Sixteen years, over sixteen thousand registration dossiers, and a compliance record that still leaves real gaps in the data. ECHA published its updated annual evaluation statistics at the end of February 2026, and the numbers offer a genuinely useful long term view of how REACH compliance checking has actually performed since the system began.
For chemical traders selling into the EU, this update matters beyond the headline figures. It shows exactly where dossiers still fall short on hazard data, and which substances remain most likely to draw regulatory attention going forward.
The Sixteen Year Picture
Between 2009 and 2025, ECHA checked the compliance of 16,100 registrations, covering 2,380 substances. That represents 23.5 percent of all submitted dossiers over the period.
For high volume chemicals, meaning those registered at 100 tonnes or more per year, the coverage runs higher. ECHA has checked the compliance of more than 30 percent of substances in that category that were registered before 2019. This higher tonnage focus is deliberate. Larger volume substances typically carry greater potential for widespread exposure, so ECHA prioritizes them accordingly.
What Happened in 2025 Specifically
The most recent year of activity gives a useful snapshot of current pace. In 2025, ECHA carried out 214 compliance checks, covering almost 1,200 registrations and touching 196 individual substances.
Beyond compliance checks, ECHA also made progress on substance evaluation work. The Evaluating Member States opened new evaluations on 10 substances, while ECHA itself adopted 12 substance evaluation decisions requesting further information across 18 substances. Follow-up evaluation work concluded for 7 additional substances during the year.
Why Data Gaps Keep Showing Up
The purpose behind all of this checking is straightforward. ECHA is looking for registration dossiers where hazard data is missing or unclear, particularly around health effects tied to reproduction and genetic mutation.
Compliance checks specifically target dossiers that may have data gaps, rather than reviewing every registration equally. This targeted approach means the checks concentrate resources where problems are statistically more likely to exist, based on prior screening.
Follow-up work on these checks tells its own story. ECHA completed follow-up evaluation for 241 substances during 2025 alone. Roughly 70 percent of companies receiving a data request actually submitted the supplementary information ECHA asked for. The remaining 30 percent of cases were referred directly to member state authorities for enforcement action instead.
A Warning Sign for Companies Leaving Joint Submissions
One detail buried in the compliance check data deserves particular attention from traders. ECHA specifically flagged companies that left joint submissions and instead filed individual dossiers on their own. Thirteen such dossiers were inspected, covering eleven substances, and nearly all of them were found non compliant.
Joint submission under REACH exists precisely to pool data and share the cost and quality burden of hazard testing across registrants of the same substance. When a company exits that arrangement and files independently, the compliance record here suggests the resulting dossier is far more likely to fall short of REACH requirements.
For buyers evaluating a supplier's registration status, this is a genuinely useful red flag. A substance registered outside a joint submission arrangement deserves a closer look before assuming its underlying safety data is solid.
What Happens After a Data Gap Is Confirmed
When ECHA does refer a case forward after receiving supplementary data, the agency does not simply close the file. Over 15 percent of cases where companies did supply the requested data were still referred on to member state competent authorities, with a recommendation to consider further risk management measures.
This means submitting the requested information does not automatically end regulatory interest in a substance. If the data itself raises new concerns, the case can continue moving through the system regardless of whether the original compliance gap was technically closed.
Practical Takeaways for Chemical Buyers
This kind of statistical update rarely makes headlines outside regulatory circles, but it carries real, actionable signal for anyone sourcing chemicals for the EU market.
Confirm whether a supplier's substance registration sits inside a joint submission or was filed independently, given the sharply higher non compliance rate for standalone filings.
Treat high tonnage substances, those above 100 tonnes per year, as more likely to face compliance scrutiny given ECHA's stated prioritization.
Understand that submitting requested hazard data does not guarantee a case closes quietly, since a meaningful share still get referred for further risk management review.
Watch for substances tied to reproductive toxicity or mutagenicity concerns specifically, since these remain common triggers for ECHA's data requests.
The Bottom Line for Procurement Teams
Sixteen years of consistent compliance checking has built a genuinely useful track record, and this update shows ECHA continuing that work at a steady pace rather than slowing down. For chemical buyers, the clearest lesson is that registration status alone tells only part of the story.
A substance's place inside or outside a joint submission, its tonnage band and its history of data requests all shape how much regulatory attention it is likely to draw next. Building these checks into a standard supplier due diligence process is a small step that can meaningfully reduce sourcing risk in the EU market.
Ready to source chemicals from verified global suppliers? Explore competitive offers on our platform today.
Reference Link:
https://echa.europa.eu/-/echa-updates-annual-evaluation-statistics-2
