The last two years have been unusually busy in terms of product compatibility. Key developments include:
The General Product Safety Framework came into effect in Europe on December 13, 2024; the Commission published its implementing guidance in November 2025.
The 11th revised edition of the GHS was published on September 12, 2025, and introduced a new concept of environmental hazard and guidance for methods that do not use animal testing.
The application of the new hazard classes to mixtures began on May 1, 2026; this requires a review of the classification, labeling, and safety data sheet for many products.
Border carbon adjustment entered its final phase on January 1, 2026; imports after 2026 will incur financial obligations.
The digital product passport infrastructure has been established; the central registration system and test environment will be operational in the summer of 2026.
The comprehensive restriction process for perfluorinated compounds has entered its decisive phase: the risk assessment committee adopted its opinion in March 2026, the socioeconomic assessment committee's draft opinion was opened to public comment in the same month, and the final opinion is expected to be completed by the end of 2026.
The implications of this table for businesses are clear: compliance is no longer a temporary project, but a continuous process. The gap between businesses that can version the rule set and reduce impact analysis to a single query, and those that manage manually, is widening with each implementation.
2. Simplification and tightening together.
Simplification packages beginning in 2025 eased some reporting obligations and extended deadlines. However, this doesn't mean the obligation is gone; rather, it's an adjustment to narrow the focus and simplify implementation . Essential product-level requirements—safety, substance restrictions, labeling, and traceability—continue to tighten in the same direction.
For businesses, the correct takeaway is this: delaying preparations based on calendar changes is a risky strategy. What is usually delayed is the date, not the necessity.
3. Digitalization of compliance and machine readability
The transformation of compliance documents from human-readable files to machine-readable data is the most structural change in the field. Digital product passports, material declaration standards, and electronic conformity declarations all point in the same direction: the structured data behind the document, not the document itself, is becoming the primary asset.
The practical consequence of this is that a business that keeps its compliance data in a structured format today only needs a new output template to produce tomorrow's format. A business that keeps the data in a document, however, has to re-enter the data from scratch for each new format.
4. Deepening supply chain transparency.
The responsibilities now encompass not only the direct supplier but also deeper layers of the chain: the origin of the raw materials, the geographical location of the production site, and the practices of sub-suppliers. This makes data collection qualitatively more challenging, as it requires requesting information from parties not directly involved with the business.
A practical approach that works in the field is to embed the data request into the supplier relationship: adding the disclosure obligation to the contract, linking the supplier approval process to compliance data, and including the compliance response rate in the supplier performance evaluation.
5. The introduction of artificial intelligence into adaptation processes.
Compliance is one area where artificial intelligence produces tangible benefits. Key use cases include: automated reading and structuring of supplier declarations from various formats, summarizing changes in regulatory texts, identifying data gaps, and conducting compliance checks using natural language. The final decision remains with the authorized expert; the system's output serves as decision support, and an approval record is kept.
6. Product compatibility across leading corporate platforms.
Function
1. Approach
2. Approach
Compliance master data
Providing compliance master data throughout the product lifecycle; enabling compliance checks during product development.
Single enterprise product registration and management of compliance data through the product master data center.
Substance control
Checking prohibited and restricted substances and applicable limits via product trees or formulations.
Product compatibility and material declaration capabilities for restricted substance tracking.
Safety data sheet
Generating the document based on compliance templates and requirements; entering data through interfaces and extracting it as a legally compliant document.
Deriving compliance documentation from product data and distributing it to channels.
Dangerous substance
Rule-based determination of hazardous material classification, harmful substance assessment and labeling.
Management along with supply chain and logistics solutions.
Architectural note
The transition from classic product safety solutions to next-generation product compliance solutions is ongoing; the two solutions are used together for a period of time.
The transition process from a classic product lifecycle solution to a cloud solution is ongoing.
Integration
Workplace safety and product compatibility components share common chemical and substance data.
Product records must be in the same data model as supply chain, sales, and finance processes.
Conclusion: In both providers, product compliance is positioned as a separate component, and its connection to product data is established through configuration. The crucial difference lies not in the concepts themselves, but in whether the compliance engine operates on the same database as the product, production, sales, and shipping data . Only with this integration can a change in a recipe ratio automatically affect the label, safety data sheet, and shipping documentation.