ZDHC Brands to Zero: 91% now demand supplier chemical data, but follow-up lags

Nine in ten brands signed up to ZDHC now require suppliers to hand over InCheck chemical data — 91%, up from 75% a year earlier — yet only 74% actively follow up with those suppliers on what the data shows. That 17-point gap between watching and acting is the central finding of the 2026 Brands to Zero Report, the independently conducted assessment of sustainable chemical management across textile, leather and footwear supply chains.

KPMG Netherlands runs the assessment, scoring brands on two axes: corporate governance and supply-chain performance. Brands land on one of three tiers — Pioneer, Accelerator or Champion — depending on how mature their implementation is. To reach Champion Level, a brand must have embedded sustainable chemical management into corporate and purchasing processes, backed by implementation at scale and evidence from its supplier base.

What separates leaders from the rest?

Not purchasing power, according to ZDHC. The organisation said its results show progress "is not determined by purchasing power alone," with governance, accountability, clear expectations and supplier relationships all playing a role.

The numbers back that up. The proportion of brands merely monitoring InCheck data rose modestly, from 87% to 91% — essentially flat at the top. The proportion actively following up with suppliers jumped more sharply, from 60% to 74%, but remains the weakest link in the chain.

For context on what InCheck actually measures: it captures chemical inventory conformance with ZDHC's Manufacturing Restricted Substances List (MRSL), which sets requirements for chemical formulations used in textile, leather and footwear production. It is a factory-level data point, not a brand-level claim.

Why data collection isn't the same as improvement

ZDHC was blunt that collecting and monitoring data does not automatically translate into improvements at the manufacturing tier. The report calls on brands to engage suppliers, understand barriers to implementation, support corrective action, and make sure gains stick.

"Brands can set expectations, but implementation takes place in manufacturing facilities, where chemical inventories are managed, production decisions are made, and wastewater performance is measured," ZDHC said. "Rather than treating supplier engagement as a compliance exercise, brands have an opportunity to build the capabilities and relationships that make continuous improvement possible."

The report also pushes for chemical management to sit inside purchasing decisions, operational responsibilities and long-term supplier relationships — not in a siloed compliance function.

Can Brands to Zero data satisfy regulators?

Partly, and sourcing teams should read the fine print. ZDHC cautioned that programme data can support reporting and disclosure but does not independently fulfil every regulatory requirement. With environmental transparency and sustainability reporting expectations rising across major markets, that distinction matters for anyone mapping internal data against incoming disclosure rules.

The ZDHC Gateway does give brands access to primary factory data covering chemical inventory conformance and wastewater performance — usable for identifying gaps, assessing implementation and supporting improvement.

ZDHC also stressed that no single tier can fix this alone: sustainable chemical management requires collaboration across brands, suppliers, chemical formulators and solution providers, with shared guidelines reducing fragmentation across global supply chains.

The 2030 targets

The organisation's longer-term ambition is MRSL conformance for 100% of chemical formulations used across the ZDHC community, and 70% across the global industry, by 2030. "Reaching these goals will require continued investment, stronger collaboration and a shared commitment to evidence-based improvement," ZDHC said.

For sourcing and compliance leads, the report forces a practical decision: whether to keep chemical management as a monitoring exercise — collecting the data 91% of peers now demand — or to resource the supplier-facing follow-up work that only 74% currently do, and where the report locates the actual improvement.