6 Key Drivers for PFAS Risk Screening and Management
PFAS chemicals, often referred to as “forever chemicals,” have become one of the most pressing business risks of our time. They are no longer viewed solely as an environmental issue — today, PFAS exposure carries implications for compliance, supply chain continuity, customer relationships, and even litigation. At recent sustainability and compliance conferences, I asked leaders a direct question: What is the number one driver for your company to conduct PFAS risk review and management? The answers consistently highlighted 6 interconnected forces, with regulatory requirements and customer demand emerging as the strongest.
Although our topic is about PFAS, it also hints at the similar challenges and gaps in the overall Product Compliance processes within larger industrial companies.
- Federal Regulations: The TSCA Reporting Rule
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s TSCA Reporting Rule 8(a)(7) has been a watershed moment for PFAS oversight. It requires companies to disclose extensive information about PFAS within their operations and supply chains. For organizations managing thousands of materials and suppliers, this mandate is not something that can be met with spreadsheets and manual review. It is forcing companies to rethink how they collect, analyze, and report PFAS data — and to seek out scalable, technology-driven solutions that can meet regulatory expectations with speed and accuracy. Outside of the TSCA reporting rule, EPA also included priority PFAS chemicals in the recurring Toxic Releases Inventory (TRI) Reporting and Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) that applicable companies need to comply with.
- State-Level Requirements: A Growing Patchwork
Beyond federal oversight, individual states are creating their own PFAS reporting and restriction regimes. Maine, California, and several others are leading with aggressive rules, and more states are poised to follow. This patchwork of requirements makes compliance a moving target. What satisfies one jurisdiction may fall short in another. Businesses operating nationally are realizing that they must centralize their PFAS risk management strategies in order to remain agile and consistent across this fragmented landscape.
- Global Regulation: Europe and Beyond
International markets are tightening PFAS rules just as rapidly if not more. Europe is considering sweeping restrictions and potential bans, while other world regions or countries are developing or strengthening their own frameworks and requirements. For multinational organizations, failing to anticipate these rules could mean losing access to key markets. Companies that can demonstrate robust PFAS risk management are finding themselves better positioned — not just for compliance, but also for competitive differentiation in regions where environmental scrutiny is highest.
- Customer Expectations and Demands for Disclosure
Perhaps the most immediate driver, however, comes directly from customers. Major brands and OEMs are demanding visibility into PFAS risks throughout their supply chains. Suppliers that cannot provide transparency face tangible consequences as serious as exclusion from procurement processes, termination of contracts, and long-term reputational damage. For certain companies, PFAS screening has already become a prerequisite for doing business at all, making it a core requirement for growth and continuity.
- Litigation and Liability: The Cost of Inaction
The financial stakes of PFAS mismanagement are already visible. Lawsuits have resulted in settlements reaching hundreds of millions of dollars, and the trend shows no sign of slowing. Beyond direct financial costs, litigation undermines stakeholder trust and draws unwanted public scrutiny. Proactive PFAS risk screening enables companies to reduce exposure, demonstrate diligence, and strengthen their defense strategies long before legal challenges emerge.
- Supply Chain Change Management
Finally, PFAS oversight is not just about compliance or liability — it is about operational resilience. Transitioning away from PFAS-containing materials often requires identifying suitable alternatives, requalifying suppliers, and assessing impacts on performance and cost. Without clear intelligence on where PFAS exists in their supply chain, companies face disruption and delays. Structured risk screening allows businesses to prioritize these changes systematically and minimize operational risks.
The Takeaway: Compliance and Customers Lead the Way
Although each of these drivers matters, two factors consistently stood out in my conversations: regulatory requirements at both federal and state levels, and customer demand for transparency. Together, they are accelerating the adoption of PFAS risk management practices across industries. Companies that respond proactively are not only reducing risk, but also strengthening relationships and protecting their competitive position in a rapidly evolving market.
At EcoPulse, we developed PFAS AI™ to help companies tackle these challenges with scale and precision. By applying artificial intelligence to material and supplier data including SDS details, PFAS AI™ enables organizations to detect, map, and prioritize risks in minutes rather than months. What once required thousands of manual hours can now be streamlined into a clear, actionable process.
PFAS screening is no longer just a compliance checkbox. It is a business-critical capability — one that shapes market access, customer trust, and long-term resilience.