For decades, per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) have quietly underpinned one of the textile industry’s most valued performance features: water and stain repellency. From outdoor gear to everyday apparel, these “forever chemicals” delivered durable, high-performing finishes that set the standard for modern textiles.
Mounting scientific evidence about PFAS persistence, teamed with growing concerns over their environmental and human health impacts, means that era is now coming to an end. These chemicals do not break down in the environment and have been linked to contamination across water, soil and ecosystems, as well as potential long-term health risks. As a result, regulators, brands and consumers alike are accelerating the transition toward safer alternatives.
Related Stories
Within this evolving landscape, one principle is becoming clear: eliminating PFAS is not just a compliance exercise, it is a transformation of how performance is defined, delivered and governed across the supply chain.
From pledge to practice
Many brands have already committed to phasing out PFAS, but translating those commitments into reality has proven far more complex for many.
PFAS are deeply embedded in global textile supply chains, often introduced several tiers removed from final production at the level of chemical inputs, coatings or membranes. This makes detection, verification and elimination particularly challenging. Even when a brand specifies PFAS-free materials, risks such as cross-contamination in shared facilities can undermine progress if not carefully managed.
At the same time, regulatory pressure is intensifying. Across key markets, restrictions on PFAS in textiles are expanding rapidly, with bans and disclosure requirements reshaping sourcing strategies and raising the stakes for compliance. A broader proposal to restrict PFAS across the EU/EEA, one of the most comprehensive chemical restrictions ever proposed under the chemical registration framework REACH, covering around 14,000 synthetic chemicals, is still under evaluation, with the European Chemical Agency’s consultation recently closed. A final verdict is expected by the end of the year.
In this environment, preventive systems are proving essential. Some certification frameworks, such as the Global Organic Textile Standard (GOTS), have long prohibited PFAS-based finishing processes for repellency applications, reflecting an early focus on restricting hazardous substances at source rather than responding to regulatory trends.
Approaches such as positive lists of approved inputs aim to exclude harmful chemicals at the point of formulation, rather than relying solely on downstream testing. This preventative model has grown in relevance as supply chains have become more complex and difficult to monitor.
Beyond repellency: PFAS risks across the chemistry palette
While water and oil repellency have become the focal point of the industry’s PFAS conversation, the full chemical palette used in textile processing contains further potential sources of PFAS exposure that demand equally rigorous scrutiny. PFAS can be present in various textile-processing chemicals, including surfactants, wetting agents, emulsifiers, dyeing auxiliaries and printing inks.
The industry must therefore adopt a whole-chemical-inventory approach to PFAS risk assessment; one that maps every chemical input across every process step, not just the repellency finishing stage.
Truly robust chemical approval systems must be designed to prohibit any PFAS-containing chemicals, regardless of their function, through detailed chemical inventory management and supplier disclosure programmes.
Progress with trade-offs
The industry’s next challenge is performance. PFAS-free alternatives, including hydrocarbon-, silicone- and polymer-based finishes, are becoming more common and continue to improve. In many applications, they deliver effective everyday water repellency, supporting a growing range of products from lifestyle apparel to technical wear.
Non-fluorinated alternatives continue to close the gap but have not yet fully replicated the breadth of performance that PFAS chemistries delivered. Oil resistance, in particular, remains a limitation, and durability under repeated laundering and wear still lags behind fluorinated benchmarks. The industry now has both the incentive and the responsibility to close these gaps through innovative processes.
For brands, this also means rethinking product expectations. Why would a garment require oil repellency? For many lifestyles, water repellency alone is sufficient. By aligning performance standards with real-world use, rather than legacy chemistry, companies can unlock more viable PFAS-free solutions.
Innovation, meanwhile, is extending beyond chemistry. Fabric construction, yarn structure, and the selection of materials all play a role in determining repellency. When brands work closely with suppliers to optimise these factors holistically, they can often recover or even exceed expected performance levels, albeit sometimes at a higher cost.
In short, the shift away from PFAS is not a straightforward substitution, but a systems-level redesign.
Avoiding regrettable substitution
As alternatives scale, a new risk emerges in the form of regrettable substitution. This involves replacing one harmful chemistry with another and, in doing so, creating unintended consequences, particularly when new substances are introduced without robust environmental and toxicological screening. The urgency to eliminate PFAS must not come at the expense of long-term safety.
This is not a simple challenge to solve. Robust screening takes time, data, and international coordination, and the pace of science and regulation are not always synchronised. Industry frameworks, such as GOTS, increasingly require more rigorous assessment of chemical inputs, weighing both environmental and human health impacts as part of its approval process. The goal is to shift the conversation from reactive substitution toward a more systemic approach to chemical safety.
Accountability drives change
Ultimately, eliminating PFAS depends on transparency. Brands cannot rely solely on downstream testing or supplier assurances. Instead, they must invest in traceability systems, robust chemical management frameworks and ongoing supplier engagement to understand where and how chemicals enter their products. This requires a shift in mindset, from reactive compliance to proactive due diligence.
Encouragingly, this shift is already underway. Some certified supply chains have long prohibited PFAS, reflecting an early focus on chemical safety ahead of recent regulatory momentum. More recent updates to certification frameworks, such as GOTS 8.0, are placing greater emphasis on due diligence, testing and governance across the textile value chain.
For sourcing professionals, this creates both a challenge and an opportunity: to build supply chains that are not only compliant, but resilient, transparent and future-proof.
About the author:
Bükra Kalaycı currently serves as Responsible for Standard Development and Implementation (Ecology) at Global Standard. She is a textile engineer with a master’s degree in environmental sustainability. Her PhD research centres on circular systems within the textile supply chain.
