Despite decades of international efforts to harmonize chemical safety communication, Safety Data Sheets (SDS) remain fundamentally different across the United States, the United Nations Global Harmonization framework, and the European Union. Companies shipping chemicals globally face a critical compliance reality: one SDS cannot legally serve all jurisdictions. 

Why SDS Formats Still Differ Despite “Global Harmonization” 

The 16-section SDS format appears identical across OSHA, GHS, and EU systems. However, this structural similarity masks profound differences in content depth, mandatory requirements, and regulatory philosophy. The UN’s Globally Harmonized System (GHS) provides a framework that countries can adapt to their specific regulatory needs. Each region has taken this framework and strengthened it according to local priorities, resulting in divergent implementations that create compliance conflicts rather than harmony. 

Who Needs to Understand These Differences 

  • Manufacturers & Importers: Must produce region-specific SDSs or face rejection at borders and audit failures 
  • EHS Directors: Responsible for maintaining compliant SDSs across global operations and supplier networks 
  • Distributors & Retailers: Must ensure SDSs match the regulatory requirements of each market they serve 
  • Safety Professionals: Need to train workers using SDSs that may contain different hazard information depending on source country 

 

How Regulatory Frameworks Shape SDS Content Depth 

OSHA prioritizes worker safety within the United States and deliberately excludes environmental hazards. The EU’s REACH regulation takes a lifecycle approach, requiring environmental data and detailed exposure limits. GHS serves as the international baseline, but without legal enforcement power. This philosophical difference—worker-focused vs. lifecycle-focused—drives every section of the SDS. 

Regulatory Foundations: OSHA vs GHS vs EU 

OSHA HazCom 2012/2024 – U.S. Worker Safety & Minimum Disclosure:

OSHA’s Hazard Communication Standard (HazCom 2012, updated in 2024) aligns with GHS but maintains a deliberately minimal approach to information disclosure. The regulatory philosophy is straightforward: provide workers with the information they need to work safely. Sections 12–15 (ecological, disposal, transport, regulatory information) are optional—OSHA does not enforce these sections because other U.S. agencies handle those concerns. Key OSHA Principles: 

  • English-only requirement (other languages permitted but not required) 
  • Excludes environmental hazards from classification and labeling 
  • Allows wider concentration ranges and trade secret protection for formulations 
  • No requirement for DNELs or worker-specific exposure limits 
  • Optional sections 12–15 reduce SDS completion burden 

UN GHS – A Global Framework Without Legal Enforcement:

The Globally Harmonized System is not a regulation; it is a recommendation adopted by individual countries at their own pace. GHS provides a 16-section template and hazard classification criteria, but countries implement these flexibly. Some nations adopt GHS in full; others adapt it to existing systems. This flexibility was intentional to encourage broad adoption, but it guarantees divergence. GHS Core Structure: 

  • Standardized 16-section format with consistent section headings 
  • No enforcement mechanism or compliance monitoring 
  • Allows regional adaptations for physical, health, and environmental hazards 
  • Provides baseline hazard statements (H-phrases) but permits supplemental statements 
  • GHS has undergone 10+ revisions since 2009, with varying adoption rates globally 

EU REACH + CLP – The Most Stringent Chemical Safety System:

The European Union’s REACH (Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation, Restriction of Chemicals) and CLP (Classification, Labelling, Packaging) regulations represent the world’s most comprehensive chemical safety framework. All 16 SDS sections are mandatory and heavily prescribed. The EU requires detailed exposure data, environmental impact assessments, lifecycle information, and specific formatting rules that go far beyond GHS recommendations. EU’s Regulatory Philosophy: 

  • Lifecycle approach: chemicals tracked from manufacture through disposal 
  • Environmental hazards and ecotoxicology are mandatory requirements 
  • Specific concentration thresholds trigger ingredient disclosure (often <1%) 
  • DNELs (Derived No-Effect Levels) and DMELs required for substances >10 tonnes/year 
  • Nanomaterial information mandatory (as of 2023 via Regulation 2020/878) 
  • UFI (Unique Formula Identifier) required for mixtures since January 2025 

The Core Philosophical Difference Between OSHA, GHS, and EU Approaches 

Aspect  OSHA  GHS  EU (REACH/CLP) 
Primary Focus  Worker protection in workplace  General hazard communication framework  Lifecycle management & environmental protection 
Legal Status  Enforceable U.S. regulation  Recommendation (not enforceable)  Enforceable EU regulation across 27+ countries 
Environmental Data  Excluded (optional in SDS)  Recommended but not enforced  Mandatory in all SDSs 
Exposure Limits  U.S. PELs only  General guidance  DNELs, DMELs, and local OELs required 
Language  English only (mandatory)  Not specified  Official language(s) of each Member State 

SDS Section Comparisons: OSHA, GHS, EU (REACH/CLP) 

Section OSHA Requirements GHS Framework EU (REACH/CLP) Requirements
1 – Identification Product identifier, manufacturer contact, U.S. emergency number, recommended use Flexible contact details, general product ID EU address mandatory, UFI number, EC number, revision date required
2 – Hazard Identification Signal word, hazard & precautionary statements (no environmental hazards) Includes environmental hazards, standardized H-phrases, supplemental statements allowed EUH statements included, aquatic hazards, M-factors, more granular categories
3 – Composition/Ingredients CAS ID, trade secrets allowed, concentration ranges General ingredient disclosure guidance Exact concentrations required, nanoform IDs, more disclosure rules
4 – First-Aid Measures Basic instructions, minimal symptom detail Symptom-focused by exposure route Detailed treatments, antidotes, emergency protocols
5 – Fire-Fighting Measures Extinguishing media, hazards, general firefighter guidance Non-specific Mandatory combustion product hazards, PPE requirements
6 – Accidental Release Measures Personal precautions only Some environmental consideration Environmental warnings, authority notification, eco-friendly cleanup
7 – Handling & Storage General precautions and critical storage General Specific conditions (temp/humidity), static control, ADR quantity limits
8 – Exposure Controls/PPE U.S. PELs, PPE guidance Regional limits vary DNELs/DMELs, certified EN PPE standards
9 – Physical & Chemical Properties Physical state, color, odor, flash point, vapor pressure General framework 28+ required properties, including nanoform data
10 – Stability & Reactivity General incompatible materials, decomposition products Flexible Detailed incompatibilities, polymerization risks, hazardous conditions
11 – Toxicological Information Routes of exposure, acute data only Standard toxicity info Chronic toxicity, STOT, carcinogenicity, PBT/vPvB assessment
12 – Ecological Information Optional Recommended Mandatory aquatic toxicity, persistence, bioaccumulation
13 – Disposal Considerations Optional General Hazardous waste handling, landfill/incineration rules
14 – Transport Information Optional (regulations separate) Varies UN numbers, hazard class, marine pollutant status
15 – Regulatory Information Optional General REACH status, Seveso III thresholds, POP listing
16 – Other Information Revision date Revision date + changes summary Full revision history, data sources, contact person

Hidden Compliance Differences Most Companies Miss 

Hazard Classification Differences (Even for the Same Chemical): 

The same chemical substance may receive different hazard classifications across regions due to: 

  • Different GHS revisions adopted: EU follows GHS Rev. 7/8; U.S. slower to update 
  • Different weight of evidence standards: EU often applies more conservative criteria for chronic health effects 
  • Occupational vs. consumer classification: OSHA focuses on workplace; EU must classify for both workers and consumers 
  • Environmental classification: Classified under EU CLP but absent from OSHA 

Supplemental Hazard Statements (EUH) vs OSHA’s Limited System: 

EU has 20+ EUH statements (EUH001–EUH066, EUH401–EUH411) providing region-specific hazard warnings: 

  • EUH029: “Contact with water liberates toxic gas” 
  • EUH031: “Contact with acids liberates toxic gas” 
  • EUH066: “Repeated exposure may cause skin dryness or cracking” 
  • EUH401: “To avoid risks to human health and the environment, comply with the instructions for use” 

OSHA does not employ supplemental hazard statements; all hazard information is expressed through standard H-phrases. This creates a gap: certain EU-critical warnings have no OSHA equivalent. 

Confidential Business Information Rules (CBI): 

Aspect OSHA EU (REACH/CLP)
Trade Secret Protection Chemical identity and exact concentration can be withheld without prior approval Chemical identity requires ECHA approval; fees apply; concentration cannot be hidden
Approved Names Alternative chemical name must still convey hazard Alternative name can be generic (e.g., “Proprietary surfactant”)
Enforcement OSHA does not police CBI claims; challenge unlikely unless safety risk ECHA actively polices CBI; denies claims if insufficient justification
Appeal Process Company responsible for defending the claim if questioned ECHA issues a formal decision; limited appeal opportunity

Labeling Conflicts Across Regions: 

A chemical may require: 

  • Danger signal word in EU CLP 
  • Warning signal word in OSHA (or neither, if chronic-only hazard) 
  • No workplace label under OSHA if for consumer use (different rules apply) 
  • Mandatory label in EU even if industrial-only product 

Result: Identical chemical with three different label formats, creating supply chain confusion. 

Why a Single SDS Cannot Be Used Globally 

Legal Incompatibilities Between U.S., EU, and GHS Implementations 

  • Sections 12–15 Dilemma: OSHA permits omission; EU mandates completion. A legally compliant OSHA SDS is non-compliant in the EU. 
  • Environmental Data: OSHA allows exclusion; EU requires inclusion. Non-existent data in OSHA SDS creates an incomplete EU document. 
  • Concentration Disclosure: OSHA permits ranges; EU demands exactness. Trade secret claims valid in U.S. are rejected in EU. 
  • Exposure Limits: U.S. PEL (1 ppm) may differ from EU DNEL (0.5 ppm), leading to different PPE and engineering control requirements. 
  • Language: OSHA allows English-only; EU mandates local Member State languages, requiring translation and re-classification per local laws. 

Global Shipping Failures Caused by Mismatched SDS Formats 

  • Section 12 (Ecological Data) is blank—EU importer legally cannot receive the chemical without ecological toxicity data 
  • Section 3 lists concentrations as “5–10%” (trade secret claimed in U.S.)—EU authority requires exact percentages 
  • No UFI code on SDS or label—violates January 2025 EU mandate 
  • Environmental warnings in Section 6 missing—non-compliant with REACH 

Result: Container held at port, customs inspection launched, potential shipment rejection or expensive re-documentation  

Supplier Issues: U.S. Manufacturers Often Fail EU Audits 

Audit findings from ECHA (2024) reveal: 

  • 35% of SDSs failed compliance assessment 

U.S. suppliers account for significant portion due to: 

  • Missing environmental data (not required under OSHA) 
  • Incomplete Section 8 exposure limits (no DNEL provided) 
  • Omitted nanoform information 
  • No revision history in Section 16 
  • Missing EUH statements for specific hazards 

Automatic Label Updates for Different Jurisdictions 

SDS software integrates labeling generation: 

  • Generate U.S. label with signal word “Danger” and OSHA pictograms 
  • Generate EU label with same substance; if aquatic toxicity applies, add environmental pictogram and EUH statement does not present on U.S. label 
  • Generate transport label (ADR/IMDG) with different classification and color scheme 
  • All three labels linked to the same SDS database record; changes sync automatically 

Efficiency Gain: Multi-site operation shipping identical chemical to U.S., EU, and Asia generates three compliant labels and SDSs from a single database entry. 

Conclusion 

Despite the 16-section standardized structure, OSHA, GHS, and EU SDSs are fundamentally different documents governed by conflicting regulatory philosophies. OSHA prioritizes minimal worker-focused disclosure; the EU demands comprehensive lifecycle documentation. GHS provides the framework, but implementation divergence guarantees that global harmonization remains aspirational rather than operational. Legal compliance requires region-specific SDSs: 

  • United States: OSHA HazCom 2012/2024 compliance (optional Sections 12–15, trade secrets permitted) 
  • European Union: REACH + CLP mandatory compliance (all 16 sections, no trade secrets for identity, UFI codes, comprehensive environmental data) 
  • Other regions (Canada, Australia, etc.): Each has adapted GHS with unique requirements 

Maintaining a single SDS creates liability: 

  • Audit failures and regulatory fines (35% of EU SDSs fail compliance; proportion higher for U.S.-sourced documents) 
  • Supply chain rejections at borders 
  • Workplace safety incidents stemming from incomplete hazard information 
  • Environmental violations from missing disposal guidance 
  • Transport accidents from incorrect dangerous goods classification 

However, organizations with global chemical operations must: 

  • Audit existing SDSs quarterly against current regulatory requirements in each jurisdiction 
  • Implement SDS management software with multi-region compliance engines 
  • Train EHS teams on region-specific requirements and reconcile differences 
  • Monitor regulatory changes (ECHA ATPs, OSHA updates, new GHS revisions) and budget for SDS revisions 
  • Document compliance strategy for auditors, showing deliberate regional variation as evidence of due diligence 

Bottom Line: A single global SDS is impossible. Digital SDS management software is no longer optional—it is essential infrastructure for organizations managing chemical safety across jurisdictions.