Sustainability in Manufacturing Operations

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 earlier this year, 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 next year, 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 the year.

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." In October, CARB announced it was delaying initial rulemaking until the beginning of 2026.

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 next year. 

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.”

Across the U.S., state and local governments are increasingly turning to building performance standards as a way to cut carbon emissions and meet climate targets.

BPS standards aim to cut emissions by requiring buildings and facilities to meet certain energy targets. While actual requirements and penalty structure may vary by city, their goal is one and the same: decarbonize America’s building sector and reduce energy-related emissions. 

As of August 2024, four states and nine localities have adopted BPS, and six states and 42 localities are part of the the National BPS Coalition, an initiative launched in 2022 committed to implementing building performance policies and programs.

The nonprofit Institute for Market Transformation estimates that if every jurisdiction succeeds in implementing decarbonization policies, as much as 676 million metric tons of CO2e will be cumulatively eliminated through 2040. 

Such cuts would significantly reduce the amount of emissions that come from buildings, parks and infrastructure, which the World Business Council for Sustainable Development estimates makes up 40% of global energy and process-related CO2 emissions. 

How can manufacturers meet ambitious BPS standards? Read on for a few simple guidelines.

Identifying BPS requirements

First, identify whether the local government where a facility is located has already implemented such policies via the U.S. Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy or the National BPS Coalition participants list, as well as implementation timelines for standards. 

Given the ever-shifting landscape of BPS, researching standards within a city or state’s department of energy, environment or commerce website might yield the most current results. For example, the Washington State Department of Commerce outlines specific BPS enforcement deadlines on its Clean Buildings Performance Standard page.

As part of the state’s "Tier 1 Compliance Requirements," to be met by as early as June 2026, businesses must, for instance: benchmark by measuring and tracking energy use in a building over time; implement an operations and maintenance program in accordance with the standard; and create an energy management plan, among other mandates.

While deadlines to meet requirements may be approaching for many cities, manufacturers who study their policies might be pleased to learn the bar is quite approachable, according to CBRE Senior Sustainability Director Brett Bridgeland.

“Energy and emissions reductions are often phased, such that in an initial compliance period the standards are lower,” Bridgeland said. “Some facilities may already comply or may be able to achieve initial compliance through relatively low-cost energy efficiency strategies, such as lighting or controls improvements.”

Even if initial standards may seem basic, Bridgeland advises that subsequent compliance periods may ratchet performance thresholds and require more significant investments to maintain compliance. For those circumstances, facilities should start planning ahead now, he said.

Low-cost and low-effort solutions

Some of the most effective changes that manufacturers can make to their factories or office buildings are also the simplest, said Kate Henningsen, CEO of sustainability startup Infogrid. 

That includes adjustments that are often recommended to laypersons, like using LED bulbs. 

“It is surprising how much lighting can do for a building. Making sure you have timed on-and-off lights is usually one of the cheapest capital investments that yields a big savings in energy,” Henningsen said.

Another is ensuring that internal room temperature adjusts for the season and time of day. 

“There are so many sophisticated buildings that keep the temperature in their building the same 365 days a year, 24/7,” Henningsen said. “And the first thing we say is you don't need to have your temperature set at 72 degrees for every floor in every inch of the space. And that in itself, can really start to drive some energy cost savings.”

Henningsen said that her third most cited recommendation is for building managers to replace dated HVAC systems, which are “inefficient” and can account for up to 60% of energy expenditures.

Mike Newcomb, senior director of operations at biopharmaceutical manufacturer Novonesis' North America's headquarters in Franklinton, North Carolina, said that zeroing in on everyday operational practices has helped the company become more sustainable. 

“We are also investing heavily in our ability to reuse water. We have installed Reverse Osmosis technology at different points of our processes to be able to reuse water," Newcomb said. "Eventually we will have systems within different production buildings that allow for the re-use of substantial amounts of water, thereby lowering the amount of fresh water that needs to be used by production each day.”

Investing in the future

Beyond simple low-effort measures, Bridgeland said that the electrification of heating and hot water — while requiring a larger upfront investment — might help businesses achieve compliance with local standards. 

Due to the cost of such a change, though, Bridgeland advised that where possible, it should be considered thoughtfully as part of a greater sustainability plan, “rather than as a reactive, emergency replacement.”

With regards to decarbonized heating, Bridgeland said that heat recovery is also a viable option for many facilities.

“Leading manufacturers are capturing and reusing waste heat from condenser water, exhaust or process loads,” he said. “Low-grade heat can [then] be boosted to higher temperatures using advanced heat pumps now entering the U.S. market.”

This type of mutually beneficial tradeoff can be seen at work at Novonesis’ Kalundborg, Denmark facility where waste streams are shared between companies.

“The majority of the solid waste generated at the facility is transferred to another company who then uses it as an input to a digestion process to produce biogas, which is then put into the power grid," Newcomb said. "Our facility is part of a symbiosis of companies that share waste streams leading to more value capture for everyone and less overall emissions."

There are some options that are unique to manufacturers. One such energy-saving opportunity is the use of rooftop solar power, Henningsen said, which can be captured and later used to offset energy costs.

“Manufacturers have the scale of buildings to put larger solar arrays on their rooftop that could cover more power,” Henningsen said. “And a fancy office building in New York might not want to put a large solar plant on their building, but manufacturers might be totally great with that.”

More reasons for change

In addition to helping manufacturers avoid penalties, Henningsen said another reason buildings should aim towards decarbonization is the constraints of energy supply.

“Very soon, you're going to have a mismatch between how many people need power and how much power there is on the grid,” Henningnsen said. “Getting more sophisticated around energy, having on-site generation, having storage so that you can always power your plant, reducing your energy costs and your energy demand — all those make a manufacturer more resilient.”

Sponsored content

By Reworld

Even with the most robust quality control measures, product recalls are sometimes unavoidable. Contamination, mislabeling, or safety issues can all lead to recalls that protect consumers, but also create serious challenges for producers. Beyond the immediate operational impact, recalls can result in financial losses, reputational harm, and legal exposure. It’s why secure, compliant, and sustainable disposal is essential to mitigating ongoing risk, protecting your brand, and supporting environmental goals.
 

The Inevitability of Recalls

No company is immune to recalls. In 2024 alone, the Sedgwick Recall Index reported more than 3,200 total product recalls in the US, affecting millions of items. Food, beverage, and pharmaceutical recalls drew the most attention, but consumer product manufacturers also experienced high recall numbers.

Most recalls stem from a few common issues:

• Contamination: Bacterial contamination in food or beverages (e.g., E. coli or salmonella).
• Mislabeling: Missing allergen information or inaccurate ingredient lists.
• Regulatory Noncompliance: Failing to meet FDA, USDA, or CPSC safety standards (and / or their foreign equivalencies).
• Safety Hazards: Defective products such as unstable furniture or faulty electronics.

Regardless of the cause, companies must act fast. A delayed or poorly managed recall can erode consumer trust, trigger lawsuits, and lead to fines that compound the damage.
 

The High Stakes of Poor Recall Management

While consumer safety must always come first, mishandled recalls can have major business consequences:

Financial Losses
The average large-scale recall costs about $12 million, but a poorly managed recall can send those costs skyrocketing due to legal costs and other factors.

Reputational Damage
Any recall will result in a drop in sales for the affected product, but a mishandled recall can permanently damage a brand’s reputation, making it harder (if not impossible) to regain consumer trust.

Regulatory Penalties
Improper recall management or disposal can lead to serious fines and even criminal penalties. Under the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act, civil fines can reach up to $15 million, with criminal penalties including up to five years in prison.

But the risks don’t end once defective goods are off the shelves. How those products are handled afterward can have equally far-reaching implications.
 

Why Secure Disposal Matters

If recalled products aren’t properly managed, they can re-enter circulation through secondary markets, putting consumers (and your brand) back at risk. Improper disposal can also lead to environmental harm, regulatory violations, and public backlash.

Responsible Destruction
The most effective way to eliminate ongoing risk is through secure destruction, using methods like shredding, incineration, or chemical neutralization. Working with a certified waste management partner ensures full regulatory compliance, especially for companies operating across multiple states or countries, where proof of destruction may be required.

Repurposing When Possible
Not all recalled products are dangerous — some may simply be unsellable in their current form. Redirecting these items or their components for legitimate secondary use or recycling can minimize waste while preserving value.
 

Building Sustainability into Recall Management

Consumers increasingly expect brands to take sustainability seriously. A NielsenIQ study found that 73% of global consumers would likely change their consumption habits to reduce their environmental impact. Integrating sustainable practices into your recall process can strengthen consumer confidence and differentiate your brand.

Consider options such as:

• Recycling materials recovered from recalled goods.
• Partnering with organizations that specialize in sustainable material recovery.
• Exploring advanced disposal methods like alternative engineered fuel (AEF) generation or waste-to-energy processing, which convert non-recyclable waste into low-carbon fuel and renewable energy.
   

Start with a Plan

Preparation is the best protection against the financial and reputational fallout of a recall. A strong recall management plan should include:

• Early detection processes for potential product issues.
• Clear communication channels for notifying distributors and consumers.
• Secure logistics and chain-of-custody protocols for recalled products.
• Established partnerships for responsible disposal and recycling.

Investing in recall readiness not only limits damage but also demonstrates your commitment to consumer safety and sustainability.

 

Turning Recalls into Opportunities

At Reworld™, we help businesses manage recalled goods responsibly and sustainably. Our secure destruction, total product recycling, alternative engineered fuel, and waste-to-energy solutions drive compliance, brand protection, and sustainability goals.

 

 

Today, setting sustainability priorities can feel like solving a math equation with too many unknowns. 

On one hand, manufacturers must factor in the financial consequences of sustainable operations. On the other hand, they must adhere to the ever-shifting landscape of local, state, federal and international regulatory mandates. 

Between these parameters is a messy tangle of tech advancements, sustainability trends and terminology out of which many businesses struggle to create a solid list of sustainability initiatives.

“Generally, people want to do the right thing,” said Purdue University professor John Sutherland. “I had a colleague that said, ‘Think about the agricultural and industrial revolution — these things took several decades to really get going.’ We shouldn’t be too surprised this is taking time to make progress.”

Despite a shifting domestic energy policy under the Trump administration, many experts in the industry agree: the next four years won’t significantly change their long-term sustainability plans.

“Manufacturers simply are not going to make long-term decisions that change how much they pollute based on a four-year enforcement cycle,” said Adam Freedgood, principal and co-founder of sustainability consultancy Third Partners. 

In creating sustainability strategies for 2025 and beyond, many manufacturers are adhering to ideas that are economically resilient and secure their spot on the global market.

Don’t count on regulation going away

Net zero emissions goals are becoming much less fashionable in the corporate world under the Trump administration, says Columbia University Sabin Center for Climate Change Law Founder and Professor Michael Gerrard.

But that doesn’t mean that manufacturers should change course on sustainability goals, even amid changing climate regulation. While congressional changes or rollbacks to regulation can be difficult to challenge in court, agency-level changes can take longer to take effect, Gerrard said.

"If that's done by an agency, it could take a long time to go through the administrative process, and after that's done it can be challenged in court. By the time all that is resolved, there could be a new president who could reverse course once again," Gerrard said. "So it's risky to count on a rule going away, at least quickly and decisively, unless Congress has acted.”

Gerrard added that even if federal-level regulations are weakened, state-level rules, as well as European laws, still affect many manufacturers and in some cases require emission disclosures. 

“Most big companies are subject to either the European climate disclosure laws, the California climate disclosure laws, or both," Gerrard said. "These laws require companies to account for their scope 3 emissions — the emissions upstream from their suppliers and downstream from their customers." 

Austin Alexander, VP of sustainability and social impact at Xylem, a manufacturer of pumps and other water technology solutions, said that regulatory uncertainty, including a possible rollback of the Inflation Reduction Act, has not impacted investment decisions. 

“As a global company with a long-timeline view of sustainability, individual country regulations haven’t made too significant an influence on our strategy,” Alexander said. 

The final thing to keep in mind is something that most manufacturers already know: It’s not climate policy that will change their long-term sustainability planning, it’s the economy. 

“The economic impacts of the new Trump administration are going to have the outsized impact on how manufacturers approach sustainability,” said Freedgood. 

Hedging against economic volatility

If there’s one thing manufacturers can count on the Trump administration to deliver, it’s volatility, said Freedgood. Hedging against such economic fluctuations will therefore be a manufacturer’s best framework for strategizing environmental initiatives.

“Sustainability means people, planet, profit, and in order to have success, whether it’s on decarbonization, or energy efficiency, it’s about focusing on the bottom line and seeing where that overlap exists,” Freedgood said. 

To that end, manufacturers should first think about securing themselves against changes in energy prices by finding opportunities to lock in long-term clean energy prices and manage emissions. 

“The U.S. is going to be exporting more and more liquefied natural gas to our friends in Europe, which is going to put a squeeze on the natural gas market,” Freedgood said.

Freedgood highlighted that economic incentives can look different from manufacturer to manufacturer. For some businesses, reducing greenhouse gas emissions down the supply chain might appease stakeholders such as investors or consumers. For others, such as manufacturers who burn natural gas to power their plants, reductions might directly translate to lower energy bills. 

ENGIE Impact Managing Director Jason Bell said companies must capture and leverage data to further emission-reduction goals, which makes it imperative that manufacturers have the right tracking measures in place to gather accurate information.

“It is crucial to not let perfect be the enemy of the good; start with the data you have and identify a path for more abundant and higher-quality data collection,” Bell said, adding that having leaders understand the “impact of decisions on the bottom line” can make balancing ambitions a reality. 

Xylem’s Alexander said her team has found success in embedding decision making and the execution of sustainability goals into their operations. 

“In the case of making investment decisions at our sites, the power is in the hands of our site leaders to decide when and how to invest in sustainability projects that benefit them, their customers and the enterprise,” Alexander said.

Lastly, when thinking through the whys and whens of sustainability, it might be helpful to remember that sustainability is simply about eliminating waste, Sutherland said.

“If you think about it, waste is a sign of inefficiency,” Sutherland said. “If you have waste that’s being produced, somebody has to pay to manage the waste. If you’re wasting materials, if you’re using resources in a way that is not efficient — somebody comes along with a better way of doing things, it’s likely to be a better product in the long-term.”

Creating stronger markets for recycled materials is a key goal baked into the bedrock of many extended producer responsibility for packaging laws, but industry stakeholders say it's hard to tell how much EPR alone will move the needle on recycled content use. 

Seven states so far have passed EPR for packaging laws. Separately, California, Washington, New Jersey, Connecticut and Maine also have standalone recycled content mandates, signed between 2020 and 2023, that are not part of EPR programs. 

Washington’s EPR law explicitly references its earlier postconsumer recycled content mandates when setting new targets for materials not covered by the mandate. While in California the overlap of several different labeling laws, diversion mandates and PCR requirements have raised concerns.  

Kate Bailey, chief policy officer at the Association of Plastic Recyclers, said that while it’s necessary to talk about recycled content as part of EPR, it’s also important to be clear about what issues each piece of legislation intends to address. 

“EPR really is all about funding the collection system and improving the collection system,” she said, and while market dynamics are part of that, they’re not the central focus. APR does support including recycled content in EPR programs, to improve material quality, but Bailey said there are challenges around ensuring compliance, as most targets are collective. 

“There are a lot of companies doing the right thing and a lot of companies that don’t buy anything,” she said, pointing to the fines levied in Washington under its PCR content mandate.

Policy mechanisms need to be included that ensure participation, Bailey said, and that’s often more achievable in standalone mandates. 

Yet consultant Michael Washburn said he hasn’t seen much evidence that the standalone laws “have driven any meaningful shift in the market,” as they only address one small part of the process.  

However, as part of an EPR program, which simultaneously puts in place drivers to increase collection, improve material quality and upgrade infrastructure, “that kind of holistic approach strikes me as an approach that offers some promise,” he said.

Colorado case study

Colorado’s EPR law sets specific postconsumer recycled content minimums that differ by material type — glass, resins, metal and paper.

The law calls for rigid plastic packaging to contain 20% PCR by 2030, while flexible plastic packaging should have 5% by the same deadline. Paper and paper packaging are required to have 40% recycled content, metal packaging is required to have 40% and glass is required to have 30%. The goals are collective, not individual producer targets.

Wolf Kray, materials management unit leader at the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, said recycled content is measured in a company’s national portfolio, which ideally will create a bigger impact than only looking at PCR used in packaging within the state. 

“There's a long way to go and there are definitely some lofty goals, but that’s the hope for EPR,” he said. “That this will help drive changes, capture more material and get it back into the marketplace.” 

However, the question of how to verify chemically recycled plastic content has been the subject of hours of discussion among members of the state’s packaging EPR advisory board.

Starting at a March board meeting, members flagged concerns about the “free allocation” method of mass balance, a way of counting recycled material as an average. It allows a manufacturer to “assign” recycled content across its product portfolio — not necessarily to the products it’s physically in.

At a subsequent workgroup meeting, Gaultier Massip, ecodesign project manager at French producer responsibility organization Citeo, explained that under the French EPR system producers have always been required to certify that they can trace recycled material from processor to packaging manufacturer. But up until 2024, third-party certification was only needed at the recycler level, while self-certification could be done at the converter level. 

“It was quite light, to be honest,” Massip said of the self-certification. In 2024, Citeo decided on a more “binding and transparent system” by requiring third-party certification at both levels. Massip added that while mass balance is not permitted today, it likely will be allowed in 2026, and "there is a real need for transparency on this highly debated [method]."

The board continued to wrestle with the topic. Those concerns led CHPHE and the state attorney general’s office to dig deeper, with possible further regulatory action to come. 

Kray said “we’re doing our homework here and trying to understand all the options as well as we can,” because there “are various methodologies out there and it’s important to understand the nuances of each.” 

“It’s very much a new thing for us that’s certainly outside the scope of the traditional regulatory background of the solid waste and recycling world,” Kray said. “It’s definitely more something folks in the packaging industry are familiar with, so we’re catching up.” 

Bailey said while verification of fuel exemption is an important discussion to have, it's not one that has an approaching deadline. Chemical recycling is not yet operating at a scale that makes it a true player in the recycled content market, so the question of how to verify it doesn't need to be resolved immediately. 

“Brands will find the cheapest way to use recycled content and, right now, economics point to mechanical recycling,” she said, adding that “I just don't see that changing” in the near future. 

Changing markets

Projected demand for recycled content looks to outpace capacity in the United States. Washburn noted the persistent “mismatch” in PCR markets, given that markets are national while commodities are typically more regional.

“How does the collection of certain resins match up with the processing capacity, match up with the manufacturing sites where that material would be taken up, and the cost dynamics?” he said.

For those reasons, he doesn't think increased PCR use is going to substantially contribute to plastic source reduction, even though including recycled content targets in EPR laws will be “a net positive” for increasing PCR availability and uptake.

Washburn added that he thinks recycled content incentives are more appropriate than targets. “Sometimes it will work and sometimes it won't, and that's okay.” 

“We have to be realistic about what we think we can do on this issue through EPR policy alone,” he added.

Bailey said she’s seen standalone state policies work, such as California’s rigid plastic program that was created in the 1990s to establish HDPE recycling and the more recent recycled content mandates for trash bags. She pointed to a 2024 study from the University of California, Berkeley that found the most impactful policy to reduce plastic pollution is requiring the use of more recycled content. 

“I think we've hit a good stride with recycled content in beverage containers and PET, but we've hit a major obstacle in that companies are now buying overseas instead of buying from the U.S.,” she said. 

Bailey said policies need to be refined to specify or incentivize recycled content from North American markets, and other solutions should also be considered, such as giving companies a tax credit if they buy recycled content.

“How do we get to the longer-term goal of recycled content as the default? How do we make that paradigm shift?” she said. “It’s not just going to be through recycled content policies.”

As of this year, legislators in every U.S. state have at some point introduced bills to improve the repairability of consumer technology such as electronics. Texas was the latest to pass such a law and advocates predict even more in the years to come.

Liz Chamberlain, director of sustainability and head of the right to repair advocacy team at iFixit, said “we're at a point where the concept has always made sense to people that hear about it, but I feel like we broached a level of awareness that we didn't have previously.”

Right-to-repair laws tend to cover items such as laptops, phones, cameras and other small-format devices, but there’s also legislation focused on automobiles, agricultural equipment and medical devices such as powered wheelchairs. For original equipment manufacturers, that means a growing obligation to share or create repair manuals, certain specialized tools and processes to sell parts.

While OEMs originally balked at the requirements, several have started to shift positions. Google is one notable opponent turned proponent. 

Steven Nickel, director of consumer hardware operations at Google, said the repair concept “just aligns really well with Google’s mission, so we love talking about this wherever and to whomever.” 

A growing trend

Automotive right-to-repair laws were some of the first passed, followed by agricultural equipment, as both are large, integral investments for consumers. 

In 2023, Colorado became the first state to pass a repair law for farm equipment, with more than dozen states also introducing legislation that year. Similar legislation has also been introduced at the federal level for several years.

As personal electronic devices grew more common, attention grew on that sector. Since 2022, California, Colorado, Minnesota, New York, Oregon, Connecticut, Maryland, Texas and Washington have passed right-to-repair laws for consumer electronics. Broadly, the laws require OEMs to make available to independent repair shops and consumers the parts, tools and documentation needed to fix devices covered under the laws, with a few differences between states.

For example, Oregon, Washington and Colorado’s laws also ban the use of software to ensure a device will only operate with specific parts, called parts pairing. Some states also backdate their laws to cover consumer electronics purchased in the past, while some do not.

Some companies, such as Apple, have strongly opposed banning parts pairing, while Google has advocated for it. If repairs are constrained by parts pairing “then you don't really have right to repair,” Nickel said. “So we think that’s a really critical piece.”

When Texas passed its consumer electronics law, HB 2963, this year, it was lauded as the first “red” state to do so. Chamberlain said it further proves what iFixit has found in polling throughout the years: The right to repair is a solidly bipartisan issue. It often draws sponsors from both parties, she added, because “everybody wants to fix our stuff.” 

Gay Gordon-Byrne, executive director of The Repair Association, called Texas’ law, which was based on a model bill from TechNet and the Consumer Technology Association, “a good start.”

“We’re really happy to see a big red state pass it, because it’s good to have some balance,” she said.

CTA, which opposed some right-to-repair bills in the past due in part to security concerns, has changed its stance in recent years. It did not respond to an interview request. 

While Texas’ law did not have language banning parts pairing, Nickel said he’s not concerned about losing momentum. The text contained the fundamentals of access to parts and manuals, and “if you start there, that's great,” he said. 

Chamberlain said the Texas law also moved right-to-repair consumer electronics language forward in a big way by closing a persistent loophole that allows OEMs to send customers a new device instead of engaging in the repair process and sharing knowledge and tools. 

“All of the bills otherwise that we have passed so far in the U.S. have what we call the ‘Amazon loophole,’ which says if you replace products instead of repairing them, you meet the requirements of the bill, and so far Amazon has done that basically entirely,” she said. 

HB 2963 gives consumers the explicit opportunity to choose repair and the OEM must honor that request. Chamberlain said while usage of the clause relies on consumer education, and enforcement is up to the state attorney general, “it's a big step forward in that it begins to address one of the major problems with the legislation we’ve passed so far.”

In fact, iFixit has put the language to close that loophole in its template bill and hopes to see more states adopt the change in the coming years. 

Stakeholder positions adapt

As OEM perspectives start to shift from entrenched opposition to neutrality or even support, e-scrap recyclers and groups such as the Recycled Material Association have also advocated for right-to-repair legislation. ReMA noted in a position paper that “reuse provides an excellent environmental and economic benefit” that recyclers sometimes miss out on due to OEM locks and blocks. 

Chamberlain said iFixit is seeing cell phone and laptop manufacturers “do a pretty good job of at least beginning to comply or making moves to comply,” even if she would like to see more manuals and schematics made available. 

Nickel added there was initial concern about sharing instruction manuals, but that eased as OEMs realized the bills were “coming from a really reasonable place.” 

“They’re not saying you need to give away trade secrets. There’s a lot of aspects where they really considered the manufacturers’ concerns,” he said.

Manufacturers of cameras, video game consoles and household appliances have been less compliant, and Gordon-Byrne said she’s finding a low level of awareness of obligation from some sectors. Trade associations need to do more outreach to ensure that their members know their legal requirements, she said, and The Repair Association will also continue to share the news and encourage people who run into problems getting covered items repaired to submit a complaint to their state’s attorney general. 

Looking forward, Chamberlain said her goals are to pass bills that close the “Amazon loophole,” address product categories such as medical devices, and strengthen and protect existing laws. 

Nickel also foresees the launch of devices that are easier to repair as more states pass laws and the right-to-repair concept takes off globally. He pointed to the repair directive in the European Union and the French system of assigning a repairability score to devices at the point of sale as trends to watch. 

“I think five years from now we’ll be looking at really simplified repairs, because in the sense of any legislation being some type of restriction, I think that drives creativity and innovation,” he said. 

For example, Google created a "repair mode” that allows technicians to work on a phone while protecting data, without the need to fully wipe a device, Nickel said. He spends most of his time working on the design-for-serviceability program, which seeks to prioritize repairability.

“We’re thinking about products in 2027 and 2028,” he said. “If you don't engage at these certain gates and windows, you'll miss the opportunity. Design is so iterative.”

A small but growing number of breweries are replacing or supplementing the use of gas boilers with heat pumps as one step toward their net-zero emissions goals.

Well-known breweries including Guinness and New Belgium Brewing are among those investing in these solutions. Cost, downtime and maintenance are common concerns for manufacturers seeking to replace equipment, but technology companies providing electrified heat and steam are building their businesses to address these pain points.

“Heat is three-quarters of industrial emissions,” said AtmosZero CEO Addison Stark. Half of that heat is delivered by steam, he added, and “there’s an outsize amount of steam used in food and beverage.” 

Stark started the company with the goal of building a cost-competitive and drop-in electrified replacement for conventional boilers. The solution allows manufacturing facilities to produce the steam needed for processes such as cleaning and sterilizing equipment and packaging, without the use of gas-powered boilers. 

Heat pumps work by moving heat from one place to another with high efficiency, which helps to compensate for the higher cost of electricity. AtmosZero’s Boiler 2.0 uses proprietary technology to extract heat from the air and convert it.

AtmosZero is focused on facilities that have steam loads of 1 to 5 megawatts of thermal capacity. Manufacturers that don’t want to tear out an entire boiler room can opt to just replace one boiler, or supplement their gas boilers. Stark said this ease of adoption is attractive to companies who are looking for simpler solutions.

“We are making steam electrification a product not a project,” he said. 

New Belgium Brewing, based in Fort Collins, Colorado, is among those utilizing AtmosZero’s equipment. The company installed an industrial electric boiler in May that can generate up to 1 ton of steam per hour.

“There are currently not a lot of market solutions for clean energy in this sector, and we’re excited to participate in the development and demonstration of this novel technology,” said a New Belgium spokesperson via email. If successful, AtmosZero's heat pump design will use significantly less electricity than conventional electric boilers and account for 30% to 40% of the brewery’s steam needs.

Steam used in brewing operations make up 25% of the brewery’s scope 1 and 2 emissions. If powered by a clean power source — which the City of Fort Collins Utilities has committed to provide by 2030 — AtmosZero’s Boiler 2.0 has the potential to significantly reduce the facility’s greenhouse gas emissions.

“The prototype will be measured for performance and reliability to determine if it can meet 100% of the Fort Collins brewery’s steam demand,” the spokesperson said. 

Breweries outside of the United States are also taking steps to decarbonize. Diageo is phasing out the use of fossil fuels at its St. James’s Gate Guinness facility in Dublin as part of a goal to reduce the site’s scope 1 and 2 emissions by more than 90%.

And in Manchester, U.K., Heineken is using a low-temperature hot water network driven by heat pumps to replace steam boilers as part of its own net-zero ambitions. The solution uses an “environmentally friendly” ammonia refrigerant with zero ozone depletion potential and zero global warming potential.

The relatively low to medium temperatures used by manufacturing facilities such as breweries and distilleries make them good candidates for heat pumps, according to sources. But a lack of understanding about what these solutions are and what they can do could prevent wider adoption. 

“There’s still a significant knowledge gap,” said Andrew Hoffmeister, a senior research analyst in the industrial program at the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy.

Hoffmeister said it will take a lot of changes by manufacturers to make electrification ubiquitous, with cost coming up as a common factor.

“Capital costs are definitely a barrier,” Hoffmeister said. “Operational costs can also be pretty significant, especially in places where electricity is expensive.”

Grant programs and subsidies could help to make investment in heat pumps more attractive for companies, but Stark said there’s a lack of stability for funding at the federal level. He said AtmosZero typically counsels customers to look at opportunities on the state and local level. 

Hoffmeister points to Pennsylvania’s Rise PA program as one such option. It’s a $396 million statewide industrial decarbonization grant program for industrial projects. Industrial facilities are the highest-emitting sector statewide and account for just over 30% of Pennsylvania’s total GHG emissions. Another example is California’s Indigo program, which provides incentives for industrial projects that will reduce emissions.

Such programs can help to offset initial investments, but they aren’t available everywhere.

Skyven aims to solve the upfront cost barrier to adoption with its industrial steam-generating heat pump. This technology can take heat from equipment such as a malt kiln and turn it into usable steam at up to 420 degrees Fahrenheit. The company has seen initial traction in the food and beverage industry, along with the ethanol industry, and pulp and paper plants.

Skyven shoulders the costs for the equipment and engineering, building an engineering and financial plan for the customer and then charging a recurring service fee. The company recoups initial costs by sharing the savings with the customer based on the amount of measured and verified energy saved onsite. By installing the technology alongside traditional boilers, the company can use arbitrage to respond to the supply and demand market. 

“Electric prices on the full scale electric market change every 5 or 15 minutes depending on the market,” Skyven CEO Arun Gupta said. “They can go sky high very quickly.” 

Gupta said Skyven’s heat pump is more cost effective 80% to 90% of the time. When electric prices soar, the system is designed to kick natural gas boilers back on with no downtime. However, he noted, downtime is a risk with all energy sources due to severe weather events and other factors.

“Putting our system in parallel with the existing boiler… reduces risk of the new technology adoption,” he said, noting the company also shares some financial risk with customers. “That motivates us to make sure that the heat pump operates in a way that actually saves customers money.”

As billions of dollars in promised funding flood the U.S. semiconductor industry, manufacturers are increasingly turning their attention to a key issue: Water usage. 

In the U.S. — where domestic chip manufacturing capacity could triple by 2032— water sustainability isn’t just a PR strategy. It’s central to both success and survival. 

 “Water is actually the largest volume chemical used in semiconductor manufacturing,” said Paul Westerhoff, a regents professor in Arizona State University’s School of Sustainable Engineering and the Built Environment.

Prior research has found that semiconductor production can require up to 10 million gallons of ultrapure water per day, a grade of H2O that’s virtually free of all impurities. This is more than the daily amount used by 33,000 households, according to the U.S. EPA. Residual salts and chemicals risk decreasing performance and power efficiencies, as well as the integrity of the wafer overall, said Westerhoff. 

For chip manufacturers, the challenge lies in not just securing high volumes of ultrapure water, or UPW, but also in purifying it to a usable degree and recycling the wastewater within the manufacturer’s ecosystem. 

“We’re talking parts-per-quadrillion-level purity,” said Prakash Govindan, co-founder and COO of water treatment solutions provider Gradiant. “To put that in perspective, parts per quadrillion is like having one molecule of impurity in an entire Olympic swimming pool of water.” 

To address challenges in the quantity and high quality of UPW, manufacturers are reducing their water consumption, repurposing it within facilities, discharging it into the community and replacing other water resources with reclaimed water. But sources say much more is needed — and possible — to make semiconductor manufacturing’s water use a sustainable enterprise. 

Reducing water footprints inside and outside the fence

Developing wastewater recycling and reclamation technologies is a long and challenging journey, particularly given the complexity of industrial wastewater, said a spokesperson for major chipmaker Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co.

TSMC achieved 12% replacement of water resources with reclaimed water in 2023, meeting its target of 5%. In 2022, the manufacturer also opened a new industrial reclaimed-water plant. 

However, the company missed its target of reducing unit water consumption by 2.7%; increasing it instead by 25.2% in 2023. 

The stringent purity levels required by UPW pose a significant challenge for manufacturers aspiring for the highest levels of water stewardship, in part because they often draw on water from municipal utilities.

According to Govindan, it’s common to have 15 to 18 grades of wastewater, with different levels of contamination and different matrices of wastewater quality. UPW must be heavily filtered beyond what’s mandated for drinking water.

“One major challenge we faced was addressing one of the most critical but stubborn factors in wastewater treatment — small-molecule organic compounds such as urea from residential wastewater — which cannot be removed using membranes and require specialized techniques,” said a spokesperson for TSMC. “Removing urea to meet the stringent water quality standards for semiconductor processes involved extensive collaboration across industry, academia, and research institutions.”

In most cases, as with TSMC, manufacturers partner with water service providers early in the planning process to combat the purification process challenge, even planning them into the plant’s setup, said Govindan. 

Then, manufacturers seek to reduce their water footprint both “outside the fences of a manufacturing facility” — which is more cost-effective, said Westerhoff — and “inside the fence.” 

Often, fabrication plant treatment standards go beyond the wastewater treatment requirements imposed by EPA regulations and local authorities. For instance, local sewer use ordinances in Chandler, Arizona, have set pollutant limits but not water restoration limits, enabling Intel’s Phoenix-area fab to surpass both quality standards and restore more water than it consumes.

“What Intel and some other companies do is they purify things and then move it outside the fence, and that water is reused within the community. Some of them will purify it [so] it meets every drinking water limit, or recharge it into the groundwater. And then what some companies are doing is outside the fence — not downstream from the company, but actually upstream,” said Westerhoff. All of those best practices can help a business qualify as “net water positive,” he said.

Some manufacturers also use up to 40% of their wastewater to control a fab’s temperature via cooling towers, or in a scrubber machine, which sprays water and “scrubs” off gases and other chemical contaminants, said Westerhoff.

Many manufacturers might also opt for “outside the fence” water sustainability strategies due to the sheer technical difficulties in recycling water into UPW.

According to a June article in WE&T Magazine, usually “the recovered or reclaimed water is not recycled back into production systems to make UPW — some of the cleanest water in the world — but instead is used as makeup water for mechanical systems such as scrubbers and cooling towers, where water does not contact the wafer.” 

Given that an average of 76% of the water withdrawn by a fab is used for the manufacturing process, this means a significant amount of water used by fabs is still being drawn from local supplies.

“[What] they really haven't done yet is to take their industrial wastewater, clean it up and put it back into their ultrapure system to go around multiple times,” said Westerhoff.

Near-zero liquid discharge is a challenge that many water service service providers are helping to combat. Govindan said Gradiant achieved a 99% water recycling rate in one large $300 million water treatment facility for a semiconductor client, meaning that only 1% of the facility’s water demand needed to be sourced from external freshwater supplies.

Reducing pollution liability

In the long-term, Westerhoff expects that controlling facilities’ wastewater streams could also be beneficial to “reducing long-term pollution liability” and thinks manufacturers would be well served by purifying their wastewater to the highest level possible. 

“About a decade ago, the semiconductor industry got an award from the EPA for phasing out one of these [PFAS] chemicals, and now the EPA regulates that chemical. So I think there’s this secondary less-talked about benefit of treating your wastewater onsite. You reduce your liability, in the future, of contamination,” he said.

By improving their purification processes, companies can also recover more valuable resources that can be used within the foundry, such as isopropyl alcohol and critical minerals.  

“Recovering some of that copper really helps in terms of the economics of the water treatment,” said Govindan. “The resource recovery really helps the circular economy, makes everything more sustainable and cheaper.” 

But the overarching challenge that manufacturers must address, according to experts, is reducing the amount of water that they procure from their local watershed. 

The question of reducing water consumption is especially salient in places like TSMC’s home country of Taiwan, because so much of the gross domestic product is tied up with the chip and high-end manufacturing industries and the “water sustainability of the country has shifted,” said Govindan. 

“This might not happen at a national level for the U.S. or Germany, but locally, in states and cities, this definitely is a problem,” he said.

Regardless of their location, experts expect that fabs and their locales will need to think even more about water sustainability in the years ahead.

“Any of these companies that have complex supply chains are going to try to look towards their suppliers to help them reduce the water footprint of their products. That's really the next wave of this,” said Westerhoff. “Especially if you want to be net water positive. You have to do something else in your supply chain or something else in your community.”