Roadmap Categories and Benchmarks

YES. Has done all of the following:

• Issued a detailed written policy describing how company ensures thorough chemical safety evaluation, with measurable goals for reducing hazardous chemicals
• Has a regularly updated restricted substances list (RSL).

YES. General policy statement with some detailed information on chemical safety goals.Uses template or follows guidance established by BizNGO Model Chemicals Policy for Brands and Manufacturers. Company may have completed CFP survey, but has not established specific goals for improvement.

YES. General policy statement addressing its commitment to reduce its use of hazardous chemicals, with little or no further information on goals, strategies or practices.
Company has not completed CFP survey.

Company has no written chemicals policy addressing its approach to reducing chemicals of high concern. Has not completed Chemical Footprint Project survey to assess its current approach to chemicals management or track current use of chemicals of high concern.

• Company has made measurable progress towards reduction and/or elimination of chemicals of high concern as compared to the goals stated in its chemicals policy.
• Completes Chemical Footprint Project survey to determine current use of chemicals of high concern and updates its policy to include additional measurable goals towards improving its chemicals management strategy, chemical inventory, and chemical footprint.

Demonstrated commitment that company’s leadership is behind its chemicals policy (public statement by executive leadership CEO letter in sustainability report, e.g.), but no demonstrated progress towards goals of reducing hazardous chemicals

No demonstrated progress towards goals of reducing hazardous chemicals, or did not set out measurable goals in its policy.

No policy / No stated goals for reducing hazardous chemicals

Process for identifying chemicals of high concern (COHCs) involves prioritizing:

• Chemicals prohibited by law in any jurisdiction, and
• Chemicals regulated or restricted in any jurisdiction [CA Prop 65, CA Candidate Chemicals List, Canada Toxic Substances List – Schedule 1, EU allergens etc.], and
• Hazardous chemicals identified by authoritative scientific bodies [IARC, NTP, TEDX etc.], and
• Chemicals identified by NGOs as being of concern to their constituencies, and
• Chemicals associated with adverse health impacts in epidemiological studies published in peer-reviewed journals, and
• Chemicals identified in products associated with high rates of reported adverse reactions, and
• Chemicals identified as having hazard properties when run through GreenScreen List Translator and EPI Suite (where applicable) or
• Utilizes MadeSafe certification process or EWG Certified certification to identify chemicals of high concern

Process for identifying chemicals of high concern (COHCs) involves prioritizing using either:

• Extensive review involving:
  • Chemicals prohibited by law in any jurisdiction, and
  • Chemicals regulated in any jurisdiction [CA Prop 65, CA Candidate Chemicals List, Canada Toxic Substances List – Schedule 1, EU allergens etc.], and
  • Hazardous chemicals identified as by authoritative scientific bodies [IARC, NTP, TEDX etc.], and
  • Chemicals identified by NGOs as being of concern to their constituencies, and
  • Chemicals associated with adverse health concerns in epidemiological studies published in peer-reviewed journals, and
  • Chemicals identified in products with high rates of reported adverse reactions, or
• Abbreviated process based on:
  • Chemicals prohibited by law in any jurisdiction, and
  • Utilizes Safer Choice, GreenSeal, or EcoLogo product certification processes to identify chemicals of concern and 
  • Chemicals identified as having hazard properties when run through GreenScreen List Translator and EPI Suite (where applicable)
  • Chemicals identified by NGOs as being of concern to their constituencies.

Process for identifying chemicals of high concern (COHCs) involves prioritizing using either:

• Extensive review involving:
  • Chemicals prohibited by law in any jurisdiction, and
  • Chemicals regulated in any jurisdiction [CA Prop 65, CA Candidate Chemicals List, Canada Toxic Substances List – Schedule 1, EU allergens etc.], and
  • Hazardous chemicals identified as by authoritative scientific bodies [IARC, NTP, TEDX etc.], and
  • Chemicals identified by NGOs as being of concern to their constituencies, and
    • Chemicals associated with adverse health concerns in epidemiological studies published in peer-reviewed journals, and
    • Chemicals identified in products with high rates of reported adverse reactions, or
• Abbreviated process based on:
  • Chemicals prohibited by law in any jurisdiction, and
  • Chemicals identified as having hazard properties when run through GreenScreen List Translator and EPI Suite (where applicable)
  • Chemicals identified by NGOs as being of concern to their constituencies.

Process for identifying chemicals of high concern (COHCs) involves prioritizing using either:

• Chemicals prohibited by law in any jurisdiction

• Prohibits chemicals of high concern (COHC) identified and evaluated in 2A HEALTH FIRST level above and places chemicals on Restricted Substance List
• Prohibits chemicals for which no or insufficient safety data exist, or where weight of evidence of harm or safety remains unclear
• Prohibits all chemicals listed in Appendix 1
• Places a growing number of chemicals on the Restricted Substances List as additional epidemiological and toxicological findings shift the weight of evidence towards a chemical’s harm
• Making testing methodologies, data, findings, and all other relevant chemical assessment information available to the public.
• Takes feedback from academic researchers, NGOs, and other external parties on assessment processes and data to inform decision-making about chemical use

Where Chemicals of High Concern have been identified

• Fully inventory use of the chemical in all cleaning products, and:
  • Discontinue the relevant product, or
  • Reformulate the relevant product with a safer alternative as outlined by alternatives assessment procedure in Section 2C HEALTH FIRST

Where lack of data or insufficient data make hazard properties of a chemical difficult to identify (i.e. chemicals with significant data gaps):

• Does not include the chemical on its palette, and/or
• Withholds product containing the chemical from market until alternatives have been identified and evaluated for the relevant function, and
• Actively seeks to research or invest in research on adverse health and environmental impacts of the chemical

• Prohibits chemicals of high concern (COHC) identified and evaluated in 2A DO NO HARM above.
• Prohibits use of all chemicals listed in Appendix 1
• Places a growing number of chemicals on the Restricted Substances List as additional epidemiological and toxicological findings shift the weight of evidence towards a chemical’s harm
• May continue to use chemicals for which no or insufficient safety data exist, or where weight of evidence of harm or safety remains unclear

Where Chemicals of High Concern have been identified

• Fully inventory use of the chemical in all cleaning products, and:
• • Discontinue the relevant product, or
  • Reformulate the relevant product with a safer alternative as outlined by alternatives assessment procedure in Section 2A DO NO HARM

Where lack of data or insufficient data make hazard properties of a chemical difficult to identify, (i.e. chemicals with significant data gaps):

• Determines whether there are low level (non-monotonic dose response) exposure concerns for the chemical or any chemicals with similar structures, and:
  • Commit to not use the chemical at any level, or
  • Continue to evaluate the chemical if no low level exposure concerns exist
• Assesses whether exposure concern is relevant to the product uses (beyond “use as directed”), and 
  • If no reasonably anticipated product use is relevant to the exposure concern, continue to use chemical in current products, and commit to not use the chemical in any product with the relevant exposure concern in the future
  • If any reasonably anticipated product use is relevant to the exposure concern, follow steps below.
• Establishes thresholds at which chemical will not be used that take into account the most vulnerable populations reasonably anticipated to be exposed to the product, including women in different stages of pregnancy and breastfeeding, infants and young children, children at different stages of puberty, people with different types and stages of cancer, and cleaning workers who have higher cumulative exposures to chemicals in cleaning products.
• Makes testing methodologies, data, findings, and all other relevant hazard and exposure assessment information available to the public. 
  • If following risk assessment guidelines issued by government agencies (National Academy of Sciences, Environmental Protection Agency, World Health Organization), makes explicit how these tools are being used.
• Takes feedback from academic researchers, NGOs, and other external parties on assessment processes, data, and established margins of safety to inform decision-making about chemical use
• May still include the chemical on its palette, but
• Seeks to limit use of the chemical in products, and evaluates alternatives for the relevant function, and
• Actively seeks to research or invest in research on adverse health and environmental impacts of the chemical to eliminate the data gaps

• Conducts exposure assessments on hazardous chemicals. Utilizes a limited range of dosage levels in testing process.
• Establishes thresholds at which chemical will not be used that do not take into account the most vulnerable populations, or does not establish firm thresholds at which chemical will not be used.
• Based on exposure assessments, chemicals are routinely found to be safe at certain levels.
• Continues to use hazardous chemicals in products only if: 
  • Exposure concern does not match any reasonably anticipated product use (beyond “use as directed”)
  • Low level exposure concerns have been assessed and are not relevant
  • Only at levels below which ANY adverse effect is observed for ANY relevant health endpoint and taking into account vulnerable populations, including those described above.
• May follow exposure assessment protocols set out by government agencies (National Academy of Sciences, Environmental Protection Agency, or World Health Organization) but: 
  • Does not make testing methodologies, data, findings, and all other relevant hazard and exposure assessment information available to the public
  • Does not takes feedback from academic researchers, NGOs, and other external parties to inform decision-making about chemical use.
• Conducts alternatives assessment described in 2C DO NO HARM or DO LESS HARM levels to identify safer alternatives, and
• Places a moderate number of chemicals on the list of prohibited chemicals, and/or this list remains stagnant for many years.
• Chemical screening process continues to allow 1 or more chemicals listed in Appendix 1

Where lack of data or insufficient data make hazard properties of a chemical difficult to identify (i.e. chemicals with significant data gaps):

• Continues to include the chemical on its palette, and
• Continues to use the chemical in products, and evaluates alternatives for the relevant function, and
• Monitors new research on adverse health and environmental impacts of the chemical

• Restricted Substance List (RSL) consists solely of chemicals of concern restricted or prohibited in certain jurisdictions, and these prohibitions are not applied globally
• Company standards continue to allow 1 or more chemicals listed in Appendix 1
• Where lack of data or insufficient data make hazard properties of a chemical difficult to identify, continues include the chemical on its palette, and use it in products.
• Does not conduct chemical hazard assessments using any available third-party method or tool
• Does not make testing methodologies, data, findings, and all other relevant hazard and exposure assessment information available to the public
• Does not takes feedback from academic researchers, NGOs, and other external parties to inform decision-making about chemical use.

Alternatives assessment:

• Uses one of these methods:
  • Conducts/commissions full GreenScreen for Safer Chemicals assessments on all chemicals being considered as replacements. Chemicals assigned Benchmark I or II are not used as replacement chemicals, or
  • Utilizes MadeSafe certification process or EWG Certified certification to identify safer chemical substitutes, or
  • Uses an equally rigorous process for assessing chemical alternatives and identifying safer alternatives. This process would need to be made public so that external parties can verify level of rigor.
• Sets and follows a high standard at which adverse reaction reports trigger further assessment and/or possible reformulation, redesign or discontinuation

• Runs chemicals through criteria established by Safer Choice, GreenSeal, or EcoLogo product certification processes, or
• Follows decision-making model detailed in BizNGO Chemical Alternative Assessment Protocol
• Has an internal system for tracking adverse event reports, and will look to discontinue/reformulate/redesign product if enough reports received, but does not share reporting data externally

• Consults Safer Choice SCIL List and/or CleanGredients to identify safer chemicals
• Has signed and follows a process guided by the BizNGO Common Principles of Alternatives Assessment
• Has an internal system for tracking adverse reaction reports, but does not consider reformulation based on such reports, and does not share reporting data externally.

• Does not have a stated commitment to or process for avoiding regrettable substitutes when phasing out chemicals of high concern.
• Does not consider taking further action based on adverse reaction reports, including reformulation, redesign, and product discontinuation.

Requires full fragrance ingredient disclosure from suppliers, and uses the same process for screening chemicals as used in 2A-C HEALTH FIRST levels above to identify and eliminate COHCs

Goes beyond IFRA standards to evaluate fragrance ingredient safety, identify fragrance COHCs, and make progress towards eliminating them as described in 2A-C DO NO HARM levels above.

Fragrance palette is narrower than IFRA list. Does not conduct full assessments of all fragrance chemicals on its palette to identify a thorough list of fragrance COHCs. Assessments that are conducted follow same procedures and standards as described in 2A-C DO LESS HARM levels above.

Assures fragrance supplier complies with standards established by IFRA. Complies with laws and regulations in all jurisdictions where products are sold. Assumes fragrance supplier has already assessed ingredient safety, and goes no further.

Does all of the following:

• Publicly discloses chemicals policy and chemicals management goals
• Annually reports on progress toward stated COHC reduction goals
• Publishes complete RSL, including an explicit list of prohibited chemicals, and thresholds at which chemicals are restricted.
• Makes public its hazard and exposure assessment processes, standards, and testing data.
• Makes public its system for cataloguing adverse reactions experienced by product users, and shares adverse reaction reports to Consumer Product Safety Commission, Food and Drug Administration, and other relevant regulatory agencies

• Company safer chemicals policy is publicly available and EITHER restricted substance list (RSL) is publicly available OR company annually publicly reports on metrics in implementing its safer chemicals policy. (As per Mind the Store retailer scorecard, metrics may include quantifying reductions of COHC by weight, number or percent of products containing COHC, and/or number or percent of suppliers selling products containing COHC).
• Makes public its system for cataloguing adverse reactions experienced by product users, and shares adverse reaction reports to select third parties.

• Company safer chemicals policy and a short list of prohibited or restricted ingredients is publicly available.
• Company commits to publicly disclose its complete Restricted Substance List within 1-2 years.
• Makes public its system for cataloguing adverse reactions experienced by product users, but does not share adverse reaction reports externally.

• Does not have or does not publicly disclose its chemicals policy for reducing chemicals of high concern.
• Does not have or does not make public its system for cataloguing adverse reactions reported by product users.
• Does not share adverse reactions reports externally.

Completes Chemical Footprint Project survey and publicly reports on score and survey response as well as goals and progress towards reducing its chemical footprint.

Develops own method for measuring its chemical footprint and publicly reports on goals and progress towards reducing its chemical footprint (e.g. Walmart).

Measures its chemical footprint, either using Chemical Footprint Project survey or its own method, but does not report publicly on goals or progress.

Does not take steps to measure or reduce its chemical footprint.

Does all of the following:

• Works to improve industry-wide data sharing of hazard assessments
• Leads and participates meaningfully in collaborative green chemistry initiatives
• Works towards development of industry RSL
• Seeks to improve company practices to keep ahead of collaborative efforts

• Engages meaningfully in collaborative green chemistry initiatives
• Works towards development of industry RSL
• Seeks to improve company practices in step with collaborative efforts

Participates in collaborative green chemistry initiatives

Does not engage in any of the above activities.