SCIP reference

What a SCIP reference is

SCIP is the database of Substances of Concern In articles or in complex objects, run by the European Chemicals Agency. When an article placed on the EU market contains a substance on the REACH Candidate List above 0.1 per cent by weight, a notification goes into it, and the notification has a reference.

Two separate instruments meet at that sentence and it is worth keeping them apart. The duty to notify comes from Article 9(1)(i) of the Waste Framework Directive, Directive 2008/98/EC. The 0.1 per cent threshold that triggers it belongs to REACH Article 33(1), which the Waste Framework Directive points at rather than restating.

A passport field for a SCIP reference is therefore a pointer to somebody's notification, not a statement about what is in the garment.

Recorded, never discovered

This is the one field on a textile passport where the honest answer is that there is no route, and where that sentence is supportable rather than merely convenient.

Five properties of the interface, each of which alone would be an inconvenience and which together close the door.

• SCIP is positive only. It records notifications that were made. Nothing in it distinguishes an article with no notifiable substance from an article nobody notified.
• There is no public API and no bulk download.
• There is no reuse licence covering the contents.
• Dossiers do not carry a product identifier. There is no field in which a GTIN would live even if the rest were solved.
• The identity of the submitter is legally suppressed.

So a reference can be recorded, by the person who made the notification, and it cannot be discovered by anyone else starting from a product. A design that proposed to query the agency by barcode was rejected on those grounds before anything was built, which is cheaper than discovering it afterwards.

That is a structural absence rather than a failure to look, and the distinction is the whole of the evidence page. Almost every other absence in this estate is written as we did not find it. This one is written as there is no route, and the five bullets above are the reason it is allowed to be.

What would make this page wrong, and how often we look

A claim that strong earns a short check cycle. Each of the five properties above is a property of a live public interface, and an interface can change without announcing that it has changed. If a public API appears, if a reuse licence is granted or if a field opens in which a product identifier could sit, the argument in the section above stops being structural and this page is wrong the same day.

The register behind this page carries a six month check on that interface, and against a risk that lands on the day it lands, that is a mismatch between the cadence and the consequence. It is a defect in the maintenance rather than in the claim. The claim holds today. The interval was the part that did not.

So this page keeps a shorter rule than the one it inherited. The five properties are re-checked monthly, by hand, against the public database rather than against anyone's description of it, and the check looks for five specific things.

• A public API, of any kind, over the notified data.
• A bulk export or a published dataset.
• A reuse licence attached to the contents.
• A product identifier field in what a dossier publishes.
• Any relaxation of the suppression of the submitter's identity.

Any one of those appearing is a rewrite of this page rather than an edit to it, because the five together are the argument. That is also why the page names them rather than summarising them: a reader who wants to check us can look at the same interface and reach the same five answers.

What we refuse to do with an empty field

Nothing generates a reference. A well-formed identifier that points at nothing is worse than an empty box in every respect that matters, so none is ever constructed.

A reference the merchant supplies is checked for shape and nothing else. Where it is malformed it is recorded exactly as given rather than corrected, because a tidied identifier may be somebody else's real one.

And not knowing is not the same as not applicable. An empty field here means one of three things, and the passport says which.

The middle row is the one that gets abused. A supplier's declaration that nothing is present is evidence about what the supplier knows. It retires the notification duty as far as anyone can tell, and it is not a laboratory result, so it never reaches the completeness a measurement would.

Nine components out of ten is not the garment

The first question to put to a declaration is therefore what it covered. A statement that nothing on the Candidate List is present above the threshold in nine of a garment's ten components is a statement about those nine. The notification duty attaches to the article placed on the market, and the article is all ten.

Nothing we have read says how those nine statements compose into one statement about the assembly. We have not found a standard that defines it, and the scheme documentation in that layer is only partly read, so the honest form of this is that we did not find one rather than that none exists. The part left out of a declaration is rarely the shell fabric. It is a sewing thread, a zip, a print paste, a coating or an adhesive. A declaration written about fabric was never about those.

What follows for this field is a recording rule. Where a declaration reached part of the article, the coverage is recorded with it and the field stays not established. Marking a field not applicable on a declaration that never reached the whole article is how a gap in the evidence becomes a published claim.

On the current 34 variant test catalogue this field resolves for nobody. It is a test catalogue rather than a customer, and the zero is not a defect. It is what a passport looks like when the evidence has not been created yet.

Whether the duty arises at all

The question of where you sell runs before the question of what is in the product. The notification duty attaches to articles placed on the EU market, so a business that does not place goods there is answering a different question.

That check is wired to fail closed. Where the markets are unclear the duty stays live rather than switching off, because switching a duty off on an assumption is the expensive direction to be wrong in. Shipping settings are not evidence of selling into a market either. A shop that will post to Belgium has not thereby placed goods on the Belgian market.

One part of this is our reading rather than settled law, and it is worth naming. We treat a brand owner as the actor carrying the notification duty for its own articles. REACH describes the duty as falling on a supplier of an article, and whether a brand owner that never physically handles the goods is that supplier is not obvious from the text. We act on the reading above and we would change it against a better one.

Who carries what, across the wider passport duties, is set out on the applicability page.

What the law actually makes available

There is one route in law to information about a substance in an article, and the way it is usually described is wrong in a way that matters here. The chemicals regulation's supplier information article has two paragraphs, and they are two different instruments rather than one duty pointing in two directions.

The first pushes. A supplier of an article gives the recipient of that article the information it has, on supply, without anybody asking. The second has to be exercised. A consumer may ask, and the article states the period for answering.

Neither paragraph gives a brand a right to demand information from its own supplier. Both limbs are capped by the same phrase, the information available to the supplier, so the duty compels disclosure and never acquisition. A brand receiving an article is owed what its supplier holds. It is not handed an instrument for making a supplier go and find out.

That is why the empty field usually stays empty. Where nobody upstream has established whether a listed substance is present above the threshold, no paragraph of that article produces the fact, and putting the request again only returns the same answer with a later date on it. Every other approach we have looked at either reads something already published or infers something nobody wrote down.

The chemical data a business already holds is the other place readers reach for here, and it is a separate question with its own page. Whether an existing facility level chemical programme establishes anything about one specific garment is worked through on chemical data, and whether it reaches the garment, which this page points at rather than repeats.

How the request is actually made, what to record when nobody answers and what silence from a supplier is worth are on getting evidence out of suppliers.

The list underneath the answer moves

Any answer you get is an answer about one revision of a list. The Candidate List stood at 253 substances at its 34th update when we last retrieved it on 21 August 2026, and it is revised roughly twice a year, usually in January and June.

So an answer of the form nothing on the list is present above the threshold carries an expiry that nothing announces. It was true against the list as it stood on the day it was given. When the list grows, the answer does not change, does not flag itself and reads exactly as it did before. It ages in silence, and nobody looking at the document can tell.

For this field that makes the not applicable state a dated state rather than a standing one. A field marked not applicable is marked against one revision, and when the revision moves the mark does not move with it. The update number the statement was made against is therefore recorded next to the value, and a substance statement that names no revision is treated as one that cannot be placed in time.

The rule that follows is cheap to run. Re-ask when the list moves rather than on a calendar of your own, and re-ask about the substances the update added rather than about all of them. Twice a year is a smaller job than an annual review of everything, and it lands closer to the thing that caused it.

Sources

• Directive 2008/98/EC on waste, Article 9(1)(i)
  Art. 9(1)(i)In forceRelevant provisions reviewed

  The instrument that creates the notification duty. The threshold it operates on belongs to REACH rather than to this directive.

  View official source

• REACH Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006, Articles 3(33) and 33
  Art. 33(1), Art. 33(2), Art. 3(33)In forceRelevant provisions reviewed

  Both paragraphs were read at the consolidated text. Article 33(1) is a duty owed to the recipient of an article and it runs on supply. Article 33(2) is a consumer right with a stated response period. Both are capped by the information available to the supplier, so neither gives a brand a route to demand information from its own supplier, and the section on what the law makes available is written to that reading. Article 3(33) defines supplier of an article, which is where our reading on territory sits.

  View official source

• ECHA Candidate List of substances of very high concern
  34th update, 253 substancesRegulator dataReviewed in fullChecked 21 August 2026

  Retrieved through the agency's own interface. Revised roughly twice a year, so a count quoted without its update number and date goes stale without anybody noticing, and so does every answer given against it.

  View official source

• ECHA SCIP database public interface
  Regulator dataReviewed in full

  The five interface properties in the second section were established against the public database itself. Each is a property of what the database publishes rather than an inference about it. Any one of them changing falsifies this page on the day it changes, which is why the page states a check cadence shorter than the six month one the register carries for this row.

  View official source

• Published scheme documentation for the textile chemical management data layer
  Scheme documentationOfficial source confirmed, detailed review pending

  Carried here for two things and nothing more: a pointer to the destination that works through whether a facility level chemical programme reaches a garment, and the reason this page says we have not found a standard for composing component level claims rather than saying none exists. Seventeen of the twenty two observed sources behind that layer are unread.