is modular with declaration classes A to D, and IPC-1752B is aligned to the ECHA SCIP database. Most manufacturers with mixed supply chains end up running both. The right question is not which is better, but which to request from which supplier, and how to reconcile them.
Why the format choice matters
Regulators and OEMs increasingly demand full material disclosure. SCIP, PFAS, REACH SVHC, and RoHS all require substance data presented in a defined structure, and the compliance bar keeps rising. The format you collect that data in determines whether it flows cleanly into your regulatory reporting or has to be reworked by hand.
Two formats dominate: ChemSHERPA and IPC-1752. They overlap in purpose but differ in origin, structure, and the regulatory workflows they serve best. Choosing badly, or failing to reconcile the two, is where material-declaration programmes lose time and accuracy.
What is ChemSHERPA?
ChemSHERPA is a material declaration scheme developed by Japan's JAMP consortium for sharing chemical substance information through the supply chain. It is XML-based and designed for full material disclosure from the outset, rather than only reporting substances of concern above a threshold.
Key characteristics:
- Built for complex, multi-tier Asian supply chains and widely adopted across Japanese and Korean electronics and automotive ecosystems.
- Splits into chemSHERPA-CI for chemicals and chemSHERPA-AI for articles.
- Aligns well with emerging Digital Product Passport and PFAS transparency workflows.
- Distributed through a data entry support tool that revises its declarable substance list on a fixed cycle and expires older tool versions, so currency of the tool matters as much as the file itself.
What is IPC-1752 (A and B)?
IPC-1752 is the Materials Declaration Management Standard from IPC, the global electronics manufacturing association. It defines an XML format for exchanging material and substance data between suppliers and customers, structured into declaration classes.
- IPC-1752A (February 2010, in effect 2010 to 2020): four declaration classes, A to D, where Class D enables full material disclosure at homogeneous substance level.
- IPC-1752B (1 July 2020): a major, not backward-compatible revision that added support for ECHA SCIP submission. Its schema mirrors the SCIP database's data requirements, which is why it is the practical choice for EU-facing reporting. IPC-1752B applies across all industry sectors, not only electronics.
Because IPC-1752B is the version aligned to SCIP, references to "IPC-1752 for SCIP" mean 1752B specifically. IPC-1752A remains in use for material declarations that do not require SCIP submission.
ChemSHERPA vs IPC-1752
Dimension | ChemSHERPA | IPC-1752 (A/B) |
|---|---|---|
Origin | JAMP (Japan) | IPC (global electronics association) |
Format | XML, FMD-oriented from the start | XML, modular by declaration class (A to D) |
Geographic strength | Japan, Korea, wider Asian supply chains | EU, North America, global electronics |
Full material disclosure | Native to the scheme | Via Class D |
SCIP submission | Not schema-aligned to SCIP | IPC-1752B aligned to ECHA SCIP database |
Structure | Split into CI (chemicals) and AI (articles) | Classes A to D by declaration depth |
Best-fit workflows | DPP, PFAS transparency, Asian supplier FMD | SCIP submission, EU and NA regulatory reporting |
Tool currency risk | Support tool expires older versions on a fixed cycle | Appendices and implementation lists updated periodically (last updated December 2025) |
Which format should you use?
The honest answer for most manufacturers is both, requested selectively. As a rule of thumb:
Lean ChemSHERPA when:
- Your supply base is weighted towards Asian suppliers, particularly Japan and Korea, who already work natively in it.
- You need full material disclosure directly, without assembling it from class-based declarations.
- You are building towards Digital Product Passport or PFAS transparency requirements.
Lean IPC-1752B when:
- Your chain is EU or North America driven.
- You need SCIP compliance. Go straight to 1752B, since its schema matches ECHA's.
- You want modular, class-based reporting where declaration depth varies by component.
For a mixed supply base, the practical approach is to request the format each supplier already produces well, then normalise both into a single substance view for reporting. That normalisation is exactly where restricted substances tracking software earns its place, because the alternative is manual reconciliation every time a substance list changes.
Common pitfalls to avoid
Three mistakes recur in material-declaration programmes:
- Treating a Class A or B declaration as full substance data. In IPC-1752, only Class D provides homogeneous substance-level FMD. Accepting a lower class and assuming full coverage leaves gaps that surface later under audit.
- Accepting outdated or spreadsheet-based files when the customer expects structured XML. A ChemSHERPA file built in an expired tool version can reflect a substance list that no longer matches the current regulatory position, and a cleanly formatted spreadsheet is not a valid substitute for chemSHERPA-CI or IPC XML.
- Mapping REACH, RoHS, PFAS and SCIP across formats without validation tools. The formats absorb regulatory changes on different schedules, so manual mapping between them produces data mismatches that are hard to catch by eye.
Running both formats without manual conversion
The format debate is largely resolved in practice by not forcing a single choice. Manufacturers with global supply chains request ChemSHERPA where suppliers produce it well and IPC-1752B where SCIP and EU reporting demand it, then reconcile both into one dataset.
The difficulty is keeping that reconciliation current. When the ECHA Candidate List updates, the change lands in ChemSHERPA and IPC-1752 on different timelines, and someone has to determine which already-collected declarations are affected. Managed by hand, that is where accuracy slips.
Regilient's restricted substances tracking software collects and validates ChemSHERPA and IPC-1752B declarations in one workflow, normalises them into a single substance view, and surfaces affected declarations automatically when substance lists change, so there is no manual format conversion or notification chasing.
Regilient provides agentic sustainability software for product compliance, supplier engagement, and regulatory intelligence across REACH, RoHS, PFAS, CMRT, SCIP, CBAM, and global chemical regulations.