Safer Chemistry, Shifting Rules: What’s Next for Electronics Manufacturers?

Key Summary

• Chemical regulations are reshaping electronics manufacturing, with evolving PFAS restrictions, extended producer responsibility requirements and TSCA implementation adding compliance complexity.
• Safer chemistry requires more than substitution—manufacturers need reliable alternatives that meet technical, performance and supply-chain requirements.
• Supply-chain transparency and standards such as IPC-1752 and IPC-1402 support chemical information sharing and responsible manufacturing.
• Predictable policies and industry–policymaker collaboration are essential to advancing safer chemistry while supporting electronics innovation and competitiveness.

By Kelly Scanlon, Senior Director of Sustainability Strategy, and Brendan Galloway, Director of North American Government Relations, Global Electronics Association

At the Chemical Watch Regulatory Summit North America 2026, we spent much of our time in different rooms. Kelly followed the chemicals management for electronics discussions, while Brendan focused primarily on chemical control.

Yet a common concern emerged across both tracks: Companies are navigating a fragmented regulatory landscape while trying to maintain compliance, introduce new technologies and advance safer chemistry.

Our perspectives reflect two sides of that challenge, how manufacturers respond to changing requirements, and how policy can support or complicate their progress.

Kelly’s Perspective: Sustainability Goals Need Practical Paths to Implementation

The electronics discussions brought the day-to-day challenges of chemical management into focus. Manufacturers are responding to requirements that differ across markets, while working with supply chains that cross those same borders.

Three takeaways stood out.

Regulatory fragmentation is a manufacturing challenge

Speakers described tightening environmental and occupational health and safety oversight in Asia Pacific, alongside differing approaches to chemical management around the world.

In the United States, state-level action on PFAS and extended producer responsibility adds another layer of complexity. For companies serving multiple markets, these differences affect material selection, supplier information requests, reporting and product planning.

A compliance representative from TE Connectivity illustrated the challenge: companies must manage overlapping federal and state requirements while pursuing chemical phaseouts, even when suitable alternatives are not available for every application.

Demand for safer chemistry is outpacing implementation

Customer expectations, investor interest, European regulations and initiatives such as safe and sustainable by design are encouraging companies to pursue safer chemistry.

But demand alone does not make a substitute available, or suitable.

Electronics manufacturers need alternatives that meet demanding performance and reliability requirements. Progress requires collaboration among chemical suppliers, component manufacturers, product designers and customers, supported by credible information about hazards and application requirements.

The question is not simply whether companies want safer alternatives. It is what will help them identify, evaluate and adopt those alternatives successfully.

Standards can help translate goals into action

During my presentation, “Standards toolkit for sustainability in electronics manufacturing,” I discussed how industry standards can help turn sustainability goals into measurable actions, highlighting IPC-1752 and IPC-1402.

Standards do not replace legal requirements, but they can provide common approaches that support information exchange and coordinated action.

My takeaway: Manufacturers need more than a growing list of obligations. They need practical tools, reliable supply chain information and technically viable paths toward safer chemistry.

Brendan’s Perspective: Regulatory Predictability Is Essential to Progress

In the chemical control sessions, the discussion centered on how businesses navigate changing policy, variable compliance obligations and uncertainty about regulatory implementation.

Three themes stood out from those conversations.

Changing the rules does not necessarily reduce the burden

For companies making long-term investments, predictability matters. Revising or rolling back a requirement can create additional work when businesses have already committed resources to understanding and implementing it.

The challenge is not simply the amount of regulation. It is whether companies can understand what is expected and make decisions with reasonable confidence that those expectations will remain consistent.

Speakers repeatedly returned to the difficulty of planning amid political uncertainty and divergent regulatory approaches.

TSCA discussions revealed frustration with implementation

Participants raised concerns about delays, consistency and flexibility in the administration of the Toxic Substances Control Act.

These discussions highlighted an important distinction between changing a law and improving how it works in practice. Companies need clear expectations, timely reviews and communication that helps them understand where they stand.

For manufacturers evaluating new chemicals or technologies, uncertainty in the review process can become uncertainty in business planning.

Uncertainty can complicate the move to alternatives

Another concern was how companies assess the risk of replacing a known chemical with one whose potential effects are less fully understood.

Participants described the tension between managing a known risk and adopting an alternative that could later raise new concerns. That uncertainty can complicate decisions even when companies are actively seeking less harmful options.

My takeaway: Workable policy should protect health and the environment while providing clear, consistent processes that support informed decisions and the evaluation of alternatives.

Where Our Perspectives Meet

Across both tracks, the message was clear.  Chemical policy and manufacturing practice cannot be treated as separate conversations. Manufacturers need to understand emerging requirements early enough to respond. Policymakers need insight into application requirements, supply chain constraints and the availability of alternatives. Both benefit from credible data, shared tools and sustained dialogue.

For the Association, these discussions reinforce the importance of connecting industry expertise, regulatory standards, sustainability goals, and government relations. By bringing these capabilities together, we can help policymakers better understand manufacturing realities, advance practical tools that support compliance and information exchange, and encourage greater consistency and predictability across the regulatory landscape.