The global paints and coatings industry is no longer competing only on colour, corrosion resistance, gloss, durability or price. The real competition is shifting towards technologies that can remove entire manufacturing stages, lower curing energy, eliminate overspray, respond intelligently to operating conditions and extend the useful life of high-value assets.

The global paints and coatings market was estimated at approximately US$202 billion in 2024, with the ten largest manufacturers collectively accounting for around 44% of the market. However, market size alone does not reveal which companies are genuinely shaping the next generation of coating technology. 

This market research ranks ten global coatings companies according to their recent innovation activity, breakthrough technologies and ability to convert R&D into commercially relevant solutions.

How the Companies Were Evaluated

This is an editorial innovation ranking, not a ranking by revenue or total paint volume. Each company was assessed against five practical criteria:

1. Technical novelty: Does the technology introduce a genuinely different coating mechanism, chemistry or application process?
2. Commercial readiness: Has the technology moved beyond laboratory research into industrial trials, approvals or commercial use?
3. Environmental and process impact: Can it reduce energy, emissions, solvents, paint waste, maintenance or manufacturing steps?
4. Application significance: Does it solve a difficult problem in automotive, marine, aerospace, infrastructure, packaging or industrial production?
5. Scalability: Can the company support adoption across multiple regions, customers and manufacturing environments?

AkzoNobel and Axalta are assessed separately because their proposed merger had not been completed at the time of this research. Shareholder meetings were scheduled for 5 August 2026, with completion expected in late 2026 or early 2027, subject to approvals and closing conditions. 

The Top 10 at a Glance

1. PPG: Converting Coatings into Precision Manufacturing Systems

PPG earns the leading position because its innovation portfolio extends across automotive application, electrocoat, marine protection, packaging, aerospace and architectural surfaces. More importantly, several of its technologies change how coatings are applied and how they function after application.

One of the clearest examples is the combination of a specially designed PPG waterborne basecoat with ABB’s PixelPaint drop-on-demand application system. Instead of atomising paint across a wide area, the system places coating only where required. PPG reports transfer efficiency above 98%, helping eliminate overspray, masking materials and unnecessary coating waste. 

PPG is also advancing lower-energy electrocoat technology. Its ENVIRO-PRIME EPIC platform uses lower curing temperatures while maintaining corrosion protection, finish quality and a broad operating window. The technology received an Innovative Coating of the Year award in 2026. 

In the marine sector, PPG SIGMAGLIDE 2390 uses HYDRORESET technology. When immersed, the coating changes at the surface to create an extremely smooth, low-friction interface that makes adhesion more difficult for marine organisms, without depending on a conventional biocidal antifouling mechanism. 

Why PPG ranks first: It is simultaneously innovating coating chemistry, application precision, energy use and in-service functionality across several major industries.

2. AkzoNobel: Building Sustainability Directly into Coating Function

AkzoNobel’s strongest innovation characteristic is its ability to connect sustainability with measurable coating performance rather than treating sustainability as a separate product claim.

Its recent developments include a powder coating designed to protect electric-vehicle battery bottom plates. AkzoNobel reports that the system can deliver approximately three times the service life of standard shielding coatings applied through the same method. The company has also introduced a waterborne vehicle-refinish basecoat requiring only one visit to the spray booth, reducing processing time, energy use and associated emissions. 

Another notable development is a building coating system introduced in China that combines a radiative-cooling topcoatwith a thermal-radiation barrier mid-coat. This moves exterior paint beyond solar reflection alone and towards a multilayer thermal-management system.

At the resin level, AkzoNobel has worked on more sustainable resin manufacturing methods that could eventually enable controlled release of active ingredients and functionality that can be modified during the coating’s lifetime. This is especially important because future intelligent coatings will depend not only on additives but also on programmable binder architecture. 

The company’s innovation priorities also include low-bake systems, radiation curing, overspray reduction, advanced application methods and cloud-based services. 

Why AkzoNobel ranks second: It is developing coating systems in which environmental improvement, application efficiency and new functionality are engineered together.

3. Surventis, Formerly BASF Coatings: Reinventing Automotive Painting

The automotive OEM, refinish and surface-treatment businesses previously known as BASF Coatings became part of the independent company Surventis following completion of the transaction between BASF and Carlyle on 30 June 2026. BASF retains a 40% equity stake in the new company. 

Its innovation portfolio remains one of the strongest in automotive coatings.

A major example is the overspray-free application process developed with Renault Group and Dürr. The system uses a specially formulated decorative coating capable of meeting the precision, automation and performance requirements of maskless two-tone vehicle painting. By applying the coating only in the required area, manufacturers can reduce masking, overspray, process time and operational complexity. 

The business has also expanded biomass-balanced refinish coatings. Under the biomass-balance approach, renewable feedstocks are introduced at the beginning of the chemical production system and allocated to selected products through an audited mass-balance method. This offers a route to reducing fossil-resource demand without requiring body shops to redesign their complete application process. 

CathoGuard 800RE represents another important direction, combining cathodic electrocoat performance with environmental and operational improvements in automotive manufacturing. 

Why Surventis ranks third: Its technologies attack the high-energy, high-capital automotive paint shop directly, where even one removed bake, booth visit or masking stage can create significant value.

4. Sherwin-Williams: Solving the Expensive Failures Others Cannot See

Sherwin-Williams stands out particularly in protective, marine and heavy-industrial coatings, where failure can remain hidden until it becomes costly or dangerous.

Its Heat-Flex corrosion-under-insulation coating systems received a 2025 Materials Performance Corrosion Innovation of the Year Award. Corrosion under insulation is difficult to inspect because moisture and corrosion develop beneath insulation systems, often without visible warning. The Heat-Flex platform is designed to deliver long-term protection under these demanding service conditions while reducing inspection and maintenance pressure. 

The company’s Zinc Clad 2500 is another example of maintenance-focused innovation. It combines zinc-rich corrosion protection with rapid recoating and self-healing characteristics associated with zinc-based protection, helping reduce turnaround time on large industrial projects. 

Sherwin-Williams also continues to develop thermal-insulative coatings for industrial facilities. These systems can help control condensation, reduce thermal losses and lower the temperature of exposed equipment surfaces in processing environments. 

Why Sherwin-Williams ranks fourth: Its strongest technologies address highly consequential asset-protection problems where coating performance affects plant availability, worker safety and total maintenance cost.

5. Axalta: Making Digital Paint and Low-Energy Refinishing Commercially Practical

Axalta has built one of the coatings industry’s most focused digital-application portfolios.

Its NextJet technology uses specially engineered jettable paint for precise, maskless application of two-tone finishes, patterns, details and graphics. Axalta partnered with Dürr in 2025 to integrate the coating technology with industrial robotics and automated automotive production systems. 

NextJet was recognised as a 2025 Automotive News PACE Pilot Innovation to Watch. Its strategic importance lies in treating paint more like a digitally deposited material than a conventional atomised spray. This can expand design freedom while reducing masking, overspray and labour-intensive preparation. 

Axalta is also advancing fast-cure, low-energy refinish systems. Its patented FCLE platform includes clearcoat and surfacer technologies that can cure through air drying or short, low-temperature bake cycles. Axalta reports potential gas savings of up to 50% and electricity savings of up to 48%, depending on the process being replaced. The system received a 2025 R&D 100 Award. 

Its Harmonized Coating Technologies take a systems approach to reducing coats, flash stages and bake cycles in OEM production. 

Why Axalta ranks fifth: It is combining formulation, robotics, digital deposition and cure-cycle reduction into commercially usable automotive systems.

6. Nippon Paint Holdings: Eliminating the Conventional Paint Line

Nippon Paint Automotive Coatings and Uchihamakasei jointly developed an in-mould coating process for large thermoplastic automotive exterior components.

The process moulds the component and forms the coating film inside the same mould. Paint is injected after the resin has been shaped, removing the need for a conventional spray booth and post-application drying oven. The development partners estimate that the process can reduce carbon dioxide emissions by around 60% and achieve zero VOC emissions from the coating stage. 

The technical challenge is substantial. A coating used in a large mould must remain fluid long enough to travel through the complete cavity, avoid premature curing and then form a uniform film across a complex surface. Nippon Paint reports that its solvent-free chemistry can produce a smoother surface than conventional spraying while also reproducing fine patterns created within the mould. 

The technology can also create optical effects from nano-scale mould structures, potentially producing iridescent appearance without depending entirely on conventional effect pigments. Mass production of in-mould coated parts was reported to be underway in 2025.

Why Nippon Paint ranks sixth: Rather than merely improving the coating, the technology challenges the need for the traditional automotive coating line itself.

7. Jotun: Connecting Coating Chemistry with Robotics and Operational Data

Jotun’s Hull Skating Solutions represent one of the clearest examples of a coatings company moving from product supply to an integrated performance system.

The platform combines a compatible antifouling coating, an onboard robotic HullSkater, inspection capability, technical service and digital monitoring. Instead of waiting until heavy fouling develops, the remotely operated robot removes early-stage slime and growth before it significantly affects hull performance. 

In 2025, Lloyd’s Register granted approval covering both the HullSkater cleaning device and its compatibility with the SeaQuantum Skate coating. Jotun described it as the first fully integrated hull cleaning and coating solution certified by a classification society. 

The company is also developing data-led hull-performance services. HullKeeper monitors fouling conditions and supports decisions about when cleaning is needed, while Hull Performance Solutions uses documented vessel-performance data and independently verified speed-loss measurements. 

Why Jotun ranks seventh: It is no longer selling only an antifouling coating. It is combining material science, robotics, inspection, data and service guarantees into one performance platform.

8. Hempel: Bringing Advanced Silicone Technology into New Ship Construction

Silicone fouling-release coatings have demonstrated significant performance potential, but applying them during new ship construction has historically been difficult because shipyards do not always offer the tightly controlled conditions used during specialist dry-docking operations.

Hempel developed Hempaguard NB specifically to overcome this limitation. The company describes it as the first silicone hull coating customised to withstand the atmospheric exposure experienced during the construction of a new vessel. This allows the coating to be applied during the newbuilding process without requiring a separate pre-delivery or post-delivery dry-docking stage. 

The technology builds on Hempel’s silicone-hydrogel and ActiGuard platforms. When exposed to seawater, the hydrogel forms a water-rich interfacial layer that makes attachment more difficult and supports a smooth hull surface. 

Hempel reports that Hempaguard NB can provide fuel savings of up to 20%, depending on vessel operation and the system being replaced. The first commercial newbuilding applications were completed by early 2026, including an application on a new Maersk vessel. 

Why Hempel ranks eighth: It has addressed the application barrier that previously restricted advanced silicone hull technology during vessel construction.

9. Kansai Paint: Moving from Petrochemical Paints towards Circular Materials

Kansai Paint is working on two notably different innovation routes: in-mould automotive coating and biologically derived coating materials.

Its in-mould coating technology, developed with Toyoda Gosei, integrates coating and curing inside the mould for large automotive parts. Kansai’s comparison indicates that the technology can eliminate coating overspray, reduce paint waste from a conventional range of 20% to 40% towards zero, shorten the process and reduce carbon dioxide emissions by approximately 60%. 

Kansai is also collaborating with Spiber on coating formulations using Brewed Protein materials. The company reported successfully formulating a paint containing a protein-based resin, with the formulation containing approximately 40% protein material. The programme is exploring bio-based and potentially biodegradable alternatives to conventional synthetic resin systems. 

These are still developing technologies, but they address two major industry questions: Can coating application be integrated into component manufacture, and can a functional coating binder be created from a fundamentally different raw-material platform?

Why Kansai Paint ranks ninth: Its innovation pipeline goes beyond improving established acrylic, polyester or polyurethane systems and investigates new manufacturing and material architectures.

10. RPM International: Adding Traceability to Fire-Protective Coatings

RPM International operates through a wide portfolio of specialist businesses, including Carboline, Tremco, Stonhard, TCI Powder Coatings and other protective, flooring, roofing and construction-material brands.

Carboline’s Thermo-Sorb HB is a particularly interesting example. It is a high-build, elastomeric intumescent coating designed for shop or field application and rated for up to 3.5 hours of fire resistance on structural steel. The system incorporates Optifire traceability technology, creating a way to verify and track the installed fire-protection material. 

This matters because passive-fire-protection performance does not depend only on the original formulation. It also depends on correct product identification, applied thickness, installation quality, environmental exposure and maintenance history. Connecting the coating to traceability information can strengthen inspection and specification control.

Carboline is also developing rapid-maintenance coating technologies with fast recoat and wet-on-wet capabilities, helping fabricators and asset owners shorten painting and curing cycles. 

Why RPM ranks tenth: Its innovation is highly application-driven, particularly where coatings must deliver fire safety, corrosion protection, traceability and rapid return to service.

Five Technology Shifts Connecting All Ten Companies

1. The Coating and Application Process Are Becoming One Technology

PPG, Axalta, Surventis, Nippon Paint and Kansai Paint demonstrate that competitive advantage no longer comes from formulation chemistry alone. Future coating development will require simultaneous optimisation of rheology, atomisation or jetting, robotics, flash behaviour, cure response, film build and production-line control.

A technically excellent coating that cannot operate reliably in a high-speed automated process may have little commercial value.

2. Low Carbon Is Moving from Raw Materials to the Paint Line

Bio-based ingredients remain important, but the largest carbon reductions may come from eliminating ovens, reducing bake temperature, removing spray-booth visits or combining coating layers.

Low-cure electrocoats, air-drying refinishes, wet-on-wet systems and in-mould coating can influence the energy demand of an entire manufacturing plant, not only the environmental profile of one kilogram of paint.

3. Coatings Are Becoming Part of a Service Platform

Jotun’s robotic cleaning and monitoring platform shows how coatings can be connected to inspection, data and performance management. Similar models are likely to expand into corrosion monitoring, predictive maintenance, fire-protection verification and warranty management.

The future supplier may not simply sell coating material. It may sell a documented performance outcome.

4. Functional Surfaces Are Replacing Passive Protection

Radiative cooling, fouling release, controlled active release, thermal insulation, fire response and digitally deposited decorative effects show how surfaces are gaining active functions.

This creates new formulation challenges because appearance, adhesion and durability must coexist with thermal, biological, optical or responsive behaviour.

5. Commercialisation Requires More than an Interesting Laboratory Result

Every breakthrough described here must survive scale-up, substrate variability, production contamination, application-window changes, film-build variation, curing differences, field exposure and regulatory scrutiny.

That is why the strongest innovation programmes connect chemistry with application engineering, manufacturing validation, testing, documentation and customer implementation.

What Coatings R&D Teams Should Learn from These Companies

The most important lesson is not to copy individual technologies. It is to study how leading companies define the problem.

They are not asking only:

• How can we improve corrosion resistance?
• How can we lower VOC?
• How can we increase hardness?
• How can we achieve a new colour effect?

They are asking broader questions:

• Can we eliminate a complete processing stage?
• Can the coating reduce the energy demand of the customer’s factory?
• Can we make application more precise and digitally controlled?
• Can the coating communicate with an inspection or maintenance system?
• Can one surface perform several functions without losing durability?
• Can the performance be validated under real production and field conditions?

These questions require formulation chemists, process engineers, equipment suppliers, regulatory teams and end users to work together much earlier in development.

Move from Watching Coating Innovation to Building It

Following the world’s most innovative coatings companies is useful. Developing the technical capability to apply similar thinking inside your own laboratory is far more valuable.

OnlyTRAININGS provides expert-led technical training for coating formulators, R&D chemists, product-development teams, technical managers and manufacturing professionals. Its paints and coatings portfolio covers areas including:

• Industrial coatings formulation and troubleshooting
• Waterborne and low-VOC coating systems
• Powder-coating formulation and process optimisation
• Smart, self-healing and responsive coatings
• Architectural coating durability and performance
• Bio-based coating technologies
• PFAS-free reformulation
• High-performance protective coatings
• Additive selection and interaction management
• Coating failure analysis, testing and scale-up

The platform offers both live and on-demand expert sessions, downloadable technical materials, industry-focused FAQs, completion certificates and opportunities for expert interaction. OnlyTRAININGS states that its programmes are used by professionals from more than 5,000 companies worldwide. 

Its advanced industrial-coatings programme focuses specifically on the formulation trade-offs created by waterborne systems, high-solids coatings, curing optimisation, additive interactions, PFAS-free technologies and real production conditions. 

For R&D teams trying to move beyond incremental reformulation, the Smart Coatings Formulation, Advanced Architectural Coatings, Waterborne Coatings, Powder Coating Technology and Industrial Coatings Formulationprogrammes provide a practical route for strengthening the technical judgement behind next-generation products. 

Final Perspective

The next generation of coatings will not be defined by one new resin, additive or pigment.

It will be defined by systems that connect material chemistry, surface engineering, application equipment, energy efficiency, automation, digital monitoring and validated long-term performance.

PPG, AkzoNobel, Surventis, Sherwin-Williams, Axalta, Nippon Paint, Jotun, Hempel, Kansai Paint and RPM International are approaching that opportunity from different directions. Some are removing ovens and overspray. Others are integrating robotics, creating active surfaces, developing alternative binders or connecting coatings to traceable performance data.

For the wider coatings industry, the message is clear. Innovation is no longer about making the existing coating slightly better. It is about redefining what the coating can do, how it is applied and where it creates value.

global coatings companies, innovative paint companies, coating technology leaders, breakthrough coating technologies, smart coatings companies, sustainable coatings innovation, digital paint application, low-carbon coating technology, advanced industrial coatings, future of the coatings industry

A significant new package of EU cosmetic ingredient amendments has moved into the formal regulatory process.

On 8 July 2026, the European Union notified the World Trade Organization of draft Commission Regulation G/TBT/N/EU/1219, proposing amendments to Annexes II, III and V of Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 on cosmetic products. The proposal combines newly harmonised CMR classifications with the outcome of several recent Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety assessments. 

The package has been described within the cosmetics industry as a combination of Omnibus CMR IX and Omnibus Ingredients III. It would introduce new ingredient prohibitions, establish concentration limits for previously unregulated substances, revise the conditions for certain preservatives and remove the remaining cosmetic preservative exemptions for mercury compounds.

However, one point must remain clear from the beginning:

The notified text is still a draft. It has not yet been adopted or published in the Official Journal of the European Union.

The draft still contains placeholders for dates and annex entry numbers. Cosmetic companies should therefore begin preparing for the proposed changes, but final legal decisions should be based on the adopted Regulation when it is published. 

What the draft would change

The proposed Regulation covers four main areas:

1. New Annex II prohibitions resulting from recent CMR classifications.
2. Prohibitions based on SCCS opinions for benzophenones, hair dyes and prostaglandins.
3. New Annex III restrictions for CBD, BHA and nano-hydroxyapatite.
4. Revised Annex V conditions for Butylparaben and Propylparaben, together with removal of mercury-containing preservatives.

The commercial impact will vary considerably by product category. Eyelash serums, CBD skincare, children’s cosmetics, oral-care products, non-oxidative hair dyes and formulas containing BHA are likely to require the most immediate attention.

New CMR-related prohibitions

Article 15 of the EU Cosmetics Regulation generally prohibits substances classified as carcinogenic, mutagenic or toxic for reproduction under the CLP Regulation, unless the strict conditions for an exemption are fulfilled.

Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/1222 introduced new harmonised classifications. According to the cosmetic draft, no requests were submitted to continue cosmetic use of the affected CMR substances under the exemption provisions. The substances that are not already covered would therefore be added to Annex II of the Cosmetics Regulation. 

The proposed Annex II additions include substances such as:

• Ozone
• Dinitrogen oxide, commonly known as nitrous oxide
• Trimethyl phosphate
• Tetrahydrofurfuryl methacrylate
• Fluoroethylene
• 2-phenylpropene, also known as α-methylstyrene
• 2,3-epoxypropyl isopropyl ether
• Several additional industrial chemical substances covered by the new classifications

These may not appear frequently as intentionally added ingredients in mainstream finished cosmetics. Nevertheless, companies should consider their possible presence in raw materials, processing aids, propellants, monomers, impurities or supplier blends.

Benzophenone-1 would be prohibited

Benzophenone-1 is used as a light stabiliser to protect cosmetic formulations from deterioration caused by ultraviolet radiation.

The SCCS concluded in March 2025 that Benzophenone-1 could not be considered safe for use as a cosmetic light stabiliser. The Committee identified genotoxicity concerns and evidence of endocrine activity, including estrogenic and weak anti-androgenic activity. The draft therefore proposes adding Benzophenone-1 to Annex II as a prohibited cosmetic substance. 

This could affect more than products where Benzophenone-1 is presented as an active or prominent ingredient. It may also appear in:

• Fragrance compositions
• Colour cosmetics
• Formulation stabiliser systems
• UV-sensitive product bases
• Supplier blends intended to protect colour or fragrance stability

Finished-product manufacturers will need to check both their own formulas and the detailed composition of purchased blends.

Benzophenone-2 would also be prohibited

Benzophenone-2 has been used as a UV filter, light stabiliser and fragrance-related ingredient.

The SCCS was unable to conclude that Benzophenone-2 was safe because its genotoxic potential could not be excluded. The Committee also noted limited or unavailable repeated-dose and reproductive-toxicity data, together with clear evidence of estrogenic activity.

The draft responds by proposing a complete Annex II prohibition rather than a concentration restriction. 

This distinction matters. The proposal does not create a lower acceptable use level for Benzophenone-2. Under the notified text, reformulation or removal would be required.

Basic Brown 16 and Basic Blue 99 would be banned

The draft proposes prohibiting two colourants used in non-oxidative hair dye products:

• Basic Brown 16
• Basic Blue 99

The SCCS concluded that the weight of evidence for Basic Brown 16 indicated mutagenic potential. For Basic Blue 99, the available evidence indicated potential genotoxicity. Both substances would consequently be added to Annex II. 

Hair-colour manufacturers should review not only finished formulas but also premixed colour systems and supplier shade blends. A colour mixture may contain one of the affected dyes even where it is not obvious from the commercial name of the blend.

Prostaglandins and their analogues face a broad class prohibition

One of the most commercially important parts of the draft concerns prostaglandins and prostaglandin analogues used in eyelash and eyebrow enhancement products.

The proposal is not limited to one named substance. It would add “prostaglandins and their analogues” as a broad Annex II entry.

The SCCS reviewed ingredients including ethyl tafluprostamide, methylamido-dihydro-noralfaprostal and isopropyl cloprostenate. It concluded that these substances raised safety concerns because of their pharmacological activity, even at very low concentrations, and their potential to cause serious undesirable effects, particularly involving ocular health.

The Committee also highlighted insufficient evidence to exclude reproductive and developmental toxicity concerns. This was considered especially relevant because many users of lash and brow products are women of childbearing age. No conditions of cosmetic use could be established under which the assessed substances were considered safe. 

This means lash and brow brands should not limit their review to ingredients explicitly labelled as “prostaglandin.”

A proper screening exercise should include:

• INCI names
• CAS numbers
• Supplier trade names
• Eyelash-conditioning active blends
• Ingredients making growth or density claims
• Compounds with prostaglandin-like pharmacological activity

The breadth of the proposed wording could make this one of the most disruptive changes in the entire package.

Mercury-containing preservatives would lose their remaining exemptions

Mercury and its compounds are already generally prohibited under Annex II. However, Annex V currently contains limited preservative allowances for Thiomersal and certain phenylmercuric salts.

The draft would remove Annex V entries 16 and 17 and revise the general Annex II mercury entry so that it no longer refers to exceptions for the special cases listed in Annex V. 

The SCCS concluded that the currently permitted preservative uses could not be considered safe. Its assessment identified an inadequate margin of safety based on renal toxicity, while the genotoxicity evidence remained unclear.

These preservatives are unlikely to be widely used in modern cosmetic portfolios, but companies should still check:

• Legacy eye-area products
• Old formulas still marketed in limited volumes
• Specialist preservative systems
• Long-standing supplier specifications
• Products acquired through mergers or brand purchases

CBD would become expressly restricted at 0.19%

The proposal does not impose a general ban on Cannabidiol.

Instead, CBD would be added to Annex III and permitted in:

• Leave-on products
• Rinse-off products
• Oral-care products

The proposed maximum concentration would be 0.19% in the ready-for-use cosmetic product.

The presence of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol as an impurity would be limited to 0.00025%, equivalent to 2.5 ppm. 

This would give CBD a clearer ingredient-specific regulatory framework, but it would also introduce demanding impurity controls.

A simple supplier statement declaring a raw material “THC-free” may not provide sufficient evidence. Brands and Responsible Persons may need:

• A quantitative THC specification
• A validated analytical method
• Appropriate limits of detection and quantification
• Batch-specific or risk-based certificates of analysis
• Confirmation of the botanical source and extraction route
• Calculation of CBD concentration in the finished product
• Assessment of every cannabis-derived ingredient contributing THC

The 0.19% limit applies to the ready-for-use finished cosmetic, not merely to the CBD concentration in the purchased raw material.

BHA would be limited to dermal products at 0.07%

Butylated Hydroxyanisole, commonly known as BHA, is used as an antioxidant and may also be present in fragrance compositions or stabilised raw-material blends.

The draft would permit BHA at a maximum concentration of 0.07% in leave-on and rinse-off cosmetic products.

It would not be permitted in:

• Oral-care products
• Products that may expose the end user’s lungs through inhalation

The SCCS assessment addressed dermal use and did not support oral or inhalation-related applications. 

The practical challenge is that BHA may enter a formula indirectly through:

• Fragrances
• Essential-oil blends
• Oil-soluble active preparations
• Colourant dispersions
• Stabilised oils
• Supplier antioxidant packages

Companies may therefore need full compositional information rather than relying only on the finished product’s intentionally added ingredient list.

Sprays, aerosols, powders and other products capable of generating inhalable exposure deserve particular attention.

Nano-hydroxyapatite receives updated permitted conditions

The nano-hydroxyapatite amendment should not be presented simply as a new restriction or prohibition.

The proposal would permit Hydroxyapatite in nano form at:

• Up to 29.5% in toothpaste
• Up to 10% in mouthwash

These concentrations would be subject to strict particle specifications. The permitted material must be composed of rod-shaped particles, with at least 87% by particle number having an aspect ratio of three or less. The remaining particles must have an aspect ratio not exceeding nine.

The particles must also be uncoated, not surface modified and have a specified maximum length of approximately 122 ± 43 nanometres. Applications that may expose the lungs through inhalation would not be permitted. 

For oral-care manufacturers, this may create useful formulation opportunities. At the same time, compliance cannot be demonstrated through a document that simply states “nano-hydroxyapatite.”

Supplier evidence should cover:

• Particle shape
• Particle-number distribution
• Aspect-ratio distribution
• Maximum particle length
• Coating status
• Surface-modification status
• Test methods and representative batch data

These characteristics should also be reflected in the Product Information File and Cosmetic Product Safety Report.

Butylparaben would receive separate and tighter conditions

The draft would separate Butylparaben and Propylparaben into individual Annex V entries.

For Propylparaben, the familiar maximum of 0.14%, expressed as acid, would broadly continue, subject to the existing combined paraben limits and restrictions involving leave-on products for the nappy area of children under three.

Butylparaben would receive its own entry. The general maximum of 0.14% would remain, but products intended for children under ten would be subject to tighter product-specific limits:

• 0.14% in rinse-off products
• 0.002% in leave-on products
• 0.092% in oral-care products

The SCCS conclusion would not apply to sprayable products, including mouth sprays, capable of exposing the lungs. The draft therefore proposes prohibiting Butylparaben in those applications. 

The 0.002% limit for children’s leave-on products is particularly significant. A formula that complies with the general Butylparaben limit could still fail the more specific condition when intended or marketed for children under ten.

Companies should review more than products explicitly labelled “children’s cosmetics.” Relevant products may include:

• Family skincare
• Sensitive-skin lotions
• Multi-age personal-care products
• Products visually marketed toward children
• Products included in children’s gift sets
• Leave-on products routinely promoted for use by the whole family

The intended user group should be assessed through the complete product presentation, not only a single statement on the label.

Two different transition systems are proposed

The draft creates an important distinction between the CMR amendments and the remaining ingredient measures.

CMR-related measures

The amendments linked to classifications under Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/1222 are intended to apply from 1 February 2027.

Companies should not assume that the longer general transition periods will apply to these CMR prohibitions. 

Other ingredient measures

For the non-CMR ingredient changes, the notified annex proposes:

• A 12-month transition after entry into force for placing non-compliant products on the Union market.
• A 24-month transition after entry into force for continuing to make those products available on the Union market.

The first deadline concerns the initial placement of a product on the EU market. The later deadline concerns continued distribution and sale within the market.

The Regulation would enter into force on the twentieth day following publication in the Official Journal. Because publication has not yet occurred, the final calendar deadlines for these measures cannot currently be calculated. 

The WTO notification process indicates a proposed adoption timetable during late 2026. That timetable remains provisional until the final Regulation is adopted and published. 

What cosmetic companies should do now

Waiting for the final publication before beginning any review could leave insufficient time for reformulation, testing and supply-chain changes.

A practical preparation programme should begin with six activities.

1. Screen the complete portfolio

Search formulas using INCI names, chemical names and CAS numbers.

Do not limit the review to ingredients deliberately added by the finished-product manufacturer. Include fragrance mixtures, colour blends, active preparations, preservatives, impurities and processing-related substances.

2. Prioritise high-impact product groups

The first review should cover:

• Eyelash and eyebrow serums
• CBD skincare and oral-care products
• Children’s leave-on products containing Butylparaben
• Non-oxidative hair dyes
• Products containing Benzophenone-1 or Benzophenone-2
• Formulas containing BHA
• Nano-hydroxyapatite oral-care products
• Legacy products containing mercury preservatives

3. Request more precise supplier declarations

Broad declarations such as “EU compliant,” “THC-free” or “cosmetic grade” may not address the new requirements.

Supplier questionnaires should request substance-specific concentration, impurity and particle-characterisation data.

4. Assess reformulation consequences

Removing an ingredient can affect more than regulatory compliance.

Reformulation may require:

• Stability testing
• Preservative efficacy testing
• Packaging compatibility studies
• Colour-performance testing
• Updated exposure calculations
• Claim substantiation review
• New supplier qualification
• Revised manufacturing instructions

5. Update compliance documentation

Affected products may require changes to:

• Cosmetic Product Safety Reports
• Product Information Files
• Raw-material specifications
• Safety assessment calculations
• CPNP information
• Labels and warnings
• Internal regulatory databases
• Distributor and Responsible Person documentation

6. Separate regulatory dates by substance

Do not create one general deadline for the entire package.

CMR substances, prohibited SCCS-assessed ingredients and restricted ingredients may follow different compliance pathways. Each substance should have its own internal regulatory record, deadline and product-impact assessment.

Final perspective

This draft is more than another routine cosmetics annex update.

It could remove entire ingredient classes from cosmetic use, particularly prostaglandins used in lash and brow products. It would also create precise new limits for CBD and BHA, materially tighten the use of Butylparaben in children’s products and demand much stronger nanomaterial evidence for Hydroxyapatite.

For regulatory and formulation teams, the main lesson is simple: compliance will depend increasingly on what is hidden inside raw-material blends, supplier preparations and impurity profiles, not only on the ingredients deliberately added at the finished-product stage.

The final Regulation may still differ from the WTO-notified draft. Companies should therefore prepare against the proposed requirements while keeping final reformulation, withdrawal and market-transition decisions aligned with the adopted Official Journal text.

Regulatory Updates Matter Only When Teams Can Act on Them

Changes such as these do not affect regulatory teams alone. They influence formulation decisions, raw-material selection, supplier documentation, product safety assessments, testing programmes, claims and market-transition planning.

That is where OnlyTRAININGS helps.

OnlyTRAININGS provides advanced, expert-led training for cosmetic formulators, R&D professionals, regulatory specialists, product developers and technical decision-makers who need more than a summary of changing regulations.

Our cosmetics training programmes focus on the practical questions professionals face every day:

• How should an affected formulation be screened?

• Which supplier documents are no longer sufficient?

• When is reformulation actually required?

• What evidence should be added to the CPSR and PIF?

• How can regulatory, safety and performance requirements be managed together?

Whether you are developing a new cosmetic product, reviewing an existing portfolio or preparing for upcoming EU requirements, OnlyTRAININGS helps your team move from regulatory awareness to informed technical action.

Build Stronger Cosmetic Formulation and Compliance Decisions

Explore advanced cosmetics training programmes covering formulation, ingredient safety, regulatory compliance, product performance, scale-up and troubleshooting.

Explore Cosmetics Trainings at OnlyTRAININGS

OnlyTRAININGS | Where Expertise Matters Most.

Regulatory status checked on 17 July 2026. This article discusses a draft regulatory measure and should not be treated as legal advice.

EU cosmetics regulation 2026, EU cosmetic ingredient restrictions, Omnibus CMR IX, Omnibus Ingredients III, cosmetic ingredient bans EU, prostaglandins cosmetics ban, CBD cosmetics EU limit, BHA cosmetics restriction, Butylparaben children products, Benzophenone-1 ban, Benzophenone-2 ban, nano hydroxyapatite cosmetics

Responsible sourcing is no longer limited to choosing a supplier with the right certificate.

For a global chemical company, it now involves tracing raw materials back through complex supply networks, examining environmental and human-rights risks, supporting suppliers that need to improve and determining whether renewable or circular alternatives can be introduced without disrupting production.

BASF’s latest responsible-sourcing activities show how this transition is taking shape across palm oil, coconut oil, castor oil and circular chemical feedstocks.

The company’s approach also demonstrates something procurement teams across the chemical industry are increasingly discovering: sustainability cannot be managed as a separate reporting exercise. It must be built into supplier selection, purchasing conditions, risk assessments, technical decisions and long-term supply relationships.

Traceability Comes Before Improvement

A company cannot properly manage a raw-material risk when it cannot identify where that material originated.

This is particularly important for palm oil and palm kernel oil. These renewable raw materials are widely used to manufacture ingredients for personal care products, detergents, cleaning formulations and other chemical applications. Their supply chains can extend from small agricultural producers to mills, processors, traders and chemical manufacturers.

In 2025, BASF traced 97.7% of its palm-based raw-material volume back to the oil-mill level. The company describes this level of visibility as an important contribution to supply-chain transparency and risk management.

Traceability does not automatically prove that every stage of the supply chain is sustainable. It does, however, give procurement teams a clearer foundation for identifying high-risk locations, examining sourcing practices and engaging suppliers where problems are found.

Without that visibility, sustainability commitments remain difficult to verify.

Certification Progress Has Not Followed a Straight Line

BASF’s 2025 results also reveal the practical difficulty of meeting responsible-sourcing targets when certified raw materials are not available in sufficient quantities.

The company reported that 79.2% of the palm oil and palm kernel oil it purchased during 2025 came from certified sources. That was significantly below the 98.1% recorded in 2024.

BASF attributed the reduction partly to limited availability of Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil-certified palm kernel oil. The company also said that the implementation of the EU Deforestation Regulation had contributed to shortages of materials suitable for the European market.

Rather than abandoning its commitment, BASF says it intends to continue increasing certified volumes where commercially and technically possible. RSPO certification remains its preferred standard.

The company has also moved its target for sourcing fully certified key palm derivatives to 2030. Those derivatives present an additional challenge because the palm material may have passed through several processing and transformation stages before entering a chemical formulation.

This is a useful reality check for the wider industry.

Responsible sourcing targets are necessary, but they cannot be achieved through procurement policy alone. Availability, regional regulation, supplier capability, segregation systems, certification capacity and commercial viability all influence whether a company can obtain compliant material at the required scale.

Responsible Sourcing Extends Beyond Palm Oil

BASF’s Care Chemicals business also uses other renewable oils, including coconut and castor oil, in products for cosmetics, personal care, detergents and industrial applications.

Each raw material presents a different set of sourcing risks.

Coconut supply chains often involve smallholders and geographically fragmented production. Responsible sourcing therefore requires more than checking the country of origin. It may involve certification, agricultural practices, working conditions and the economic resilience of farming communities.

Castor oil presents another distinct challenge.

India is central to the global supply of castor beans, while the oil itself is used across plastics, coatings, cosmetics, pharmaceuticals and several specialty chemical applications. BASF has participated in the Sustainable Castor Initiative, known as Project Pragati, since 2016.

The initiative brings BASF together with Arkema, Jayant Agro-Organics and the civil-society organisation Solidaridad. Its purpose is to address social, environmental, health and safety risks associated with castor cultivation.

Participating farmers receive training in areas such as:

• Safer use of crop-protection products

• Improved agricultural and cultivation practices

• Soil protection and crop management

• Occupational health and field safety

• Personal protective equipment

• Social and labour-related expectations

The work contributed to the development of SuCCESS, or Sustainable Castor Caring for Environment and Social Standards. The independently auditable framework covers 11 principles related to responsible castor production.

This approach goes beyond demanding compliance from farmers. It attempts to increase the capability of the supply chain to meet the required standard.

That difference matters.

A procurement system based only on supplier exclusion may remove an immediate risk from one company’s portfolio, but it does not necessarily improve conditions at the source. Supplier development, technical support and farmer training can create a more durable improvement.

Supplier Expectations Must Be Built Into Procurement

BASF’s wider procurement model requires suppliers to comply with applicable laws and internationally recognised environmental, social and governance standards.

Its Supplier Code of Conduct covers areas including:

• Environmental protection

• Human and labour rights

• Child and forced labour

• Occupational and social standards

• Anti-discrimination

• Anti-corruption

• Expectations for subcontractors and upstream suppliers

BASF states that suppliers are evaluated on more than price and commercial performance. The company also examines environmental, social and governance factors and expects suppliers to promote similar principles within their own supply chains.

The company uses a risk-based approach rather than treating every supplier identically. Country risk, industry risk, material criticality and BASF’s ability to influence the supplier can all affect the level of scrutiny applied.

Evaluations are conducted through mechanisms including EcoVadis assessments, Together for Sustainability audits and selected Responsible Care audits. When weaknesses are identified, corrective-action plans and follow-up reviews are used to track improvement.

In 2025, BASF reported that 100 sustainability audits were conducted at raw-material supplier sites on its behalf. It also received EcoVadis assessments for 257 suppliers considered to have potential sustainability risks.

The model combines four elements:

Define the expectation. Suppliers need clear environmental, ethical and social requirements.

Identify the risk. Procurement teams must know which materials, countries and suppliers require greater attention.

Verify performance. Questionnaires alone may be insufficient where the exposure is significant.

Correct or escalate. Findings must lead to improvement plans, commercial consequences or, in serious cases, termination of the relationship.

Collaboration Can Reduce Repeated Supplier Assessments

BASF is also a founding member of Together for Sustainability, an initiative created by chemical companies to improve and standardise sustainability assessments across the industry.

Under the model, suppliers can be assessed using a shared framework rather than repeatedly completing different questionnaires and audits for every customer. Participating procurement teams can use recognised assessment information through a common system.

This offers two potential benefits.

First, it reduces duplicated work for suppliers serving multiple chemical companies.

Second, it creates greater consistency in how environmental, social, labour and governance performance is evaluated.

For responsible sourcing to scale across the chemical industry, this type of shared infrastructure may be essential. Thousands of suppliers cannot practically respond to entirely different assessment methods, evidence requests and audit expectations from every customer.

Standardisation does not remove the need for company-specific due diligence, but it can make the underlying process more efficient.

Circular Feedstocks Are Becoming a Sourcing Decision

Responsible sourcing is also beginning to influence the type of carbon and feedstock entering chemical manufacturing.

In 2024, BASF and Encina Development Group announced a long-term agreement for the supply of circular benzene produced from post-consumer plastic waste. BASF intends to use the chemically recycled material within its Ccycled product portfolio.

This expands the procurement question beyond whether a conventional feedstock was sourced responsibly.

Companies must now also consider:

• Whether recycled or renewable feedstocks are available

• How their origin and chain of custody will be verified

• Whether the material meets process and purity requirements

• How circular content will be allocated and documented

• Whether supply is sufficient for commercial production

• How sustainability claims will be supported

Circular sourcing therefore requires close coordination among procurement, R&D, production, quality, sustainability and regulatory teams.

A material may appear attractive from a sustainability perspective but still require extensive technical qualification before it can enter a chemical process. Similarly, a technically suitable material may not support a defensible sustainability claim if its sourcing and allocation records are inadequate.

Procurement Partnerships Can Enable Lower-Carbon Production

BASF’s work with Siemens Energy provides another example of procurement supporting a wider production transition.

In March 2025, BASF commissioned a 54-megawatt proton-exchange-membrane water electrolyser at its Ludwigshafen site. The system was built in cooperation with Siemens Energy and has an annual production capacity of up to 8,000 metric tonnes of hydrogen.

The electrolyser is integrated directly into the site’s chemical-production infrastructure. Hydrogen produced using renewable electricity can be supplied through the existing hydrogen network and used as a raw material for chemical products with a reduced carbon footprint.

BASF estimates that the project has the potential to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions at the Ludwigshafen site by up to 72,000 metric tonnes annually.

Although this is a manufacturing project, it also illustrates the strategic role of sourcing and supplier collaboration.

The transition to lower-carbon chemicals depends not only on laboratory innovation. It requires companies to procure new technologies, secure alternative energy and feedstock inputs, establish qualified partnerships and integrate them into existing production systems without compromising continuity.

What Other Chemical Companies Can Learn

BASF’s approach does not suggest that responsible sourcing has become simple or that every target has been achieved.

Its 2025 palm-certification result shows the opposite. Even a large global organisation can face shortages, regulatory complications and limited availability of materials that meet the preferred sustainability standard.

The more important lesson lies in how responsible sourcing is being managed.

It is increasingly treated as a continuous operating system built around:

• Supply-chain traceability

• Material-specific sourcing policies

• Supplier codes and contractual expectations

• Risk-based assessments and audits

• Corrective-action management

• Smallholder and supplier development

• Cross-industry assessment frameworks

• Circular and renewable feedstock qualification

• Collaboration between procurement and technical teams

For chemical companies, the challenge is no longer deciding whether sustainability belongs in procurement.

The challenge is converting broad commitments into repeatable sourcing decisions that can survive technical review, supplier disruption, regulatory scrutiny and commercial pressure.

Turn Industry Developments Into Better Technical Decisions

Responsible sourcing, circular feedstocks and supply-chain transparency are changing how chemical companies select materials, qualify suppliers, manage compliance and plan future products.

Keeping up with these developments is useful. Knowing how to apply them within R&D, procurement, regulatory, quality and manufacturing decisions is what creates business value.

OnlyTRAININGS provides expert-led technical training for professionals across the chemical and allied industries. Its training portfolio covers sustainability and green chemistry, formulation, materials, regulatory compliance, processing, industrial problem-solving, artificial intelligence and emerging technologies.

Whether your team is responding to new sourcing requirements, evaluating alternative raw materials, strengthening regulatory capability or preparing for the next shift in chemical manufacturing, the platform is designed to help turn industry knowledge into practical action.

The Chemical Industry Is Changing. Is Your Team Keeping Up?

Explore Expert-Led Chemical Industry Trainings at OnlyTRAININGS

BASF responsible sourcing, sustainable procurement, responsible sourcing, chemical supply chain, supplier sustainability, sustainable sourcing, green procurement, supply chain sustainability, ethical sourcing, circular feedstocks, sustainable raw materials, supplier audits, supplier compliance, palm oil sourcing, castor oil sustainability, renewable raw materials, chemical procurement, ESG procurement, supply chain traceability, Together for Sustainability, circular economy chemicals, low-carbon chemicals, sustainable suppliers, procurement transformation, how BASF is advancing responsible sourcing, BASF sustainable procurement strategy, responsible sourcing in the chemical industry, how chemical companies manage responsible sourcing, BASF supplier sustainability requirements, sustainable sourcing of chemical raw materials, green procurement strategies for chemical companies, sustainability in chemical industry supply chains, ethical sourcing practices in the chemical industry, how BASF uses circular chemical feedstocks, sustainable raw material sourcing strategies, supplier sustainability audits in the chemical industry, BASF Supplier Code of Conduct requirements, BASF sustainable palm oil sourcing strategy, BASF sustainable castor oil sourcing initiative, responsible sourcing of renewable raw materials, sustainable procurement practices for chemical companies, ESG requirements for chemical industry suppliers, raw material traceability in chemical supply chains, BASF Together for Sustainability supplier programme, circular economy sourcing in chemical manufacturing, procurement strategies for lower-carbon chemical production, how to evaluate sustainable chemical suppliers, how sustainability is transforming chemical procurement