Alternatives rarely match all critical PFAS performance parameters, leading to hidden failures in durability, safety, or processing.

Focusing only on “drop-in replacements” without questioning PFAS’s functional role or potential design/process changes misses better solutions.

Accepting substitutes based on brochures or limited testing risks non-compliance or underperformance in real-world use.

Some “PFAS-free” substitutes are themselves under future scrutiny. Choices made today must withstand tomorrow’s regulations.

Projects led only by procurement or R&D often miss sustainability, compliance, operational, and customer integration needs.

Lack of a structured framework causes costly, slow substitution efforts with no guaranteed outcome.

Treating PFAS exit purely as compliance forfeits brand differentiation, market access, and circularity advantages.

Have you mapped and verified all uses of PFAS in your products, processes, and supply chain – including hidden uses like processing aids, lubricants, or mould release agents?

Do you understand exactly why PFAS is used in each application, and which performance attributes are truly non-negotiable?

Are you clear not only on current regulations but also upcoming bans, customer restrictions, and market-specific requirements?

Do you have a structured framework to evaluate alternatives – considering hazard profiles, performance, design-out opportunities, cost, supply feasibility, and customer acceptance?

Is your project team integrated across R&D, procurement, regulatory, quality, operations, and sustainability to ensure viable, scalable solutions?

Have you engaged a broad and diverse supplier base, with independent validation of PFAS-free claims and real-world performance data – or are you relying solely on supplier marketing information?

Is there a clear, resourced plan to test, validate, and qualify alternatives under realistic operational and customer conditions?

Have you assessed the commercial, operational, and compliance risks of both staying with PFAS and transitioning, including long-term rework risk if substitutes are later regulated?

Are you ready to communicate changes transparently to customers and stakeholders, ensuring clarity on performance, safety, and regulatory positioning?

Have you framed PFAS exit not just as compliance, but as an opportunity to strengthen brand trust, sustainability leadership, and competitive differentiation?

Elevate PFAS substitution to a board-level initiative. Leading companies recognise its impact on compliance, market access, reputation, and future-proofing – not leaving it to R&D alone.

They act before regulatory deadlines. Early planning allows systematic exploration of safer, better-performing options rather than rushed, sub-optimal choices under pressure.

Instead of only seeking drop-in replacements, they understand why PFAS was used, which functions are critical, and whether design or process changes can eliminate the need entirely.

They apply hazard screening, performance mapping, supply chain assessment, and life-cycle analysis to ensure alternatives are safe, effective, and scalable.

They align R&D, procurement, regulatory, sustainability, operations, and commercial teams from the outset, ensuring solutions work technically, operationally, and strategically.

They partner with independent experts to access global alternative intelligence, rigorous evaluation frameworks, and proven implementation support – accelerating safer, confident adoption.

They avoid substitutes likely to face future regulatory scrutiny, ensuring long-term compliance rather than short-term fixes that create rework and risk.

They view PFAS substitution not only as compliance but as an opportunity to lead markets with safer, more sustainable, and differentiated products.