In conversation with Rob Whiting

United Kingdom | 13 April 2026
Reading Time : 4 min

In February 2026, the UK Government published its long‑awaited PFAS Plan, setting out how it intends to better understand, manage and reduce the risks associated with per‑ and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The publication prompted widespread discussion and, in some cases, concern, across industry, regulators and the public.

To help organisations move beyond the headlines, we spoke with Rob Whiting, who has been closely involved in PFAS policy, regulation and industry engagement for a number of years. Rather than focusing on critique or timelines, Rob shares his perspective on what the Plan changes, what signals it sends to business, and how organisations can take proportionate, practical steps now, even as the regulatory picture continues to evolve.

Rob Whiting

Associate Director, WSP

United Kingdom

What has the UK PFAS Plan changed compared to the previous fragmented approach — and why does that matter for organisations?

One of the most significant shifts introduced by the UK PFAS Plan is consolidation.

Historically, activity around PFAS in the UK, as in many other jurisdictions, has developed in a fragmented way, with monitoring, regulation, research and guidance progressing at different speeds and across different organisations. The Plan brings these strands together into a single framework, organised around three core themes: understanding PFAS sources, tackling PFAS pathways, and reducing ongoing exposure.

From an organisational perspective, this matters because it creates a clearer line of sight between evidence generation, regulatory tools and future policy direction. Rather than isolated actions, the Plan shows how monitoring data, standards development, permitting, waste controls and procurement signals are intended to reinforce one another over time.

For clients, this does not mean immediate new obligations across the board, but it does mean that PFAS is now firmly embedded as a cross‑cutting environmental priority, rather than an emerging issue sitting at the margins.

Why does the Plan place such strong emphasis on monitoring and standards before setting tighter controls?

A central pillar of the Plan is the expansion and strengthening of PFAS monitoring across water, soils, sediments and biota, including areas that have historically received less attention, such as estuarine and coastal environments.

This emphasis reflects a practical reality: regulatory standards must be underpinned by evidence that is scientifically robust and defensible. While other jurisdictions are further ahead in setting thresholds for certain PFAS, the UK’s approach prioritises building a dataset that reflects domestic conditions and can support future regulatory decisions.

Importantly for organisations, this phase is not abstract. Monitoring programmes, research into ecological impacts, and the development of environmental thresholds are closely linked to tools regulators already use, such as environmental permits, discharge controls and risk‑based prioritisation.

In practice, this means that activities affecting water, land or waste pathways are likely to come under increasing scrutiny as evidence develops, even before formal new standards are introduced.

The Plan signals direction rather than deadlines in some areas — how should organisations interpret that?

The Plan deliberately sets out direction of travel rather than fixed timelines in some areas, particularly where regulatory processes are still underway or where alignment with international approaches is important.

For organisations, this can create uncertainty, but it also provides space to act strategically.

Rather than viewing the absence of firm deadlines as a reason to wait, this is best interpreted as an early signal. It allows organisations to assess their exposure, understand where PFAS sits within their operations or supply chains, and begin exploring options without the pressure of last‑minute compliance.

In sectors where PFAS use or emissions are likely to be more emissive such as those involving specialist chemicals, firefighting foams, textiles (across the full life cycle), and waste management or complex treatment processes, the Plan provides a clear indication that attention will focus first on emissive sources and controllable pathways first.

Why are procurement choices — such as PFAS‑free textiles — such an important lever in the wider regulatory picture?

Alongside regulation, the Plan places visible emphasis on public procurement, including initiatives to encourage PFAS‑free alternatives in areas such as school uniforms, defence procurement and public‑sector textiles.

These measures are not framed as bans, but as signals.

By embedding PFAS considerations into procurement standards, government can begin shaping markets and supply chains, creating demand for safer alternatives and encouraging innovation, without immediately imposing mandatory restrictions across all sectors.

For businesses, this matters because procurement decisions often ripple beyond the public sector. Manufacturers rarely run separate production processes for different customers; once alternatives are developed and scaled, they tend to flow into wider markets.

In this way, procurement becomes a bridge between policy intent and commercial reality, accelerating transition while giving organisations time to adapt.

The Environmental Audit Committee has welcomed this use of public procurement as a leadership tool, while highlighting that stronger regulatory measures — beyond procurement signals alone — could ultimately be needed to drive wider change.

With public concern around PFAS growing, what role do education and transparency really play?

Public concern around PFAS is high and often driven by complex or emotive narratives. The Plan recognises this by committing to improved transparency including public‑facing information, clearer communication, and greater access to environmental data.

This is not a peripheral issue. For organisations, reputational risk, stakeholder confidence and community trust are increasingly important considerations alongside regulatory compliance.

Clear, accessible information helps avoid misinformation, supports proportionate decision‑making, and enables constructive dialogue between regulators, industry and the public. Over time, this transparency also helps organisations explain the steps they are taking, and why, in a credible, evidence‑led way.

Given the current direction of travel, what should organisations be focusing on right now?

While the regulatory landscape will continue to evolve, several practical areas where organisations can act with confidence today:

Understand your exposure
Start with the fundamentals: where PFAS may be used, generated or present within your operations, products, waste streams or supply chains, directly or indirectly.
Pay attention to waste and permitting pathways
Controls on emissions, waste handling and disposal are likely to be among the earliest regulatory pressure points. Understanding what sits within your permits and waste routes is critical.
Track high‑emission sectors and international developments
Even UK‑based organisations may be affected by changes elsewhere, particularly through supply chains. Keeping an eye on EU developments can provide early insight into where expectations may move next.
Think early about alternatives and substitution
Substitution will be a long‑term challenge, requiring careful consideration to avoid unintended consequences. Early thinking, even at a conceptual level, helps organisations avoid rushed decisions later.
Break the challenge into manageable steps
PFAS can feel overwhelming. The most effective responses start small: mapping, screening, prioritising and then acting proportionately based on risk.

So, what does the UK PFAS Plan ultimately signal for organisations over the coming years?

The UK PFAS Plan does not attempt to resolve every issue at once: instead, it sets a framework, strengthens the evidence base, and signals how regulatory, procurement and engagement tools may be used over time.

For organisations, this is a “when, not if” issue but there is still an opportunity to engage early, think strategically, and respond in a way that is proportionate, informed and resilient.

Those that use this period to understand their position, engage constructively and plan ahead will be best placed as expectations continue to develop.