ChemSHERPA vs IPC‑1752A: Which FMD Format is Good for You

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• Sending outdated spreadsheets when your customer expects ChemSHERPA-CI.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.

Book your strategy call now