ZDHC: 91% of Signatory Brands Monitor Chemical Data, 74% Follow Up

Ninety-one percent of ZDHC signatory brands now require suppliers to submit chemical-inventory data, but only 74 percent follow up with those suppliers to fix what the data shows. That 17-point gap is the central finding of the 2026 Brands to Zero report, published Oct. 15 by ZDHC, the industry body running the world's most widely adopted hazardous-chemicals programme for textile supply chains.

The annual assessment, independently conducted by KPMG Netherlands, covers how signatory brands managed chemicals across their businesses and supply chains during 2025. It is mandatory for signatories and scores both corporate governance and supply-chain implementation — board-level commitments, purchasing processes, supplier engagement, chemical inventories and wastewater performance.

The direction of travel is upward on every metric. But the pace is uneven, and the gap between checking records and acting on them is what ZDHC wants brands to close.

What do the numbers show?

The report tracks three implementation steps:

• Requirement: brands mandating supplier submission of InCheck data rose to 91 percent, from 75 percent in the previous assessment. InCheck reports summarise how a factory's chemical inventory conforms to ZDHC's Manufacturing Restricted Substances List (MRSL), which restricts hazardous substances from intentional use in production.
• Monitoring: brands actually reviewing that data rose from 87 percent to 91 percent, accessed through ZDHC's Gateway platform, which also holds ClearStream wastewater-performance reports.
• Follow-up: brands working with suppliers to improve performance rose from 60 percent to 74 percent.

Follow-up is improving fastest — up 14 points — yet it still trails both other steps. ZDHC's message to practitioners is blunt: the work doesn't end when suppliers submit inventories and wastewater reports. Corrective action at factory level is where monitoring converts into environmental performance.

The report also flags a governance weak spot. Brands in the middle assessment tier scored barely above the lowest tier on business integration — how chemical-management policy is embedded in executive oversight, accountability and day-to-day purchasing. For sourcing teams, that's the tier to watch: data systems without board-level ownership tend to stall at follow-up.

Who made Champion level?

Twenty-one brands reached Champion status, up from 15 in the previous review. To qualify, brands must meet essential performance indicators at each level, use an assessed calculation model and substantiate progress with factory data. ZDHC reviews and raises the criteria annually.

The 2026 Champions are Adidas, Asos, Burberry, Decathlon, F&F, G-Star Raw, H&M, Hugo Boss, Inditex, Komar, Levi Strauss & Co., Lululemon, LVMH, Marc O'Polo, Marks & Spencer, New Balance, Next, Nike, Primark, Puma and Victoria's Secret & Co.

Brands receive one of three designations — Pioneer, Accelerator or Champion — with confidential individual scorecards; the public report aggregates results. Companies participating only as Friends of ZDHC skip the assessment entirely.

What about claims and CSRD-style reporting?

Two developments matter for compliance teams. First, ZDHC is building a Referencing and Claims Framework to distinguish between merely using its guidelines, participating in its programme, and reporting independently assessed implementation. The report previews ZDHC ClaimCheck, expected at the end of 2026, through which brands publicly aligning with its Sustainable Chemical Management Framework could register claims.

Second, ZDHC confirms companies and investors can use factory chemical and wastewater records in environmental reporting — but they must run the calculations and supply the additional information their reporting rules require. Treat the data as inputs, not finished disclosures.

What does the report not tell you?

It doesn't quantify group-wide reductions in hazardous chemical use or pollution. The results track the systems brands have built and the implementation they can document — not measured environmental outcomes. ZDHC names closing that evidence-to-outcome link as its next step.

"The harder question and the one that matters most for materiality and impact is whether all that effort translates into tangible environmental improvement," the report states.

The sourcing decision this forces: if your brand mandates InCheck submissions but lacks a resourced follow-up process at tier-2 and tier-3 chemical handling, you're in the 17-point gap — and your claims exposure widens as ClaimCheck approaches.