Table of Contents
Proposition 65 compliance fails most often not because companies misunderstand the law — but because they cannot enforce it across their supplier base.
Manufacturers may know what Prop 65 requires. They may even know which chemicals are risky.
What they often lack is leverage, structure, and evidence when suppliers control materials, formulations, and sub-components.
Without enforceable supplier controls, Proposition 65 becomes reactive, inconsistent, and legally exposed.
Why Supplier Enforcement Is the Weakest Link in Prop 65 Compliance
Proposition 65 places legal responsibility on the business selling products in California — not on the supplier.
That creates an imbalance:
- Suppliers control chemical content
- Manufacturers carry enforcement risk
When supplier obligations are informal or poorly defined, manufacturers inherit blind spots they cannot defend during enforcement.
Why “Requesting Declarations” Is Not Enforcement
Many companies believe they are enforcing Prop 65 by:
- requesting supplier declarations
- distributing restricted substance lists
- sending annual compliance questionnaires
These actions create documentation, not enforcement.
They do not:
- compel chemical-level disclosure
- require reassessment when formulations change
- establish accountability for non-compliance
- survive legal scrutiny
True enforcement requires contractual, procedural, and operational control.
Step 1: Translate Proposition 65 into Supplier-Readable Obligations
Suppliers do not think in terms of “Prop 65 exposure.” They think in terms of materials, processes, and specifications.
Effective enforcement starts by translating Prop 65 into:
- specific listed chemicals of concern
- material categories where those chemicals are commonly used
- disclosure thresholds and expectations
- update obligations when changes occur
If suppliers do not understand what they must disclose, enforcement is impossible.
Step 2: Embed Prop 65 Requirements into Supplier Contracts
Supplier enforcement fails when Prop 65 obligations live only in emails or policy documents.
They must be embedded into:
- supplier agreements
- quality and compliance clauses
- change-notification requirements
Contracts should clearly require suppliers to:
- disclose listed chemicals at the material or component level
- notify manufacturers of formulation or process changes
- cooperate with reassessment requests
- accept consequences for non-compliance
Without contractual hooks, enforcement has no teeth.
Step 3: Tie Compliance to Change Control — Not Annual Reviews
Annual supplier reviews are too slow for Prop 65.
Risk emerges when:
- formulations change
- alternative raw materials are introduced
- suppliers switch sub-tier vendors
Enforcement requires change-triggered disclosure, not calendar-based compliance.
Suppliers must be obligated to notify manufacturers before changes occur — not after enforcement actions begin.
Step 4: Require Evidence, Not Assurances
Enforcing Prop 65 does not mean demanding lab tests for everything. It means requiring defensible evidence proportional to risk.
This may include:
- chemical composition data
- material declarations tied to part numbers
- explanations for why certain listed chemicals are absent
- documentation supporting exposure assumptions
Assurances without evidence shift risk back to the manufacturer — and fail under scrutiny.
Step 5: Align Procurement and Compliance Enforcement
One of the biggest enforcement failures is internal.
When procurement prioritizes:
- cost
- speed
- supplier continuity
without enforcing Prop 65 conditions, compliance controls erode.
Effective programs align procurement and compliance so that:
- non-responsive suppliers are escalated
- repeated failures affect supplier status
- compliance performance influences sourcing decisions
Suppliers respond when compliance affects business outcomes.
Step 6: Create Audit-Ready Supplier Trails
When Prop 65 enforcement actions occur, companies must demonstrate:
- what suppliers were required to provide
- what was received
- how gaps were addressed
- how decisions were made
This requires:
- versioned supplier records
- traceability to materials and components
- documented follow-ups and escalations
Without this trail, enforcement efforts cannot be proven — even if they occurred.
Common Supplier Enforcement Failures
Across enforcement cases, the same issues recur:
- suppliers self-certifying without oversight
- requirements communicated inconsistently
- change notifications ignored or undocumented
- enforcement applied selectively
- no consequences for non-compliance
These failures signal weak systems — not bad suppliers.
Enforcing Prop 65 on Suppliers Is a System Problem
Proposition 65 enforcement at the supplier level is not about being aggressive.
It’s about being structured, consistent, and defensible.
Companies that succeed:
- define clear supplier obligations
- embed them contractually
- enforce them through change control
- maintain audit-ready evidence
Those that don’t remain exposed — regardless of how knowledgeable their teams are.
Turning Supplier Obligations into Enforceable Control
Proposition 65 compliance holds up only when supplier requirements are clear, enforced, and traceable — not when they rely on goodwill or paperwork.
Acquis Compliance helps manufacturers operationalize supplier enforcement by translating Prop 65 obligations into structured data requests, change-driven workflows, and audit-ready evidence tied directly to materials, components, and BOMs.
Not to pressure suppliers. But to ensure compliance expectations are understood, followed, and provable when enforcement scrutiny arrives.