Navigating Manufacturing Compliance Trends

After weathering legal challenges and an attempted delay by California Gov. Gavin Newsom, implementation of two major climate disclosure laws are around the corner: The Climate Corporate Data Accountability Act (SB 253) and the Climate-Related Financial Risk Act (SB 261).

These are the first laws in the U.S. to require companies to fully disclose their total greenhouse gas emissions and climate risks. Proponents of the efforts say this level of transparency is important for investors and consumers, and voluntary reporting efforts often fall short. Opponents, however, consider these new regulations burdensome and say they duplicate existing legal disclosures. 

Public and private companies generating more than $1 billion in revenue must comply with SB 253 by disclosing the GHG emissions from their operations, known as scope 1, and from the power they consume, scope 2, starting in 2026.

Come 2027, they’ll also need to report scope 3 emissions, which includes everything else: transportation, logistics, waste generated in factories and offices, emissions associated with products’ use and end of life, and much more.

For most large companies, reporting scope 3 emissions will entail tracking many thousands of emitting sources, many of which will be part of partners’ or suppliers’ scope 1 or 2 emissions.

A spectrum of readiness

Today, organizations obligated under SB 253 represent the full spectrum of readiness, said Alexis Voeltner, senior sustainability consultant with UL Solutions.

“Some are way ahead of the game,” said Voeltner, whose company provides testing, inspection and certification services. They may already be tracking emissions using science-based targets and reporting framework that will fulfill SB 253 requirements, and “are now looking to try to achieve those targets.”

Kristina Wyatt, deputy general counsel and chief sustainability officer at Persefoni, which provides carbon accounting and sustainability management software, agreed. Wyatt said compliance can be a step toward other goals. “There are many companies that are looking at these disclosures as a means of gaining reputational and competitive advantage,” she said.

Jesse Medlong, a DLA Piper attorney who supports clients on sustainability issues, said that some companies have started requesting emissions data, related to the products they buy, from their vendors. Some companies are even adding data requests to their vendor contacts, Medlong said.

Reusable packaging provider Orbis considers sharing emissions data, which it tracks in order to determine the life-cycle emissions of its products like pallets and bulk containers, a value-add for its customers.

“This assessment compares reusable and single-use packaging and helps companies calculate the impact reusable packaging can have on the environment,” Lynn Hediger, the vice president of product management for Orbis, said via email.

Orbis tracks its scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions and shares the data with customers.

“Our scope 1 and 2 GHG emissions are scope 3 GHG emissions for our customers,” Hediger wrote. “We’re able to provide prorated scope 1 and scope 2 GHG emission data for our customers based on their percentage of a facility’s overall material consumption.”

Packaging manufacturer Amcor worked with nonprofit energy research organization Rocky Mountain Institute to track and quantify the upstream climate effects of its plastic production.

A resulting case study, published in August and based on a pilot project conducted in early 205 notes that collecting emissions data (the tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per ton of resin) from all of its suppliers can be challenging — especially related to methane, which is a much more potent short-term greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.

The study allowed the company to find gaps in its reporting and obtain a fuller accounting of the greenhouse gas emissions related to its products by relying on primary source data that showed, for example, embodied methane emissions related to plastic production.

Amcor will use the results to improve and standardize data collection from its suppliers and downstream partners. The company’s goal is to reduce its scope 3 emissions by 32.5% by 2033, based on 2022 data.

With the significant climate intensity of primary plastic production — it accounted for 5.3% of global emissions — manufacturers that use less conventional plastic may be able to lower scope 3 emissions.

Scoping out scope 3

With scope 1 and 2 reporting requirements kicking in during 2026, companies that need to comply with SB 253 will likely already be well on their way to tracking scope 3 emissions.

But for these companies in the manufacturing sector, and for their suppliers, disclosing scope 3 emissions could be a complex process that requires collaboration with partners and customers, from logistics companies to packaging providers, to get visibility into emissions across their supply chains. 

The first step, said Voeltner, is for companies to determine which sources they need to track, based on which are material to their operations.

The Greenhouse Gas Protocol’s scope 3 reporting framework defines 15 categories of scope 3 emissions. Eight of them are upstream sources, such as purchased goods and services, fuel and waste generated in operations. The remaining categories are downstream, such as processing, use and end-of-life treatment of sold products.

“You would typically start [by determining] which of those 15 categories are not applicable,” she said. If a company doesn’t lease any buildings, for example, there are no indirect emissions from building operations to count.

“Most companies can narrow it down already from 15 to eight in the first pass. And then from there looking at, okay, we have these maybe eight categories left that could be applicable. Let's start to do a rough estimation of how much each of those could be based off of purchases and financial data.”

This process might further weed down the list of material sources. “You can start to see which categories have the highest intensity of emissions and start to dig deeper,” she said.  

Service providers are building out capabilities to support companies that need to begin tracking their emissions.

UL Solutions and Persefoni each offer advisory services and software built to help companies track their scope 3 GHG emissions that can be used for SB 253 compliance. And in Europe, packaging provider Zeus Packaging recently announced the Zeus Sustain Carbon IQ software designed to help provide access to emissions data. It can be used to track scope 3 data.

Compliance questions

SB 253 does not obligate companies to reduce their GHG emissions. It does, however, require them to report emissions to provide transparency to investors and consumers into the impact of their operations and supply chains.

The law requires that companies provide scope 3 emissions data starting in 2027, covering 2026 data, and to do so using the best available methods. It also requires that the data be deemed accurate through the use of a third-party assurance provider, starting in 2030. Plus, this oversight requirement is to provide “limited” assurance of scope 3 disclosures.

In July, the California Air Resources Board said it was in the “informal, information-gathering stage” for implementing SB 253 and SB 261, with regulations potentially coming by the end of 2025.

In an Aug. 21 webinar, CARB described three levels of assurance: absolute, reasonable and limited. It said that limited assurance “requires a lower level of confidence and quality than reasonable or absolute assurance." 

Persefoni’s Wyatt said companies that are not yet collecting emissions data from suppliers can use estimates based on how much they spend on goods or services in their scope 3 reporting.

“The granularity of the data on the other hand is not as great. It's really industry average-based data, but it's a good starting point,” she said. And, importantly, it's usable in the GHG Protocol framework that companies will use to disclose emissions to CARB.

For companies, it’s best to act as though the laws will take effect as planned, DLA Piper’s Medlong said. 

Opposition in California, pending laws elsewhere

A federal court in August denied a motion for a preliminary injunction challenging SB 253 and SB 261. Even though the ultimate resolution of the litigation, brought by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, is still pending, the ruling means that the laws will be enforced as planned starting in 2026.

A handful of other states are eyeing disclosure rules of their own. And this spring the European Parliament voted to delay implementation of and scale back two comprehensive disclosure requirements — the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive and the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive.  

This time last year, the federal government was on track to require publicly traded companies to disclose scope 1 and 2 emissions if deemed financially material to investors. But a coalition including the Chamber sued, saying the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission lacked authority to require such reporting. With the legislation pending, the commission paused enforcement of the new requirements. Now it’s in limbo, with the SEC neither rescinding nor defending the rule.

But as the fourth largest economy in the world, California’s disclosure rules mean thousands of companies are preparing to comply. 

“SB 253 is really where we're seeing the most client interest around what to do next to adapt to what's becoming the new reality on climate disclosure,” said Medlong. “It's definitely more ambitious — or aggressive depending on your perspective — than any other law in the U.S. right now.”

Claudia Saran is the industrial manufacturing sector leader at KPMG U.S., and Amy Matsuo is the regulatory insights leader at KPMG U.S. Opinions are the authors’ own. 

The summer months signal the midpoint of the year and with it a chance to look back on the past six months, while also thinking of what’s around the corner. For those in the manufacturing sector its been a whirlwind year thus far, one dominated by uncertainties over the direction of tariffs and their implications for supply chain operations and critical investments.

As we speak with clients, a myriad of issues are top of mind for them these days, ranging from artificial intelligence to talent challenges to cybersecurity and digital capabilities to strengthen their operations. While there is no shortage of topics to focus on, there are three key issues we’re keeping an eye on for the second half of the year.

Navigating continued economic uncertainty

Supply chain resiliency, adaptability, and scenario planning have come to the forefront for manufacturers since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. They have become accustomed to operating in a macroeconomic and geopolitical environment in which uncertainty is a consistent theme.

Part of that uncertainty thus far in 2025 has come from trade-focused policies such as tariffs. Across production lines, manufacturers’ resiliency has been tested as they assess possible costs and implications for their business models and operations.

Much like the first half of the year, leaders will need to remain agile and vigilant to ensure their organizations can continue to meet customer needs while also positioning themselves for sustained success over the long term.

Regulatory rebalancing

Tariffs are only part of a broader story when it comes to regulatory trends to monitor closely for the second half of the year. While headlines often focus on high-level deregulation narratives, the actual story on the ground is far more fragmented, sector-specific and reflective of evolving geopolitical positions.

When it comes to manufacturing in particular, the “America First” trade agenda signals continued tariffs and restrictions on products affecting sectors such as technology and automotive, including steel and aluminum imports.

At the same time, diverging priorities between federal and state governments are creating a fractured patchwork of labor, environmental and workplace safety standards. Notably, workplace safety requirements are becoming more stringent in certain states even as inspections (domestically and globally) are anticipated to change in intensity, frequency and focus. Additionally, immigration compliance and physical security remain a continued area of note for organizations.

Environmental policy is also in flux, eased at the federal level but reinforced in many states. In addition, global pressures are reshaping compliance. Stricter export controls and closer scrutiny of dual-use technologies reflect growing concerns over intellectual property and national security.

As we head into the back half of the year, we see an emerging regulatory environment defined by divergence and fragmentation, adding another layer of complexity to establishing a clear path for everything from strategy and operations to effective risk and compliance management.

The big question for the remainder of 2025 is: Will a deregulatory policy really equate to deregulation? Time will tell, but the most agile organizations will invest in scenario planning, real-time monitoring and flexible risk frameworks that allow them to move with, not against, the regulatory currents.

Talent and technology ROI

Last but not of least importance is how to attract and retain talent in an era where many are asking, “What does automation mean for the future of work in manufacturing?”

The reality is that a human-in-the-loop approach will remain critical but the nature of the work and the skills needed are evolving. Ensuring that organizations are attracting digitally literate talent to engage with the technology that firms have invested heavily in is essential to help derive the highest collective return on investment for manufacturers.

In short, heavy investments in technology that can’t be properly used or in data that can’t be well analyzed and applied is not a recipe for success. People with the skills to ask the right questions, to analyze data properly and to best utilize available technology are more important than ever. These individuals are in high demand across a variety of sectors, so manufacturers must pay close attention to their employee value proposition.

Chemical manufacturers are increasingly turning to artificial intelligence to enhance operations.  

AI usage in the chemical industry has particularly increased over the last five years, Seneca Fitch, director of the health sciences practice at scientific consulting firm ToxStrategies, said at a GlobalChem conference panel in Washington, D.C.

Fitch was joined by Rebecca Morones, a senior product steward at BASF, and Sean Watford, an environmental systems and information scientist at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, to discuss how they use AI and how to train the technology to give the answers needed.

AI can be used to perform risk assessments, as well as simplify and summarize laws with hundreds of pages, such as the Toxic Substances Control Act, to help companies stay compliant.

Data management, Fitch added, is an important use of the technology, but only if manufacturers start with quality data. 

“Garbage in equals garbage out. We've heard that saying a lot, and so it's very important that we are using optimal data when we are training models, so that we are making sure to get the most valid and reliable results,” Fitch said.

AI hallucinations can skew results

Morones said she uses Microsoft Copilot to summarize information, such as EPA risk evaluations. She noted, however, that while the platform provides highlighted outlined points, it does not perform an in-depth analysis of information, Morones said.

“You still have to read the documents,” Morones said. “But I feel like there's also 200 pages it's sifting through, which does at least help get you to kind of where you're looking for and give you a great oversight.”

However, AI can pull incorrect data, also known as hallucinations, Morones added. Her colleagues have asked AI for the density of a safety data sheet or what a TSCA fee is, and the platform found an incorrect answer.

“So if your businesses are using this, and I do caution that, just make sure that they are aware of these hallucinations,” Morones said. “And anytime it comes to regulatory aspects, you should probably have them come to the regulatory experts. Don't rely on what they're seeing or what they're doing.”

At other times, the technology may pull up references that appear legitimate but actually do not exist, Fitch said, adding that any information generated by an AI model should be independently verified by staff to ensure its validity. 

“With that lesson, it's really important that not only are we reviewing the things that are coming out of any AI model, but also that we're verifying them,” Fitch said. “Because something could certainly sound logical, it could certainly look real, and yet it's not. It's false information and that hallucination, that's not rare.”

Leveraging prompt engineering

To obtain the necessary answers to queries, manufacturers will need to use prompt engineering to train the technology.

“I think that the most practical advice is that it is a computer and it uses logic,” Fitch said.

Morones described prompt engineering as instructing a computer to perform a simple task, such as how to make a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. “It's not going to understand, ‘Grab two slices of bread,’” Morones said. “You have to be very specific for what you're doing.” 

One strategy the EPA uses to reduce hallucinations through prompt engineering is to ask the model the same question multiple times, to ensure consistency in answers, Watson said. “If the question or the task might be repeated over and over again, you want to ensure that you're getting similar performance for each iteration of the task,” Watson said. 

If companies are interested in exploring AI for regulatory purposes or efficiency, Morones said qualified employees should be involved in its development.

“You’re the one that understands better than AI is going to understand,” Morones said. “You know what you're looking at, what you need to find.”

After a pendulum swing toward shrinking the chemical footprint of packaging and other products, new government policies have prompted questions about what’s in store for managing chemicals in the sector. 

Public concern about the safety and sustainability of chemicals in packaging, and demand for products using safer alternatives, has prompted some companies to voluntarily eschew unnecessary chemicals or find different options. It’s also spurred new regulatory efforts at the state, national and international levels over the past few years.

Several states have adopted laws regulating chemicals in plastic packaging, including California, Maine, Minnesota and New York.

Many are based on the Toxics in Packaging Clearinghouse’s model legislation, which calls for reducing the use of four heavy metals — lead, cadmium, mercury, and hexavalent chromium — as well as PFAS and phthalates, for packaging or packaging-related materials sold or used within the state. The model legislation requires manufacturers and distributors to reduce levels of these “incidentally introduced” metals to 100 parts per million or less and to eliminate PFAS and phthalates.

At the federal level, while the Trump administration has taken steps to roll back some Biden-era PFAS regulations, it also has issued warnings about certain chemicals. With Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. now helming the Department of Health and Human Services, the White House’s “Make America Healthy Again” report cautioned of the impact of some substances on children’s health.

At the international level, the UN Global Framework on Chemicals, whose implementation was recently discussed in Uruguay, and a proposed global plastics treaty are adding to an increasingly complex policy landscape. In Europe, the EU adopted the Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation, which will require companies to increase their use of sustainable packaging, part of the bloc’s efforts to transition to a “circular and competitive” economy for packaging.

Mixed signals

Amid a recent corporate trend of adjusting, delaying or walking away from some ESG and packaging sustainability targets, some companies have also eased elective chemical footprint commitments.

But after years of corporate investment in reducing targeted chemicals or finding alternatives — and seeing the marketing advantages of doing so — some advocates are hopeful that companies won’t completely abandon their chemical footprint reduction efforts. “I think sustainability goes in cycles over time,” said Angela Pinilla, senior program manager for the Chemical Footprint Project at Clean Production Action, which documents companies’ efforts to reduce and disclose their chemical use. 

Recent analyses from nonprofits Clean Production Action and Toxic-Free Future found that the packaging industry has made progress in tracking and addressing PFAS, PVC and other chemicals in its products and raw materials.

The companies whose progress is highlighted in the Chemical Footprint Project’s most recent report, including Walmart, Whole Foods and Clorox, provide examples of the benefits of taking a proactive, transparent approach, she said. Whole Foods, for instance, set a policy favoring safer chemicals in its supply chain and provides financial incentives for senior managers to reduce the use of chemicals of high concern.

Companies that completed the CFP survey reduced their collective use of chemicals of high concern by 132.9 million pounds, according to the report. “Those frontrunners are showing it’s possible to do it,” Pinilla said.

Earlier in 2025, many companies also urged the U.S. EPA to maintain its capacity to review and verify safer chemical formulations under the agency’s Safer Choice certification program, which includes chemical and ingredient standards for products as well as their packaging.

One voluntary industry-led initiative is the U.S. Plastics Pact’s Problematic and Unnecessary Materials List. By 2030, Pact participants aim to eliminate certain items that contain hazardous chemicals, are not reusable, recyclable or compostable, or can be replaced with alternatives.

But there is a limit to what the industry can reasonably do to decrease its chemical footprint, said Dan Felton, president and CEO of the Flexible Packaging Association.

Attention to chemicals in packaging has shifted toward harder-to-address chemicals such as additives, whether intentionally or unintentionally included, he said. That push has largely come from environmental advocacy groups, he added.

“There are some who just would wish that plastics didn't exist at all,” Felton said. “I don’t think that’s realistic.”

In some cases, public pressure and the industry’s homegrown initiatives have inspired tough new state rules that may be difficult to comply with, Felton said. “You have states taking that problematic materials list and sort of codifying it into proposed statutory requirements, which is different than what the Plastics Pact’s focus is,” he said. 

And some chemicals just can’t be avoided or replaced with a better option right now, industry officials and some advocates say. 

“Finding safer alternatives is challenging,” Pinilla said. “Especially for higher performance packaging applications. Safer chemicals need to perform well as well.”

An eye to the future

Experts in the chemicals space have differing views on how the packaging industry is likely to chart a course on chemical management in the coming years. While some suspect chemical footprint commitments will continue to waver, others note that many companies recognize that the long-term trend toward safer chemicals will persist, particularly in light of state action. 

The American Chemistry Council said in a statement that “promoting the safe use of the essential products of chemistry is a shared responsibility of manufacturers, the government and the public” and that decisions at any level of government “should be made using a robust, objective, risk-based approach” based on “sound science, data and facts.”

Packaging industry representatives say they are keeping a watchful eye on new policy developments at all levels of government.

“I think we're sort of waiting to see what kinds of restrictions are put in place, whether that be at the state level, the potential for federal consideration or what's happening in Europe and around the world,” Felton said.

Maine is known for its blueberries, lobsters, lighthouses and sweeping forests. 

Now, the Pine Tree State is gaining attention for something else: having some of the country’s strictest PFAS regulations.

In 2016, state officials began investigating PFAS contamination on farms fertilized with wastewater sludge; the compounds have now been discovered on more than 100 farms in the state. The discovery of widespread contamination led to Maine lawmakers passing a groundbreaking bill in 2021 to ban the compounds from most products sold in the state.

“At the end of the day, the only way we can prevent further PFAS contamination is to stop it from coming into the state,” said Sarah Woodbury, VP of policy and advocacy at Defend Our Health, a Maine nonprofit that pushed for the legislation.

While a modified version of the law now exempts some product categories, such as certain medical devices, semiconductors and their components and motor vehicles, Maine’s ban remains among the strictest in the nation. With a ban on PFAS in many types of consumer products going into effect in 2026, manufacturers and environmental advocates alike see Maine as a testing ground for how PFAS regulation could play out in other states.

“Everyone is kind of looking at Maine to see how this progresses,” said Joseph Green, a partner with Kelley Drye & Warren LLP who advises companies on environmental compliance.

States lead the charge on regulating PFAS in products

With limited federal oversight of PFAS in products, states like Maine have stepped up with their own bans.

Fifteen states have banned the use of PFAS in firefighting foam, one of the most pervasive uses of forever chemicals in the U.S., while Maine, Minnesota and Washington have banned PFAS from use in all products, according to the nonprofit Safer Streets. 

Maine was the first state in the country to ban PFAS from all products, unless the use of the compounds is “currently unavoidable”— meaning the product is essential for health and safety, and no reasonable alternative exists. While the full ban was originally set to go into effect in 2030, lawmakers overhauled the law in 2024 due to manufacturer concerns and a lack of capacity in the state’s two-person chemical regulation department.

A particularly contentious piece of the initial legislation was the requirement that manufacturers file reports on any product containing PFAS by 2023. Mike Roughton, executive director of the Manufacturers Association of Maine, said that the association, among other lobbying groups, pushed for a delay to the reporting requirement coupled with exemptions for certain industries. 

Most of Maine’s manufacturers have fewer than 20 employees and do not have a lot of expertise in navigating supply chain disclosures, Roughton added. “The big challenge for everybody was … all of a sudden this legislation drops, and then at the 11th hour, everybody's required to report or they're going to be fined.” 

The updated law now phases in the bans, with prohibitions on PFAS in cleaning products, cookware, cosmetics and some personal care products, ski wax and upholstered furniture starting in 2026. The law also now exempts a number of product categories including firefighting foam, medical devices and marine equipment, and requires product reports only for items that receive a currently unavoidable use determination.

Maine is not the only state taking a broad approach to regulating PFAS — policy experts point to Minnesota, Washington and California as other states with far-ranging product bans. New Mexico, on the other hand, recently passed a PFAS ban that excludes certain products made with fluoropolymers, a common type of PFAS used in nonstick cookware and industrial applications.

It remains to be seen whether states will follow Maine’s broad approach to regulating the compounds, or the narrower option taken by New Mexico, according to Green.

While industry has tended to favor the latter, environmental scientists have argued that it makes more sense to regulate the compounds as a class due to the number of PFAS chemicals and concerns about their potential health impacts.

“Given the overwhelming amount of information about the toxicity and exposure concerns with the entire class of PFAS chemicals, it's reasonable to require this level of demonstration that the use really is needed and there's not an alternative that's already available,” said Alissa Cordner, co-director of the PFAS Project Lab at Northeastern University and an Associate Professor of Sociology at Whitman College. 

How manufacturers are responding to Maine’s law

The passage of Maine’s law in 2021 “sparked a massive communication stream up and down the supply chain,” said Green. 

When talking to suppliers about removing intentionally added PFAS, manufacturers should ensure their suppliers understand what qualifies as PFAS under Maine’s ban, Green added. Furthermore, manufacturers should ensure that their suppliers have testing to support PFAS-free claims.

“It doesn’t let you off the hook as a manufacturer…but at least you have some recourse to your supplier,” said Green.

Due to mounting consumer pressure and increasing regulation, manufacturers of many of the products affected by Maine’s consumer products ban have already been working to remove PFAS from their supply chains. 

The outdoor industry in particular has faced pressure to ban PFAS, which have been used to waterproof jackets and boots. Iconic Maine brand L.L. Bean phased the compounds out of their products in 2024, while REI no longer sells PFAS-containing cookware and textiles. Norwegian ski wax manufacturer Swix is no longer selling wax with PFAS as of 2025 after an EPA fine for failing to report certain PFAS compounds in imported products.

Nicholas Georges, SVP of Scientific & International Affairs of the Household & Commercial Products Association, said that while most cleaning products don’t contain intentionally added PFAS, the chemicals are still used in niche applications. In those cases, manufacturers are either working to find a non-fluorinated compound that will serve a similar purpose, or they’re removing certain marketing claims from product labels if they can’t find a PFAS alternative.

Maine’s ban accelerated research and development efforts to replace PFAS as a leveling agent in floor finishes — a challenging feat given that finishes are normally tested for two years to see how they hold up. 

“Companies are relatively confident that they can still produce a good product, but under those accelerated circumstances … we're going to have to continue to monitor what's in the field now,” Georges added. 

Some sectors, meanwhile, still appear to be holding out hope that Maine regulators will narrow the definition of what forms of PFAS are banned. The Cookware and Bakeware Alliance and the Performance Fluoropolymer Partnership, for example, have been pushing the state to follow New Mexico in excluding fluoropolymers from the ban. Experts say state regulators appear unlikely to narrow the scope of what counts as PFAS at this time.

Implementation uncertainties

Maine environmental regulators drafted a rule for how they will implement the state’s PFAS in products ban. At a rulemaking comment meeting on April 7, multiple industry lobbyists raised concerns about the timeline for currently unavoidable use filings. 

Additionally, industry representatives expressed concerns that they would need to disclose trade secret information in their currently unavoidable use filings, which could be made public through a records request. 

“We urge the department to consider measures that balance submitting all this information with business interests of manufacturers,” said Linda Caprara, Vice President of Advocacy for Maine’s Chamber of Commerce.

Georges, of the HCPA, said that it also was not yet clear what criteria regulators in Maine and Minnesota, which require similar filings, will use to determine whether a use is unavoidable.

The state will review the currently unavoidable use determinations every five years. 

Questions also remain about how Maine and other states will enforce their PFAS in products bans. Companies should expect spot testing by regulators or nonprofits within months of the ban taking effect, said Green.

Regulators “don’t have the resources to go get everybody, but they’ll want to send a signal that they’re serious about this and are going to enforce it,” he added. 

Woodbury, of Defend Our Health, confirmed that groups like hers would likely conduct product testing themselves, given the state’s limited staff capacity to do so.

Manufacturers have also raised concerns about how Maine will define intentional PFAS use versus contamination, especially given the lack of high-quality tests available for certain materials.

“We’re trying to chase zero, but because the contamination is so widespread, we’re not going to get to zero,” said Georges.

The majority of U.S. manufacturing firms are quite small. In 2021, roughly 98% of U.S. manufacturers had less than 500 employees, according to the National Association of Manufacturers, and three-quarters of firms had fewer than 20 employees.

The cost of federal regulation compliance, including Occupational Safety and Health Administration standards, falls disproportionately on smaller manufacturers, according to NAM. 

Manufacturers pay $29,100 on average per employee to comply with federal regulations, nearly double the $12,800 per employee costs borne by all firms as a whole, according to a NAM October 2023 study. The burden is even greater for manufacturers with fewer than 50 employees, which incur the highest regulatory costs of all U.S. firms — an estimated $50,100 per employee per year.

Given these higher costs, it is particularly important for small manufacturers to remain compliant with federal safety regulations to avoid strenuous penalty fees.

Applying the right OSHA standards

OSHA issued 29,590 citations in fiscal year 2023. The top ten violations in 2023 included fall protection, hazard communication, ladders, scaffolding and powered industrial trucks. Other top violations include respiratory protection, lockout and tagout and personal protective equipment.

For insights on handling OSHA inspections and staying compliant with safety and hazard laws, Shannon Dennis, the national account manager at Safety Consultants USA, spoke on a panel at the 2024 Women in Manufacturing Conference.

A good first step in safety compliance is knowinf what OSHA standards apply to the firm, Dennis said. For the manufacturing industry, standard 1910 is a set of general industry safety and health guidelines, such as fall protection and hazard materials handling. For more construction-specific standards, 1926 is more industry-focused.

“What is OSHA law going to tell us? It's going to tell us what type of injuries you're having in your facility. And a lot of times, what we see is people that are overreporting or underreporting. So you want to make sure you have the knowledge,” Dennis said.

Be ready for a visit

It's also important to know why OSHA could make a factory visit. It could be due to an in-patient hospitalization, amputation or eye loss, which employers must report to OSHA within eight hours, or a fatality, which must be reported within eight hours. 

The facility could also have had an employee complaint, national or local emphasis programs, or is undergoing a scheduled OSHA inspection.

Once OSHA arrives at a plant, factory management should follow a set protocol to ensure their manufacturing team is ready to greet officials. 

“Larger corporations typically seem to have more layers of legal counsel, and it may be that the policy is to not let them in and have them come back in the morning,” Dennis said. “For most of our smaller manufacturers, we want you to cooperate with them, but have a plan. And you want to have your gatekeepers and you can train them what to do.”

Dennis advises that the employees at the front of the office understand how to greet OSHA, and ensure the highest-ranking person at the facility escorts them and gives them only documentation related to the incident they are investigating.

As for preventing accidents, maintaining record keeping of occupational injury and illness records is vital. A company is required to have three years of OSHA record logs accessible, though Dennis recommends having five years of data that’s updated regularly. 

It’s key to create a comprehensive safety manual of policies and programs, as well as perform hazard assessments, inspections and audits on an ongoing basis, Dennis added.

“You want to have corrective actions in place for your negative findings, and knowing what you can do with that information,” she said. “If you have near misses or incident reporting, you want to do a root cause analysis, or at least use that information to try to determine, ‘How do we prevent this from happening? How do we prevent this from becoming an actual injury?’”

OSHA offers a no-cost, confidential on-site consultation program tailored primarily for smaller businesses, an OSHA spokesperson said in an email to Manufacturing Dive. This program assists employers in identifying hazards, improving safety and health programs and ensuring a safer work environment — without the worry of penalties or fines.

How one small manufacturer tackles safety

Maine-based Cotton swab manufacturer Puritan Medical Products formalized its safety programs once the company expanded its factory network, which now includes three locations. The program includes systems such as emergency response teams, first response plans and defined

“We developed. . . first response plans, so that there's defined [standard operating procedures] for how to respond to different things, natural disasters, injuries on equipment, things like that,” said Site Director Troy Lord. “We formalized a lot of it. We formalized responsibility, annual training.”

The company also emphasized the importance of having employees feel comfortable to speak up on safety issues, even to the executive level.

To help create that culture, manufacturers should train employees on site-specific programs and policies and develop a trackable training matrix so that all safety procedures are documented, Dennis said.

Dennis said that while some training can be conducted online, hands-on instruction is better for certain tasks, like lockout and forklift training. 

“Forklift training required the hands-on component. We have to take people out, let them operate the equipment and evaluate their use of that and document that portion as well, separately from written tests,” Dennis said. "Also with the in-person training, it gives you a really good way to assess that person's knowledge.”

Kate Magill contributed to this report.