The chemicals industry is facing one of the most significant regulatory shifts in decades. Between the ongoing REACH revision, the universal PFAS restriction proposal, and evolving CLP requirements, compliance teams in chemicals and advanced materials need a reliable way to track regulatory changes across jurisdictions in real time.

This guide covers the key regulatory pressures facing chemicals companies in 2026 and explains how a purpose-built monitoring tool can help your team stay ahead of enforcement deadlines.

What is driving chemicals regulation in 2026?

Three major regulatory forces are reshaping the chemicals landscape right now. Each one creates specific monitoring challenges for compliance professionals.

The REACH revision

The EU REACH regulation (Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals) has been the cornerstone of European chemicals policy since 2007. The ongoing revision process is introducing changes to how substances are registered, evaluated, and restricted.

Key areas affected by the revision include registration requirements for low-volume substances, the introduction of a "mixture assessment factor" for calculating safe exposure limits, and expanded requirements for polymers. For compliance teams, this means monitoring not just the revision itself but also the cascade of implementing measures, guidance updates, and ECHA decisions that follow.

The PFAS universal restriction

PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) are arguably the most significant chemicals regulatory story of the decade. Often called "forever chemicals" because they do not break down in the environment, PFAS face potential restriction across the EU under a proposal submitted by five European countries.

The proposal covers more than 10,000 individual substances and could affect virtually every manufacturing sector, from automotive and aerospace to textiles and electronics. The restriction process is moving through ECHA scientific committees, with different timelines for different use categories.

What makes PFAS monitoring particularly challenging is the fragmented nature of the regulatory response. While the EU pursues a universal restriction, the United States has taken a substance-by-substance approach through the EPA, and individual states have enacted their own PFAS regulations. Canada, Australia, and several Asian countries are developing their own frameworks. A compliance team responsible for global PFAS monitoring needs to track dozens of regulatory sources simultaneously.

CLP regulation updates

The Classification, Labelling and Packaging (CLP) regulation is undergoing updates that affect hazard classification criteria and introduce new hazard classes, including for endocrine disruptors and persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic (PBT) substances. These changes ripple through supply chains, affecting safety data sheets, product labels, and downstream user communications.

Why is manual monitoring failing chemicals compliance teams?

Many chemicals companies still rely on manual monitoring processes: regulatory affairs professionals checking agency websites on a regular schedule, scanning newsletters, or depending on industry associations for updates. This approach has several critical weaknesses.

  • Coverage gaps: No individual can realistically monitor 50 or more official sources across multiple jurisdictions on a daily basis. Updates published outside regular checking schedules get missed.
  • Delayed awareness: Even with a weekly checking routine, there can be days between a publication and your team learning about it. In fast-moving areas like PFAS, that delay can mean missed comment periods or late compliance preparations.
  • Language barriers: European chemicals regulation involves publications in over 20 official EU languages, plus national languages for member state implementations. Manual monitoring requires either multilingual staff or reliance on translations that may lag behind original publications.
  • Knowledge concentration: When monitoring depends on one or two individuals, their absence creates immediate blind spots in your regulatory awareness.

What does effective chemicals regulatory monitoring look like?

An effective monitoring program for chemicals compliance needs to combine broad source coverage with precise filtering. Here is what that looks like in practice.

Source coverage

A comprehensive chemicals monitoring setup should cover at minimum:

  • EU-level sources: ECHA (European Chemicals Agency), European Commission Official Journal, EFSA, relevant Council and Parliament publications
  • National authorities: Chemical agencies in key EU member states (BAuA in Germany, ANSES in France, KEMI in Sweden, RIVM in the Netherlands)
  • North American sources: US EPA, OSHA, individual state agencies (California DTSC, Minnesota, Maine), Health Canada, Environment and Climate Change Canada
  • International bodies: OECD chemicals program, UN Rotterdam and Stockholm Conventions, WHO IPCS
  • Sector-specific: Automotive, aerospace, electronics, and consumer goods industry bodies that issue compliance guidance

Filtering and classification

Monitoring 200+ sources generates a high volume of publications daily. Without filtering, compliance teams drown in noise. The right platform should let you filter by substance, regulation type, jurisdiction, and relevance to your specific business activities.

Alert customization

Different team members need different information. A PFAS specialist needs immediate alerts on any PFAS-related publication globally, while a regulatory affairs manager may want a daily summary of all EU chemicals updates. Customizable email notifications at the individual level are essential.

How does Obsidian help chemicals compliance teams?

Obsidian Monitoring Advisory Chemicals and PFAS coverage is designed specifically for this challenge. The platform monitors over 200 official government and regulatory sources with dedicated chemicals and PFAS filtering.

Key capabilities for chemicals teams include:

  • Real-time source scanning: Sources are checked continuously, not on a daily or weekly schedule. When ECHA publishes a new restriction proposal or the EPA finalizes a PFAS rule, your team knows within minutes.
  • Official sources only: Every update traces directly back to the publishing agency. No third-party interpretations, no secondary commentary. Your team always works from the primary document.
  • Industry-specific filtering: Updates are classified by sector relevance, so your team sees chemicals-specific publications without sifting through unrelated regulatory activity.
  • Multi-jurisdictional coverage: Monitor EU, US, Canadian, Swiss, and additional jurisdictions from a single dashboard, eliminating the need for separate tracking systems per region.
  • Customizable notifications: Each team member can configure their own email alerts based on jurisdiction, topic, and frequency preferences.

The platform is available as a web dashboard (Obsidian Monitor Live) for direct use by compliance teams, or as an Enterprise API for integration into your existing GRC, EHS, or product stewardship systems.

What should chemicals compliance teams do right now?

If your organization handles chemical substances in any capacity, here are the steps you should be taking in 2026:

  1. Audit your current monitoring coverage: List every regulatory source your team currently tracks. Compare it against the full landscape of agencies that could affect your products and operations. Identify gaps.
  2. Assess your PFAS exposure: Map every product, process, and supplier that uses or could contain PFAS. The scope of the EU restriction means substances you have not previously considered may fall under future controls.
  3. Implement automated monitoring: Replace or supplement manual checking with a purpose-built platform that provides real-time, comprehensive source coverage. The cost of a monitoring tool is a fraction of the cost of a compliance failure.
  4. Set up cross-functional alerts: Ensure that regulatory updates reach not just the compliance team but also product development, supply chain, and commercial teams who need to act on the information.
  5. Track implementation timelines: For major changes like the PFAS restriction, build a timeline of key dates and monitor for any shifts in the schedule.

The regulatory environment for chemicals is not slowing down. Building a robust monitoring capability now is the best investment your compliance team can make. View Obsidian pricing to find the right plan for your team.