Friday, August 29, 2025
Reading Time : 10 minutes

The Risk You’re Not Tracking

You may not see it in your top-line risk reports, but PFAS could quietly derail your operations, supply chain, or reputation. Known as “forever chemicals” for their persistence in the environment, PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) have been widely used in manufacturing for decades to impart water, grease, and stain repellency, thermal and chemical stability, low friction, and surface-active properties. PFAS are integral to the performance and durability of thousands of products across industries.  
  
Until recently, most manufacturers viewed PFAS as a future issue. But in 2025, that mindset is no longer enough. With increasing global regulations, public scrutiny, and litigation, PFAS has become a strategic business risk.  

One of the biggest misconceptions manufacturers still hold is that if PFAS aren’t listed in Safety Data Sheets (SDS), they must not be present at significant concentrations. This assumption overlooks both the regulatory and material complexities of PFAS. In reality, most PFAS aren’t legally required to be listed because they haven’t been classified as hazardous. PFAS can also show up unintentionally in materials like recycled plastics or biosolids, making them easy to overlook. These are materials that contain PFAS not because they impart a specific performance characteristic, but because of their origin. Manufacturers also often misunderstand the distinction between “intentionally added” PFAS, which are deliberately added to deliver properties like durability or chemical resistance, and PFAS that are present incidentally. This nuance is critical. Even if a company does not deliberately use PFAS, they may still be exposed to risk through upstream materials or processes, creating hidden liabilities.  

Real-world cases underscore the danger of this blind spot. Several U.S. manufacturers have faced lawsuits over PFAS contamination in local drinking water, even when they didn’t produce PFAS themselves. In Europe, consumer goods brands have had to recall products after discovering fluorinated compounds in packaging, which were introduced by third-party suppliers without the brands’ knowledge. There are cost effective, proactive steps your business can take to minimize current and future PFAS-related business risks.  

It’s No Longer Just About Compliance

As our understanding of PFAS pollution's harmful effects increases, the issue is gaining more attention. A ChemSec report estimated the global societal cost of PFAS pollution at €16 trillion, primarily from cleanup, health impacts, and lost productivity. Governments are therefore ramping up action. In the U.S., the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has designated certain PFAS compounds as hazardous under CERCLA, paving the way for broader liability enforcement. Meanwhile, Europe is considering a near-total ban on the production, use and sale of PFAS. What makes this different from typical chemical regulation? It potentially affects the whole class of over 10,000 PFAS compounds and could impact the sales of thousands of products where PFAS are knowingly or unknowingly used.  
  
In 2025, one of the most urgent regulatory developments is the EU’s REACH restriction proposal, which could ban over 10,000 PFAS compounds.  If passed, the restriction could ban many uses of PFAS within the next 3 years, with longer exemptions – up to an additional 18 years –  for others. In the U.S., many states are taking the lead by banning or restricting PFAS in specific product categories such as firefighting foam, children’s products, and food packaging. Some states, like Maine and Minnesota, are going even further by banning PFAS in all products. The regulatory trend is clear. For manufacturers with global distribution, restrictions on PFAS in commerce will disrupt the status quo.  


Manufacturers, whether knowingly using PFAS or not, are increasingly being held accountable due to their role in complex, opaque supply chains. Risk extends well beyond legal compliance. This is about business continuity, operational agility, and market access. Yet many companies are still not modeling PFAS as a business risk. The more proactive ones are integrating PFAS into enterprise risk registers and ESG risk mapping. This is especially true for those in consumer-facing industries or with exposure to highly regulated markets.  

Regulators and insurers are also shifting their stance. Insurers, in particular, are beginning to treat PFAS like asbestos: high risk, long tail, and difficult to insure. Some carriers are excluding PFAS-related liabilities from new policies altogether. Others are developing new legal theories and litigation strategies to limit exposure under existing coverage. 

Author

prt-Matt-Burns
Matt Burns
Practice Leader, Technical Fellow and Vice President
United States
Contact
prf-Julius Kreissig-Arnal
Julius Kreissig-Arnal
Canada
img 1The Hidden Business Risk of PFASjpeg

Where the Risk Hides: Supply Chains, Products & Contracts

PFAS can be found where companies least expect it, buried in coatings, sealants, lubricants, electronics, and packaging materials, among many others. For manufacturers working with global Tier 2 and Tier 3 suppliers, visibility is limited. That creates risk.  

In 2023, a U.S.-based packaging company had to halt shipments to Europe when PFAS traces were discovered in a product film sourced from a third-party vendor. They weren’t the manufacturer. But they paid the price.  
  
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has identified more than 75 PFAS-handling industry sectors, covering a wide swath of the economy. Companies operating in or sourcing from these sectors are likely to encounter PFAS in their operations, often without realizing it. 

These substances may be embedded in recycled materials or used in coatings and adhesives yet remain undisclosed due to regulatory gaps. Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) are only required to list substances classified as hazardous, and many PFAS compounds are not formally classified as such. They may also be excluded if present at low concentrations or protected as trade secrets. This makes it especially difficult for manufacturers to trace PFAS across global supply chains, particularly when working with lower-tier suppliers in regions with varying disclosure norms.  

Procurement practices industries haven’t caught up. Standard supply agreements often lack PFAS-specific clauses, including identification or disclosure requirements, leaving buyers legally exposed. Most companies still don’t routinely review suppliers for PFAS, though some are beginning to add warranty language around chemical disclosures to close the gap before liabilities emerge.  

ChemSec’s sector-specific PFAS guide outlines common risks across several discrete industries like medical devices, aerospace, and electronics. But most companies in PFAS handling industry sectors, including those where guides are available, haven’t conducted a full audit. That leaves vulnerabilities not only in product lines and supplier agreements but also in R&D pipelines.

The Financial Fallout: What’s at Stake

This isn’t theoretical. Primary PFAS producers are already paying billions in PFAS-related settlements, and those numbers are just the beginning. But beyond headline lawsuits, many secondary PFAS users face significant risks, including environmental cleanup costs and quieter financial threats that are often overlooked:  

  • Costly product reformulations   
  • Export bans or customs delays   
  • Breach of supplier contracts   
  • Brand damage or lost retailer partnerships   
  • Insurability concerns  

As reported in The New York Times, even downstream users, those who didn’t make or knowingly apply PFAS, are increasingly drawn into legal actions. The cost of being “unaware” is no longer a defense.  

Manufacturers should be modeling a wide range of potential costs when assessing PFAS risk. These include testing and lab analysis, legal fees and potential judgments, reformulation expenses, retooling of production lines, business interruption from non-compliance or regulatory delays, and brand or reputational damage mitigation.  

In some sectors, the financial impact is already being felt. For example, in the cosmetics industry, several brands delayed European product launches between 2023 and 2024 due to the need to reformulate “long-wear” products that previously relied on fluorinated compounds.  

Insurers are also responding. PFAS exclusions are becoming more common, and some policies now require PFAS-free certifications or risk assessments as a condition for renewal. This shift is making it harder for companies to secure or maintain coverage, especially if they cannot demonstrate proactive risk management.

The Market Is Moving Faster Than the Law

A recent Forbes article noted that consumer demand for PFAS-free products is outpacing regulatory action. Brands are voluntarily phasing out PFAS from cosmetics, food packaging, and outdoor gear. This shift is not just driven by compliance. It is also a response to customers who are asking more questions and expecting greater transparency.  

Major retailers such as Target and Walmart have begun banning PFAS-containing items from their shelves, even when regulations do not require it. This is forcing suppliers to adapt quickly or risk being replaced.  

Manufacturers that are not prepared to demonstrate PFAS-free credibility may find themselves locked out of key markets, particularly in Europe. The “PFAS-free” label is quickly evolving. What was once a competitive differentiator is becoming a basic requirement for market access.  

img 2The Hidden Business Risk of PFASjpeg
Retail and procurement expectations are rising. Brands like Home Depot, IKEA, and REI have added PFAS restrictions to their supplier codes of conduct. In Europe, many public sector bids now require PFAS disclosure or certification that products are PFAS-free.  

Consumer behavior is also shifting. What was once considered a premium “eco” feature is becoming a mainstream expectation. As PFAS-free becomes a baseline purchasing criterion, similar to the transition seen with BPA-free products, brands that lag behind will struggle to maintain relevance.  

To meet these expectations, companies are turning to third-party lab testing, supplier material declarations, and certification systems such as ChemFORWARD and ChemSec’s SIN List alignment. These tools help verify and communicate PFAS-free status in a credible way, building trust with both regulators and consumers. 

What Manufacturers Should Do Now

This isn’t just about risk reduction, it’s about future-proofing your operations.   

Here’s what leading manufacturers are doing:  

  1. Inventory and Assess Exposure The first step is to conduct a thorough review of all raw materials, intermediates, and finished goods for known or suspected PFAS use. This includes plastics, coatings, inks, adhesives, and films; anything that imparts water, grease, and stain repellency, thermal and chemical stability, low friction, and surface-active properties to finished goods. Many companies begin by screening Safety Data Sheets (SDS) for all materials, equipment, and supplies. They then contact vendors to fill in information gaps and map associations between raw materials, processes, and products.  
  2. Engage Across Functions PFAS risk management is not just a compliance or sustainability issue. It requires coordination across procurement, R&D, legal, operations, and EHS teams. One of the most common breakdowns occurs between procurement and technical teams, especially when procurement is unaware of indirect material use or legacy supply contracts that may involve PFAS. 
  3. Plan for Scenarios Leading companies are modeling a range of scenarios, from reformulation costs and production delays to regulatory enforcement and market access challenges. This helps them prioritize action and allocate resources effectively.  
  4. Partner with Experts and Trade Associations Given the complexity and evolving nature of PFAS regulations, many manufacturers are working with PFAS product vulnerability consultants, third-party labs, legal advisors, and certification bodies to verify PFAS status and build credible risk management programs. Trade associations are valuable resources for knowledge sharing and lobbying regulators for unavoidable use and other critical use exemptions.   

Conclusion: A New Standard of Readiness

PFAS is not just a regulatory issue. It is a test of your organization’s agility, resilience, and strategic foresight. With well planned, proactive efforts, current and future business risk associated with PFAS can be managed in an efficient and cost effective manner that allows for budgetary planning and control.  

Leaders who act now will safeguard their operations, reputation, and bottom line. Those who wait may find that the cost of inaction far exceeds the cost of preparation.  

What separates prepared companies from those caught off guard is how deeply they embed PFAS into their risk governance. These organizations assign clear ownership, educate procurement teams, engage suppliers early, and evaluate both financial and reputational downside.  

If you are just beginning, start with a high-level screening. You do not need a full audit on day one. Begin by mapping your highest-risk materials and suppliers. From there, build a phased and cost-effective strategy. Early and proactive information gathering will help you avoid the sudden and unplanned costs that come with regulatory pressure, supply chain disruption, and market loss. 

References: