Note 12. Long-Term Debt and Short-Term Borrowings
The following debt tables reflect effective interest rates, which include the impact of interest rate swaps, as of December 31, 2025. All debt outlined in the table below is unsecured. Carrying value includes the impact of debt issuance costs and fair value hedging activity. Long-term debt and short-term borrowings as of December 31 consisted of the following:
Long-Term Debt:
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | Principal amount | | Weighted-average interest rate | | Final maturity date | | Carrying value |
| (Millions) | | December 31, 2025 | | December 31, 2024 | | December 31, 2025 | | December 31, 2024 | | | December 31, 2025 | | December 31, 2024 |
| USD denominated fixed-rate debt | | $ | 10,500 | | | $ | 10,400 | | | 3.76 | % | | 3.33 | % | | 2026-2050 | | $ | 10,355 | | | $ | 10,317 | |
| USD denominated floating-rate debt | | 200 | | | 1,014 | | | 3.77 | | | 6.94 | | | 2027-2044 | | 199 | | | 915 | |
| EUR denominated fixed-rate debt | | € | 1,751 | | | € | 1,751 | | | 1.73 | | | 1.60 | | | 2026-2031 | | 2,048 | | | 1,812 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Total long-term debt | | | | | | | | | | | | 12,602 | | | 13,044 | |
| Less: current portion of long-term debt | | | | | | | | 1,670 | | | 1,919 | |
| Long-term debt (excluding current portion) | | | | | | | | $ | 10,932 | | | $ | 11,125 | |
During 2025, 3M terminated swaps that had converted $800 million principal portion of fixed rate notes to floating-rate debt for a portion of their terms. For December 31, 2024, as those swaps were in place, 3M reflected the carrying value of the $800 million portion as USD denominated floating-rate date in the table above.
Short-Term Borrowings and Current Portion of Long-Term Debt:
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | Effective interest rate | | Carrying value |
| (Millions) | | | December 31, 2025 | | December 31, 2024 |
| Current portion of long-term debt | | 2.16 | % | | $ | 1,670 | | | $ | 1,919 | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
Cash Interest Payments: Cash interest payments below include amounts related to both debt and finance lease obligations. They exclude cash paid for early debt extinguishment and imputed interest for amounts due under the PWS Settlement, New Jersey Settlement, and CAE Settlement (discussed in Note 17).
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| (Millions) | | | | | | 2025 | | 2024 | | 2023 |
| Cash interest payments | | | | | | $ | 467 | | | $ | 505 | | $ | 520 |
Future Maturities of Long-term Debt: Maturities of long-term debt in the table below reflect the impact of put provisions associated with certain debt instruments and are net of items such as unamortized debt issue costs such that total maturities equal the carrying value of long-term debt as of December 31, 2025. The maturities of long-term debt for the periods subsequent to December 31, 2025 are as follows (in millions):
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | 2026 | | 2027 | | 2028 | | 2029 | | 2030 | | After 2030 | | Total |
| | | | $ | 1,670 | | | $ | 863 | | | $ | 863 | | | $ | 1,793 | | | $ | 1,728 | | | $ | 5,685 | | | $ | 12,602 | |
Credit Facilities: 3M has a $4.25 billion five-year revolving credit facility with a floating interest rate, set to expire in May 2028. The revolving credit agreement includes a provision under which 3M may request an increase of up to $1.0 billion (at lender’s discretion), bringing the total facility up to $5.25 billion. The credit facility was undrawn at December 31, 2025. Under the $4.25 billion credit facility, the Company is required to maintain its EBITDA to Interest Ratio as of the end of each fiscal quarter at not less than 3.0 to 1. This is calculated (based on amounts defined in the amended agreement) as the ratio of consolidated total EBITDA for the four consecutive quarters then ended to total interest expense on all funded debt for the same period. At December 31, 2025, 3M was in compliance with this requirement. Debt covenants do not restrict the payment of dividends.
Other Credit Facilities: The Company also had $0.6 billion in stand-alone letters of credit, bank guarantees, and other similar instruments, all with a floating interest rate, issued and outstanding at December 31, 2025. These instruments are utilized in connection with normal business activities.
Solventum Related Debt: In the first quarter of 2024, Solventum, prior to the Separation discussed in Note 2, issued a total of $8.4 billion in aggregate principal amount of senior unsecured debt and term loans. Obligations under these notes and loans became, as transferred obligations, the sole responsibility of Solventum after the Separation.
Fixed-to-Floating Interest Rate Swaps: In 2021, 3M entered into interest rate swaps with an aggregate notional amount of $800 million that converted $500 million and $300 million of 3M’s $1 billion and $650 million principal amount of fixed rate notes due in 2049 and 2050, respectively, into floating rate debt, based on a SOFR index (as subsequently amended) for the portion of their terms through mid-2028. During 2025, 3M terminated these fixed-to-floating interest rate swaps. At the time of termination, a cumulative basis adjustment of $47 million related to the terminated swaps existed on the carrying value of these notes and will be amortized as interest expense over their remaining term.
Long-Term Debt Issuances: In 2025, 3M issued $1.1 billion aggregate principal amount of fixed rate unsecured notes. These were comprised of $550 million of 5-year notes due 2030 with a coupon rate of 4.80% and $550 million of 10-year notes due 2035 with a coupon rate of 5.15%.
Long-Term Debt Maturities and Extinguishments: In 2025, 3M repaid $1.8 billion aggregate principal amount of primarily fixed-rate notes that matured. In 2024, 3M repaid $1.1 billion aggregate principal amount of fixed-rate notes that matured. In 2023, 3M repaid $1.2 billion and €600 million aggregate principal amount of fixed-rate notes that matured.
Note 13. Pension and Postretirement Benefit Plans
3M has company-sponsored retirement plans covering substantially all U.S. employees and many employees outside the United States. In total, 3M has over 70 defined benefit plans in 27 countries. Pension benefits associated with these plans generally are based on each participant’s years of service, compensation, and age at retirement or termination. The primary U.S. defined-benefit pension plan was closed to new participants effective January 1, 2009. In December 2023, the Company committed to the future freeze of U.S. defined benefit pension benefits for non-union U.S. employees, effective December 31, 2028. The Company also provides certain postretirement health care and life insurance benefits for its U.S. employees who reach retirement age while employed by the Company and were employed by the Company prior to January 1, 2016. Most international employees and retirees are covered by government health care programs. The cost of company-provided postretirement health care plans for international employees is not material and is combined with U.S. amounts in the tables that follow.
The Company has made deposits for its defined benefit plans with independent trustees. Trust funds and deposits with insurance companies are maintained to provide pension benefits to plan participants and their beneficiaries. There are no plan assets in the non-qualified plan due to its nature. For its U.S. postretirement health care benefit plan, the Company has set aside amounts at least equal to annual benefit payments with an independent trustee.
The Company also sponsors employee savings plans under Section 401(k) of the Internal Revenue Code. These plans are offered to substantially all U.S. employees. For eligible employees hired prior to January 1, 2009, employee 401(k) contributions of up to 5% of eligible compensation are matched in cash at rates of 45% or 60%, depending on the plan in which the employee participates. Employees hired on or after January 1, 2009, receive a cash match of 100% for employee 401(k) contributions of up to 5% of eligible compensation and receive an employer retirement income account cash contribution of 3% of the participant’s total eligible compensation. All contributions are invested in a number of investment funds pursuant to employees’ elections. 3M subsidiaries in various international countries also participate in defined contribution plans. The total employer contributions, including discontinued operations, related to these plans were as follows:
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | |
| Total employer contributions (millions) | | 2025 | | 2024 | | 2023 |
| U.S. defined contribution plans | | $ | 157 | | | $ | 172 | | | $ | 241 | |
| International defined contribution plans | | 86 | | | 87 | | | 108 | |
The following tables include a reconciliation of the beginning and ending balances of the benefit obligation and the fair value of plan assets as well as a summary of the related amounts recognized in the Company’s consolidated balance sheet as of December 31 of the respective years. 3M also has certain non-qualified unfunded pension and postretirement benefit plans, inclusive of plans related to supplement/excess benefits for employees impacted by particular relocations and other matters, that individually and in the aggregate are not significant and which are not included in the tables that follow. The obligations for these plans are included within other liabilities in the Company’s consolidated balance sheet and aggregated to less than $30 million as of December 31, 2025 and 2024.
In connection with the completion of the April 1, 2024 separation of Solventum (see Note 2), approximately $2.7 billion of pension and postretirement benefit obligations and $2.4 billion of plan assets for certain pension and postretirement benefit plans, were transferred to Solventum, which is treated as a discontinued operation. These are reflected in the "Acquisitions/(Divestitures)" row in the table below. In addition, as discussed later in this Note 13, in 2024 3M transferred a portion of its U.S. pension payment obligations and related plan assets to an insurance company. Those transfers are included as settlements and applicable portion in actuarial gain in the tables below.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | Qualified and non-qualified pension benefits | | Postretirement benefits |
| | United States | | International | |
| (Millions) | | 2025 | | 2024 | | 2025 | | 2024 | | 2025 | | 2024 |
| Change in benefit obligation | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Benefit obligation at beginning of year | | $ | 8,362 | | | $ | 13,498 | | | $ | 4,436 | | | $ | 5,571 | | | $ | 1,503 | | | $ | 1,897 | |
| Acquisitions/(divestitures) | | — | | | (1,850) | | | (22) | | | (615) | | | — | | | (243) | |
| Service cost | | 102 | | | 123 | | | 49 | | | 63 | | | 17 | | | 21 | |
| Interest cost | | 433 | | | 522 | | | 198 | | | 200 | | | 73 | | | 80 | |
| Participant contributions | | — | | | — | | | 6 | | | 7 | | | — | | | — | |
| Foreign exchange rate changes | | — | | | — | | | 402 | | | (284) | | | 3 | | | (16) | |
| Plan amendments | | — | | | — | | | 1 | | | — | | | (144) | | | — | |
| Actuarial (gain) loss | | 226 | | | (721) | | | (178) | | | (198) | | | 19 | | | (112) | |
| Benefit payments | | (705) | | | (823) | | | (258) | | | (249) | | | (110) | | | (118) | |
| Settlements, curtailments, special termination benefits and other | | — | | | (2,387) | | | (19) | | | (59) | | | (5) | | | (6) | |
| Benefit obligation at end of year | | 8,418 | | | 8,362 | | | 4,615 | | | 4,436 | | | 1,356 | | | 1,503 | |
| Change in plan assets | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Fair value of plan assets at beginning of year | | 7,498 | | | 12,348 | | | 5,397 | | | 6,341 | | | 761 | | | 980 | |
| Acquisitions/(divestitures) | | — | | | (1,808) | | | — | | | (455) | | | — | | | (130) | |
| Actual return on plan assets | | 781 | | | 99 | | | 82 | | | 38 | | | 59 | | | 21 | |
| Company contributions | | 67 | | | 69 | | | 65 | | | 71 | | | 13 | | | 14 | |
| Participant contributions | | — | | | — | | | 6 | | | 7 | | | — | | | — | |
| Foreign exchange rate changes | | — | | | — | | | 471 | | | (299) | | | — | | | — | |
| Benefit payments | | (705) | | | (823) | | | (258) | | | (249) | | | (110) | | | (118) | |
| Settlements, curtailments, special termination benefits and other | | — | | | (2,387) | | | (23) | | | (57) | | | (5) | | | (6) | |
| Fair value of plan assets at end of year | | 7,641 | | | 7,498 | | | 5,740 | | | 5,397 | | | 718 | | | 761 | |
| Funded status at end of year | | $ | (777) | | | $ | (864) | | | $ | 1,125 | | | $ | 961 | | | $ | (638) | | | $ | (742) | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | Qualified and non-qualified pension benefits | | Postretirement benefits |
| | United States | | International | |
| (Millions) | | December 31, 2025 | | December 31, 2024 | | December 31, 2025 | | December 31, 2024 | | December 31, 2025 | | December 31, 2024 |
| Amounts recognized in the consolidated balance sheet |
| Non-current assets | | $ | — | | | $ | — | | | $ | 1,406 | | | $ | 1,243 | | | $ | — | | | $ | — | |
| Accrued benefit cost | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Current liabilities | | (40) | | | (50) | | | (14) | | | (13) | | | (11) | | | (12) | |
| Non-current liabilities | | (737) | | | (814) | | | (267) | | | (269) | | | (627) | | | (730) | |
| Net amount recognized | | $ | (777) | | | $ | (864) | | | $ | 1,125 | | | $ | 961 | | | $ | (638) | | | $ | (742) | |
| Amounts recognized in accumulated other comprehensive income |
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Net actuarial loss (gain) | | $ | 2,645 | | | $ | 2,922 | | | $ | 384 | | | $ | 347 | | | $ | 278 | | | $ | 279 | |
| Prior service cost (credit) | | — | | | — | | | 7 | | | 7 | | | (222) | | | (94) | |
| Ending balance | | $ | 2,645 | | | $ | 2,922 | | | $ | 391 | | | $ | 354 | | | $ | 56 | | | $ | 185 | |
The pension accumulated benefit obligation represents the actuarial present value of benefits based on employee service and compensation as of the measurement date and does not include an assumption about future compensation levels. The following table summarizes the total accumulated benefit obligations, the accumulated benefit obligations and fair value of plan assets for defined benefit pension plans with accumulated benefit obligations in excess of plan assets, and the projected benefit obligation and fair value of plan assets for defined benefit pension plans with projected benefit obligation in excess of plan assets as of December 31:
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | Qualified and non-qualified pension plans |
| | United States | | International |
| (Millions) | | December 31, 2025 | | December 31, 2024 | | December 31, 2025 | | December 31, 2024 |
| Accumulated benefit obligation | | $ | 8,231 | | | $ | 8,094 | | | $ | 4,486 | | | $ | 4,289 | |
| Plans with accumulated benefit obligation in excess of plan assets |
| Accumulated benefit obligation | | 8,231 | | | 8,094 | | | 698 | | | 655 | |
| Fair value of plan assets | | 7,641 | | | 7,498 | | | 433 | | | 405 | |
| Plans with projected benefit obligation in excess of plan assets |
| Projected benefit obligation | | 8,418 | | | 8,362 | | | 769 | | | 695 | |
| Fair value of plan assets | | 7,641 | | | 7,498 | | | 467 | | | 416 | |
Components of Net Periodic Cost and Other Amounts Recognized in Other Comprehensive Income:
The service cost component of defined benefit net periodic benefit cost is recorded in cost of sales, selling, general and administrative expenses, and research, development and related expenses. As discussed in Note 7, the other components of net periodic benefit cost are reflected in other expense (income), net. Components of net periodic benefit cost and other supplemental information for the years ended December 31 follow:
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | Qualified and non-qualified pension benefits | | Postretirement benefits |
| | United States | | International | |
| (Millions) | | 2025 | | 2024 | | 2023 | | 2025 | | 2024 | | 2023 | | 2025 | | 2024 | | 2023 |
| Net periodic benefit cost (benefit) | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Operating expense | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Service cost | | $ | 102 | | | $ | 123 | | | $ | 171 | | | $ | 49 | | | $ | 63 | | | $ | 76 | | | $ | 17 | | | $ | 21 | | | $ | 27 | |
| Non-operating expense | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Interest cost | | 433 | | | 522 | | | 662 | | | 198 | | | 200 | | | 225 | | | 73 | | | 80 | | | 87 | |
| Expected return on plan assets | | (569) | | | (714) | | | (974) | | | (278) | | | (322) | | | (307) | | | (57) | | | (65) | | | (77) | |
| Amortization of transition asset | | — | | | — | | | — | | | — | | | 2 | | | 2 | | | — | | | — | | | — | |
| Amortization of prior service benefit | | — | | | (15) | | | (24) | | | 1 | | | 1 | | | 2 | | | (15) | | | (22) | | | (31) | |
| Amortization of net actuarial loss | | 277 | | | 307 | | | 292 | | | 8 | | | 11 | | | 7 | | | 16 | | | 20 | | | 9 | |
| Settlements, curtailments, special termination benefits and other | | 14 | | | 821 | | | (5) | | | 2 | | | 1 | | | 3 | | | 1 | | | 1 | | | — | |
| Total non-operating expense (benefit) | | 155 | | | 921 | | | (49) | | | (69) | | | (107) | | | (68) | | | 18 | | | 14 | | | (12) | |
| Total net periodic benefit cost (benefit) | | $ | 257 | | | $ | 1,044 | | | $ | 122 | | | $ | (20) | | | $ | (44) | | | $ | 8 | | | $ | 35 | | | $ | 35 | | | $ | 15 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Service cost - continuing operations | | $ | 102 | | | $ | 116 | | | $ | 139 | | | $ | 49 | | | $ | 58 | | | $ | 60 | | | $ | 17 | | | $ | 20 | | | $ | 23 | |
| Service cost - discontinued operations | | — | | | 7 | | | 32 | | | — | | | 5 | | | 16 | | | — | | | 1 | | | 4 | |
| Total service cost | | 102 | | | 123 | | | 171 | | | 49 | | | 63 | | | 76 | | | 17 | | | 21 | | | 27 | |
| Total non-operating expense (benefit) - continuing operations | | 155 | | | 921 | | | (32) | | | (69) | | | (107) | | | (67) | | | 18 | | | 14 | | | (10) | |
| Total non-operating expense (benefit) - discontinued operations | | — | | | — | | | (17) | | | — | | | — | | | (1) | | | — | | | — | | | (2) | |
| Total non-operating expense (benefit) | | 155 | | | 921 | | | (49) | | | (69) | | | (107) | | | (68) | | | 18 | | | 14 | | | (12) | |
| Total net periodic benefit cost (benefit) - continuing operations | | 257 | | | 1,037 | | | 107 | | | (20) | | | (49) | | | (7) | | | 35 | | | 34 | | | 13 | |
| Total net periodic benefit cost (benefit) - discontinued operations | | — | | | 7 | | | 15 | | | — | | | 5 | | | 15 | | | — | | | 1 | | | 2 | |
| Total net periodic benefit cost (benefit) | | $ | 257 | | | $ | 1,044 | | | $ | 122 | | | $ | (20) | | | $ | (44) | | | $ | 8 | | | $ | 35 | | | $ | 35 | | | $ | 15 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Other changes in plan assets and benefit obligations recognized in other comprehensive (income) loss | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Amortization of transition asset | | $ | — | | | $ | — | | | $ | — | | | $ | — | | | $ | (2) | | | $ | (2) | | | $ | — | | | $ | — | | | $ | — | |
| Prior service cost (benefit) | | — | | | — | | | — | | | 1 | | | — | | | (1) | | | (144) | | | — | | | — | |
| Amortization of prior service benefit | | — | | | 15 | | | 24 | | | (1) | | | (1) | | | (2) | | | 15 | | | 22 | | | 31 | |
| Net actuarial (gain) loss | | 14 | | | (105) | | | 495 | | | 21 | | | 85 | | | 166 | | | 17 | | | (69) | | | 100 | |
| Amortization of net actuarial loss | | (277) | | | (307) | | | (292) | | | (8) | | | (11) | | | (7) | | | (16) | | | (20) | | | (9) | |
| Foreign currency | | — | | | — | | | — | | | 26 | | | (36) | | | 3 | | | — | | | 2 | | | — | |
| Settlements, curtailments, special termination benefits and other | | (14) | | | (821) | | | 5 | | | (2) | | | (1) | | | — | | | (1) | | | (1) | | | — | |
| Total recognized in other comprehensive (income) loss | | $ | (277) | | | $ | (1,218) | | | $ | 232 | | | $ | 37 | | | $ | 34 | | | $ | 157 | | | $ | (129) | | | $ | (66) | | | $ | 122 | |
| Total recognized in net periodic benefit cost (benefit) and other comprehensive (income) loss | | $ | (20) | | | $ | (174) | | | $ | 354 | | | $ | 17 | | | $ | (10) | | | $ | 165 | | | $ | (94) | | | $ | (31) | | | $ | 137 | |
Major actuarial assumptions used in determining the benefit obligations and net periodic benefit (income) cost for the Company's significant benefit plans are presented in the following table as weighted averages:
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | Qualified and non-qualified pension benefits | | Postretirement benefits |
| | United States | | International | |
| | 2025 | | 2024 | | 2023 | | 2025 | | 2024 | | 2023 | | 2025 | | 2024 | | 2023 |
Assumptions used to determine benefit obligations as of December 31: |
| Discount rate | | 5.41 | % | | 5.64 | % | | 4.98 | % | | 4.82 | % | | 4.44 | % | | 3.99 | % | | 5.38 | % | | 5.68 | % | | 5.06 | % |
| Compensation rate increase | | 3.77 | | | 3.77 | | | 3.77 | | | 2.90 | | | 2.88 | | | 2.88 | | | N/A | | N/A | | N/A |
| Assumptions used to determine net cost for years ended December 31: |
| Discount rate - service cost | | 5.75 | % | | 5.35 | % | | 5.26 | % | | 3.73 | % | | 3.77 | % | | 4.06 | % | | 5.75 | % | | 5.30 | % | | 5.39 | % |
| Discount rate - interest cost | | 5.41 | | | 5.21 | | | 5.11 | | | 4.25 | | | 4.06 | | | 4.39 | | | 5.31 | | | 5.23 | | | 5.25 | |
| Expected return on assets | | 8.00 | | | 7.63 | | | 7.50 | | | 5.00 | | | 5.31 | | | 4.61 | | | 8.17 | | | 7.85 | | | 7.58 | |
| Compensation rate increase | | 3.77 | | | 3.77 | | | 3.37 | | | 2.88 | | | 2.89 | | | 2.86 | | | N/A | | N/A | | N/A |
The Company provides a savings account-based postretirement health care benefit to eligible retirees in the U.S. The contributions provided by the Company to the health savings accounts previously increased 3% per year for employees who retired prior to January 1, 2016 and increase 1.5% for employees who retire on or after January 1, 2016. Therefore, the Company no longer has material exposure to health care cost inflation. In 2025, 3M modified this plan. Beginning in 2026, contributions provided by 3M to the health savings accounts will no longer be increased each year by a notional rate. The modification required remeasurement of the plan in the third quarter of 2025, resulting in a decrease of approximately $110 million in the non-current liability for pension and postretirement benefits (and corresponding decrease in accumulated comprehensive loss, before deferred taxes).
The Company determines the discount rate and related assumption used to measure plan liabilities as of the applicable measurement date for the pension and postretirement benefit plans. The annual measurement date is December 31, but certain events may require a remeasurement as of a particular date. The discount rate reflects the current rate at which the associated liabilities could be effectively settled at the end of the year. The Company sets its rate to reflect the yield of a portfolio of high quality, fixed-income debt instruments that would produce cash flows sufficient in timing and amount to settle projected future benefits. Using this methodology, the Company determined discount rates for the U.S. pension plans and postretirement benefit plans as of December 31, 2025 as displayed in the table above. The primary reasons for the actuarial (gain)/loss impacting the benefit obligations of the plans for the periods presented were changes in discount rate. A decrease in the discount rate increases the Projected Benefit Obligation (PBO) while an increase in the rate decreases the PBO. As discussed further above, during 2025 certain events required remeasurement of a U.S. postretirement health care benefit plan.
The Company measures service cost and interest cost separately using the spot yield curve approach applied to each corresponding obligation. Service costs are determined based on duration-specific spot rates applied to the service cost cash flows. The interest cost calculation is determined by applying duration-specific spot rates to the year-by-year projected benefit payments. The spot yield curve approach does not affect the measurement of the total benefit obligations as the change in service and interest costs offset in the actuarial gains and losses recorded in other comprehensive income.
For the primary U.S. qualified pension plan, the Company’s assumption for the expected return on plan assets was 8% in 2025. Projected returns are based primarily on broad, publicly traded equity and fixed-income indices and forward-looking estimates of active portfolio and investment management. As of December 31, 2025, the Company’s 2026 expected long-term rate of return on U.S. plan assets is 8%. The expected return assumption is based on the strategic asset allocation of the plan, long term capital market return expectations and expected performance from active investment management. The 2025 expected long-term rate of return is based on an initial asset allocation assumption of 18% global equities, 15% private equities, 58% fixed-income and private credit investments, and 9% absolute return investments independent of traditional performance benchmarks, along with positive returns from active investment management. Return on assets assumptions for international pension and other post-retirement benefit plans are calculated on a plan-by-plan basis using plan asset allocations and expected long-term rate of return assumptions.
The Society of Actuaries did not release an update to the Scale MP-2021 in 2024 or 2025.
In 2024, primarily in the second quarter, 3M recorded a non-cash pension settlement charge of approximately $808 million reflected in other expense (income), net as a result of transferring approximately $2.5 billion of its U.S. pension payment obligations and related plan assets to an insurance company. The pension risk transfer required remeasurement of the plan prior to the calculation of the settlement charge. The net impact of the pension risk transfer and the second quarter 2024 remeasurement was a decrease of approximately $220 million in the non-current liability for pensions (and corresponding decrease in accumulated comprehensive loss, before deferred taxes). Assumptions used for this remeasurement included discount rates determined using June 30, 2024 market conditions and calculated using the same methodology as discussed above. Using this methodology, the Company determined a discount rate of 5.43% for the U.S. pension plan as of June 30, 2024. The Company also reduced the expected return on assets assumption determined using June 30, 2024 market conditions and calculated using the same methodology as used at the annual measurement as of December 31, 2023. All other assumptions were consistent with the December 31, 2023 disclosures. This remeasurement impacted net periodic benefit cost for the remainder of 2024.
As of March 31, 2024, 3M transferred eligible U.S. Solventum employees and retirees to new U.S. defined benefit pension and postretirement plans with the same benefits of their current plans. The transfer required remeasurement of the plans prior to the calculation of this split. The net impact of the remeasurement was a decrease of approximately $70 million in the non-current liability for pension and postretirement benefits (and corresponding decrease in accumulated comprehensive loss, before deferred taxes). Assumptions used for this remeasurement included discount rates determined using March 31, 2024 market conditions and calculated using the same methodology as discussed above. All other assumptions were consistent with the December 31, 2023 disclosures. Using this methodology, the Company determined a discount rate of 5.22% for the U.S. pension plans and 5.19% for the U.S. postretirement benefit plans as of March 31, 2024, which were increases from the rates used as of December 31, 2023 in the table above. This remeasurement did not impact consolidated income for the three months ended March 31, 2024, but impacted net periodic benefit cost for the remainder of 2024. As of March 31, 2024, there were several small international pension plans remeasured for purposes of transferring Solventum employees to new pension plans, the impact of which was not material.
Company contributions to defined benefit pension and postretirement plans were as follows:
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Total employer contributions (millions) | | 2025 | | 2024 |
U.S. and international defined benefit pension plans | | $ | 132 | | | $ | 140 | |
Postretirement defined benefit plans | | 13 | | | 14 | |
In 2026, the Company expects to contribute an amount in the range of $100 million to $150 million of cash to its U.S. and international retirement plans. The Company does not have a required minimum cash pension contribution obligation for its U.S. plans in 2026. Future contributions will depend on market conditions, interest rates and other factors.
Future Pension and Postretirement Benefit Payments: The following table provides the estimated pension and postretirement benefit payments that are payable from the plans to participants.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | Qualified and non-qualified pension benefits | | Postretirement benefits |
| (Millions) | | United States | | International | |
| 2026 benefit payments | | $ | 699 | | | $ | 284 | | | $ | 126 | |
| 2027 benefit payments | | 698 | | | 290 | | | 126 | |
| 2028 benefit payments | | 698 | | | 301 | | | 125 | |
| 2029 benefit payments | | 692 | | | 302 | | | 124 | |
| 2030 benefit payments | | 683 | | | 313 | | | 124 | |
| Next five years | | 3,216 | | | 1,587 | | | 548 | |
Plan Asset Management: 3M’s investment strategy for its pension and postretirement plans is to manage the funds on a going-concern basis. The primary goal of the trust funds is to meet the obligations as required. The secondary goal is to earn the highest rate of return possible, without jeopardizing its primary goal, and without subjecting the Company to an undue amount of contribution risk. Fund returns are used to help finance present and future obligations to the extent possible within actuarially determined funding limits and tax-determined asset limits, thus reducing the potential need for additional contributions from 3M. The investment strategy has used long duration cash bonds and derivative instruments to offset a significant portion of the interest rate sensitivity of U.S. pension liabilities.
Normally, 3M does not buy or sell any of its own securities as a direct investment for its pension and other postretirement benefit funds. However, due to external investment management of the funds, the plans may indirectly buy, sell or hold 3M securities. The aggregate amount of 3M securities are not considered to be material relative to the aggregate fund percentages.
The discussion that follows references the fair value measurements of certain assets in terms of levels 1, 2 and 3. See Note 16 for descriptions of these levels. While the Company believes the valuation methods are appropriate and consistent with other market participants, the use of different methodologies or assumptions to determine the fair value of certain financial instruments could result in a different estimate of fair value at the reporting date.
U.S. Pension Plans and Postretirement Benefit Plan Assets: In order to achieve the investment objectives in the U.S. pension plans and U.S. postretirement benefit plans, the investment policies include a target strategic asset allocation. The investment policies allow some tolerance around the target in recognition that market fluctuations and illiquidity of some investments may cause the allocation to a specific asset class to vary from the target allocation, potentially for long periods of time. Acceptable ranges have been designed to allow for deviation from strategic targets and to allow for the opportunity for tactical over- and under-weights. The portfolios will normally be rebalanced when the quarter-end asset allocation deviates from acceptable ranges. The allocation is reviewed regularly by the named fiduciary of the plans. Approximately 91% of the postretirement benefit plan assets are in a 401(h) account. The 401(h) account assets are in the same trust as the primary U.S. pension plan and invested with the same investment objectives as the primary U.S. pension plan.
International Pension Plans Assets: Outside the U.S., pension plan assets are typically managed by decentralized fiduciary committees. The disclosure below of asset categories is presented in aggregate for over 25 defined benefit plans in 18 countries; however, there is significant variation in asset allocation policy from country to country. Local regulations, local funding rules, and local financial and tax considerations are part of the funding and investment allocation process in each country. The Company provides standard funding and investment guidance to all international plans with more focused guidance to the larger plans. Each plan has its own strategic asset allocation. The asset allocations are reviewed periodically and rebalanced when necessary.
The fair values of the assets held by the U.S. pension, international pension, and postretirement benefit plans by asset class are as follows:
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | Fair value measurements using inputs considered as | | Investments measured at net asset value* | | Fair value at December 31, |
| | Level 1 | | Level 2 | | Level 3 | | |
| Asset class (millions) | | 2025 | | 2024 | | 2025 | | 2024 | | 2025 | | 2024 | | 2025 | | 2024 | | 2025 | | 2024 |
| U.S. pension plans | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Equities | | $ | 1,537 | | | $ | 1,318 | | | $ | — | | | $ | — | | | $ | — | | | $ | — | | | $ | — | | | $ | — | | | $ | 1,537 | | | $ | 1,318 | |
Fixed income and private credit | | 1,594 | | | 1,227 | | | 2,171 | | | 2,774 | | | — | | | — | | | 249 | | | 336 | | | 4,014 | | | 4,337 | |
| Private equity | | — | | | — | | | — | | | — | | | — | | | 13 | | | 1,062 | | | 1,179 | | | 1,062 | | | 1,192 | |
| Absolute return | | — | | | — | | | — | | | 7 | | | 1 | | | — | | | 602 | | | 563 | | | 603 | | | 570 | |
Cash and cash equivalents | | 152 | | | 38 | | | 14 | | | 14 | | | — | | | — | | | 335 | | | 276 | | | 501 | | | 328 | |
| Total | | $ | 3,283 | | | $ | 2,583 | | | $ | 2,185 | | | $ | 2,795 | | | $ | 1 | | | $ | 13 | | | $ | 2,248 | | | $ | 2,354 | | | $ | 7,717 | | | $ | 7,745 | |
| Other items to reconcile to fair value of plan assets | | (76) | | | (247) | |
| Fair value of plan assets | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | $ | 7,641 | | | $ | 7,498 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| International pension plans | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Equities | | $ | 223 | | | $ | 231 | | | $ | 118 | | | $ | 437 | | | $ | 1 | | | $ | 1 | | | $ | 2 | | | $ | 2 | | | $ | 344 | | | $ | 671 | |
Fixed income and private credit | | 515 | | | 150 | | | 3,390 | | | 3,248 | | | 5 | | | 2 | | | 1 | | | 1 | | | 3,911 | | | 3,401 | |
| Private equity | | — | | | — | | | 24 | | | 21 | | | 2 | | | 1 | | | 782 | | | 736 | | | 808 | | | 758 | |
| Absolute return | | — | | | 5 | | | 43 | | | 44 | | | 532 | | | 503 | | | 108 | | | 112 | | | 683 | | | 664 | |
Cash and cash equivalents | | 80 | | | 99 | | | 53 | | | 58 | | | — | | | — | | | — | | | — | | | 133 | | | 157 | |
| Total | | $ | 818 | | | $ | 485 | | | $ | 3,628 | | | $ | 3,808 | | | $ | 540 | | | $ | 507 | | | $ | 893 | | | $ | 851 | | | $ | 5,879 | | | $ | 5,651 | |
| Other items to reconcile to fair value of plan assets | | (139) | | | (254) | |
| Fair value of plan assets | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | $ | 5,740 | | | $ | 5,397 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Postretirement benefit plans | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Equities | | $ | 131 | | | $ | 122 | | | $ | — | | | $ | — | | | $ | — | | | $ | — | | | $ | — | | | $ | — | | | $ | 131 | | | $ | 122 | |
Fixed income and private credit | | 201 | | | 129 | | | 185 | | | 305 | | | — | | | — | | | 21 | | | 31 | | | 407 | | | 465 | |
| Private equity | | — | | | — | | | — | | | — | | | — | | | 1 | | | 91 | | | 110 | | | 91 | | | 111 | |
| Absolute return | | — | | | — | | | — | | | 4 | | | — | | | — | | | 51 | | | 49 | | | 51 | | | 53 | |
Cash and cash equivalents | | 14 | | | 7 | | | 1 | | | 1 | | | — | | | — | | | 29 | | | 26 | | | 44 | | | 34 | |
| Total | | $ | 346 | | | $ | 258 | | | $ | 186 | | | $ | 310 | | | $ | — | | | $ | 1 | | | $ | 192 | | | $ | 216 | | | $ | 724 | | | $ | 785 | |
| Other items to reconcile to fair value of plan assets | | (6) | | | (24) | |
| Fair value of plan assets | | $ | 718 | | | $ | 761 | |
* In accordance with ASC 820-10, certain investments that are measured at fair value using the net asset value (NAV) per share (or its equivalent) as a practical expedient have not been classified in the fair value hierarchy. The NAV is based on the fair value of the underlying assets owned by the fund, minus its liabilities then divided by the number of units outstanding and is determined by the investment manager or custodian of the fund. The fair value amounts presented in this table are intended to permit reconciliation of the fair value hierarchy to the amounts presented in the fair value of plan assets.
Equities consist primarily of mandates in public equity securities managed to various public equity indices. Publicly traded equities are valued at the closing price reported in the active market in which the individual securities are traded.
Fixed income and private credit include U.S. government and government agencies securities, as well as certain domestic and foreign government securities from an international pension plan perspective; corporate bonds, debt securities and notes; private credit partnerships; asset backed securities; collateralized mortgage obligations; private placements; derivative investments; and obligations under repurchase arrangements. U.S. government and government agency and domestic and foreign government securities are valued at the closing price reported if traded on an active market in which the individual security is traded. Corporate bonds, debt securities and notes; asset backed securities; government securities not traded on an active market; and collateralized mortgage obligations are valued at either the yields currently available on comparable securities of issuers with similar credit ratings or valued under a discounted cash flow approach that utilizes observable inputs, such as current yields of similar instruments, but includes adjustments for certain risks that may not be observable such as credit and liquidity risks. Private placements are valued by the custodian using recognized pricing services and sources. Private credit partnership investments are valued at NAV as described above. Derivative instruments such as credit default swaps, interest rate swaps are valued by the custodian using closing market swap curves and market derived inputs. Futures are valued at the closing price reported in active market in which the derivative is traded. Repurchase obligations of $597 million and $51 million are net within level 2 investments in U.S. pension plans and Postretirement benefit plans, respectively, as of December 31, 2025. There were no repurchase obligations as of December 31, 2024.
Private equity funds consist of partnership interests in a variety of funds which are valued at NAV as described above. Real estate consists of property funds and REITS (Real Estate Investment Trusts). REITS are valued at NAV with published prices provided by the custodians.
Absolute return consists primarily of hedge funds, hedge fund of funds or other fund vehicles; insurance contracts and derivative instruments. Hedge funds are valued at NAV as described above. The other fund vehicles consist primarily of instruments that are valued at either the yields currently available on comparable securities of issuers with similar credit ratings or valued under a discounted cash flow approach that utilizes observable inputs, such as current yields of similar instruments, but includes adjustments for certain risks that may not be observable such as credit and liquidity risk ratings. Insurance consists of insurance contracts, which are valued using cash surrender values which is the amount the plan would receive if the contract was cashed out at year end. Derivative instruments consist of various swaps and bond futures that are used to help manage risks and are valued by the custodian using closing market swap curves and market derived input.
Cash and cash equivalents primarily consist of collective short-term investment funds valued at NAV as described above, and cash.
Other items to reconcile to fair value of plan assets include, interest receivables, amounts due for securities sold, amounts payable for securities purchased, and interest payable. As of December 31, 2024 the net payable for international pension plans included a payable of $88 million to the Canadian Solventum pension.
The level 3 activity attributable to U.S. pension, international pension and postretirement plan assets was insignificant for the periods ended December 31, 2025 and 2024.
Note 14. Supplier Finance Program Obligations
Under supplier finance programs, 3M agrees to pay participating banks the stated amount of confirmed invoices from its designated suppliers on the original maturity dates of the invoices, generally within 90 days of the invoice date. 3M or the banks may terminate the agreements with advance notice. Separately, the banks may have arrangements with the suppliers that provide them the option to request early payment from the banks for invoices confirmed by 3M. 3M's outstanding balances of confirmed invoices in the programs as of December 31, 2025 and 2024 were each approximately $0.3 billion. These amounts are included within accounts payable on 3M's consolidated balance sheet. Activity in each of 2025 and 2024 included approximately $1.5 billion of invoices confirmed and $1.5 billion of invoices paid and other adjustments.
Note 15. Derivatives
The Company uses interest rate swaps, cross-currency swaps, and forward and option contracts to manage risks generally associated with foreign exchange rate and interest rate fluctuations. The information that follows explains the various types of derivatives and financial instruments used by 3M, how and why 3M uses such instruments, how such instruments are accounted for, and how such instruments impact 3M’s financial position and performance.
Additional information with respect to derivatives is included elsewhere as follows:
•Impact on other comprehensive income of non-derivative hedging and derivative instruments is included in Note 8.
•Fair value of derivative instruments is included in Note 16.
•Derivatives and/or hedging instruments associated with the Company’s long-term debt are also described in Note 12.
Cash Flow Hedges: For derivative instruments that are designated and qualify as cash flow hedges, the gain or loss on the derivative is reported as a component of other comprehensive income and reclassified into earnings in the same period during which the hedged transaction affects earnings. Gains and losses on the derivative representing hedge components excluded from the assessment of effectiveness are recognized in current earnings.
Cash Flow Hedging - Foreign Currency Forward and Option Contracts: The Company may enter into foreign exchange forward and option contracts to hedge against the effect of exchange rate fluctuations on cash flows denominated in foreign currencies. These transactions are designated as cash flow hedges. The settlement of these derivatives will result in reclassifications (from accumulated other comprehensive income) to earnings in the period during which the hedged transactions affect earnings. The maximum length of time over which 3M hedges its exposure to the variability in future cash flows of the forecasted transactions is 36 months.
Cash Flow Hedging — Interest Rate Contracts: The Company may use forward starting interest rate contracts and treasury rate lock contracts to hedge exposure to variability in cash flows from interest payments on forecasted debt issuances. The amortization of gains and losses on forward starting interest rate swaps is included in the table further below as part of the amounts reclassified from accumulated other comprehensive income into income.
The amount of pre-tax gain (loss) recognized in other comprehensive income (loss) related to derivative instruments designated as cash flow hedges is follows:
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Pretax gain (loss) recognized in other comprehensive income (loss) on derivatives |
| | | | | | |
| (Millions) | | | | | | | | | | 2025 | | 2024 | | 2023 |
| Foreign currency forward/option contracts | | | | | | | | | | $ | (77) | | | $ | 128 | | | $ | 81 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Fair Value Hedges: For derivative instruments that are designated and qualify as fair value hedges, the gain or loss on the derivatives as well as the offsetting loss or gain on the hedged item attributable to the hedged risk are recognized in current earnings.
Fair Value Hedging - Interest Rate Swaps: The Company manages interest expense using a mix of fixed and floating rate debt. To help manage borrowing costs, the Company may enter into interest rate swaps. Under these arrangements, the Company agrees to exchange, at specified intervals, the difference between fixed and floating interest amounts calculated by reference to an agreed-upon notional principal amount. The mark-to-market of these fair value hedges is recorded as gains or losses in interest expense and is offset by the gain or loss of the underlying debt instrument, which also is recorded in interest expense.
As further discussed in Note 12, during 2025, 3M terminated fixed-to-floating interest rate swaps that were entered into in 2021, returning $800 million of notes due in 2049 and 2050 to fixed-rate debt.
The following amounts were recorded on the consolidated balance sheet related to cumulative basis adjustments for active fair value hedges, as well as remaining amounts for discontinued fair value hedges:
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | Carrying value of the hedged (and formerly hedged) liabilities | | Cumulative amount of fair value hedging adjustment included in carrying value of hedged liabilities for |
| Location on the consolidated balance sheet (millions) | | | Active hedges | | Discontinued hedges |
| December 31, 2025 | | December 31, 2024 | | December 31, 2025 | | December 31, 2024 | | December 31, 2025 | | December 31, 2024 |
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Long-term debt | | $ | 959 | | $ | 924 | | $ | — | | $ | (81) | | $ | (44) | | $ | 2 |
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Net Investment Hedges: The Company may use derivative and non-derivative (foreign currency denominated debt) instruments to hedge portions of the Company’s investment in foreign subsidiaries and manage foreign exchange risk. For instruments that are designated and qualify as hedges of net investments in foreign operations and that meet the effectiveness requirements, the net gains or losses attributable to changes in spot exchange rates are recorded in cumulative translation within other comprehensive income. The remainder of the change in value of such instruments is recorded in earnings. Recognition in earnings of amounts previously recorded in cumulative translation is limited to circumstances such as complete or substantially complete liquidation of the net investment in the hedged foreign operation. To the extent foreign currency denominated debt is not designated in or is de-designated from a net investment hedge relationship, changes in value of that portion of foreign currency denominated debt due to exchange rate changes are recorded in earnings through their maturity date.
During 2025, 3M entered into foreign currency forward contracts, collared foreign currency forward contracts and cross-currency swaps with a gross notional value at inception of $3.7 billion designated in hedges of portions of its net investment in international subsidiaries.
The gross notional amount of foreign exchange forward/option contracts and cross-currency swaps designated in net investment hedges is included in the totals within the "Location, Fair Value, and Gross Notional Amounts of Derivative Instruments" table further below. In addition, at December 31, 2025, 3M had a principal amount of long-term debt instruments designated in net investment hedges totaling €1.8 billion.
The amount of gain (loss) excluded from effectiveness testing and recognized in income for instruments designated in net investment hedge relationships was not significant in each of 2025, 2024, and 2023. The amount of pre-tax gain (loss) recognized in other comprehensive income (loss) related to derivative and non-derivative instruments designated as net investment hedges are as follows.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Pretax gain (loss) recognized as cumulative translation within other comprehensive income (loss) |
| | | | | | |
| (Millions) | | | | | | | | | | 2025 | | 2024 | | 2023 |
| Foreign currency denominated debt | | | | | | | | | | $ | (233) | | | $ | 108 | | | $ | (86) | |
| Foreign currency forward/option contracts and cross-currency swaps | | | | | | | | | | (144) | | | (1) | | | (5) | |
| Total | | | | | | | | | | $ | (377) | | | $ | 107 | | | $ | (91) | |
Derivatives Not Designated as Hedging Instruments: Derivatives not designated as hedging instruments include de-designated foreign currency forward and option contracts that formerly were designated in cash flow hedging relationships. 3M may de-designate a cash flow hedge before the forecasted transaction occurs if the forecasted transaction is no longer probable, if the hedge is no longer expected to be highly effective in offsetting changes in the cash flows of the forecasted transaction, or in certain other circumstances. In addition, 3M enters into foreign currency contracts that are not designated in hedging relationships to offset changes in the value of various non-functional currency denominated items including certain intercompany financing balances. These derivative instruments are not designated in hedging relationships; therefore, fair value gains and losses on these contracts are recorded in earnings. The Company does not hold or issue derivative financial instruments for trading purposes.
Location on Statement of Income and Impact of Cash Flow and Fair Value Derivative Instruments and Derivatives Not Designated as Hedging Instruments:
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Location and amount of gain (loss) recognized in income |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Cost of sales | | Other expense (income), net |
| (Millions) | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 2025 | | 2024 | | 2023 | | 2025 | | 2024 | | 2023 |
| Total consolidated financial statement line item amount | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | $ | 14,991 | | $ | 14,447 | | $ | 14,983 | | $ | 416 | | $ | 3 | | $ | 582 |
Pre-tax amounts recognized in income related to derivative instruments | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Information regarding cash flow and fair value hedging relationships: | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| (Gain) or loss on cash flow hedging relationships: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Foreign currency forward/option contracts: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Amount of (gain) or loss reclassified from accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) into income(a) | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | (36) | | (87) | | (152) | | — | | — | | — |
| Interest rate contracts: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Amount of (gain) or loss reclassified from accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) into income | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | — | | | — | | | — | | | 8 | | | 9 | | | 9 | |
| (Gain) or loss on fair value hedging relationships: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Interest rate swaps: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Hedged items | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | — | | | — | | | — | | | 81 | | | 6 | | | 15 | |
| Derivatives designated as hedging instruments | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | — | | | — | | | — | | | (81) | | | (6) | | | (15) | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Information regarding derivatives not designated as hedging instruments: | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| (Gain) or loss on derivatives not designated as hedging instruments: | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Foreign currency forward/option contracts | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | (46) | | | 9 | | | 9 | | | (94) | | | 22 | | | (21) | |
(a) For periods prior to the April 1, 2024 separation of Solventum, these include certain insignificant amounts attributable to discontinued operations.
Location, Fair Value, and Gross Notional Amounts of Derivative Instruments: The following tables summarize the fair value of 3M’s derivative instruments, excluding non-derivative instruments used as hedging instruments, and their location in the consolidated balance sheet. Notional amounts below are presented at period end foreign exchange rates, except for certain interest rate swaps and foreign currency forward/option contracts, which are presented using the foreign exchange rate at inception.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | Gross notional Amount | | Assets | | Liabilities |
| (Millions) | | | Location | | Fair value amount | | Location | | Fair value amount |
| December 31, | | | December 31, | | | December 31, |
| 2025 | | 2024 | | | 2025 | | 2024 | | | 2025 | | 2024 |
| Derivatives designated as hedging instruments | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Foreign currency forward/option contracts and cross-currency swaps | | $ | 1,842 | | | $ | 1,382 | | | Other current assets | | $ | 23 | | | $ | 61 | | | Other current liabilities | | $ | 35 | | | $ | 6 | |
| Foreign currency forward/option contracts and cross-currency swaps | | 8,194 | | | 4,746 | | | Other assets | | 161 | | | 78 | | | Other liabilities | | 289 | | | 65 | |
| Interest rate contracts | | — | | | 800 | | | Other assets | | — | | | — | | | Other liabilities | | — | | | 81 | |
| Total derivatives designated as hedging instruments | | | | 184 | | | 139 | | | | | 324 | | | 152 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Derivatives not designated as hedging instruments | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Foreign currency forward/option contracts | | 2,188 | | | 2,217 | | | Other current assets | | 8 | | | 3 | | | Other current liabilities | | 6 | | | 13 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Total derivative instruments | | | | | | $ | 192 | | | $ | 142 | | | | | $ | 330 | | | $ | 165 | |
Credit Risk and Offsetting of Assets and Liabilities of Derivative Instruments: The Company is exposed to credit loss in the event of nonperformance by counterparties in derivative contracts. However, the Company’s risk is limited to the fair value of the instruments. The Company actively monitors its exposure to credit risk through the use of credit approvals and credit limits, and by selecting major international banks and financial institutions as counterparties. 3M enters into master netting arrangements with counterparties when possible to mitigate credit risk in derivative transactions. A master netting arrangement may allow each counterparty to net settle amounts owed between a 3M entity and the counterparty as a result of multiple, separate derivative transactions. The Company does not anticipate nonperformance by any of these counterparties.
3M has elected to present the fair value of derivative assets and liabilities within the Company’s consolidated balance sheet on a gross basis even when derivative transactions are subject to master netting arrangements and may otherwise qualify for net presentation. However, the following tables provide information as if the Company had to offset the asset and liability balances of derivative instruments, netted in accordance with various criteria in the event of default or termination as stipulated by the terms of netting arrangements with each of the counterparties. For each counterparty, if netted, the Company would offset the asset and liability balances of all derivatives at the end of the reporting period based on the 3M entity that is a party to the transactions. Derivatives not subject to master netting agreements are not eligible for net presentation. For the periods presented, 3M has not received cash collateral from derivative counterparties.
Offsetting of Financial Assets under Master Netting Agreements with Derivative Counterparties
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| (Millions) | | Gross Amount of Derivative Assets Presented in the Consolidated Balance Sheet | | Gross Amount of Eligible Offsetting Recognized Derivative Liabilities | | Net Amount of Derivative Assets |
| December 31, | | December 31, | | December 31, |
| 2025 | | 2024 | | 2025 | | 2024 | | 2025 | | 2024 |
| Derivatives subject to master netting agreements | | 192 | | 142 | | 175 | | 64 | | 17 | | 78 |
Offsetting of Financial Liabilities under Master Netting Agreements with Derivative Counterparties
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| (Millions) | | Gross Amount of Derivative Liabilities Presented in the Consolidated Balance Sheet | | Gross Amount of Eligible Offsetting Recognized Derivative Assets | | Net Amount of Derivative Liabilities |
| December 31, | | December 31, | | December 31, |
| 2025 | | 2024 | | 2025 | | 2024 | | 2025 | | 2024 |
| Derivatives subject to master netting agreements | | 330 | | 165 | | 175 | | 64 | | 155 | | 101 |
Currency Effects: 3M estimates that year-on-year foreign currency transaction effects, impacted pre-tax income (loss) from continuing operations approximately as follows. These estimates include transaction gains and losses, including derivative instruments designed to reduce foreign currency exchange rate risks.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| (Millions) | | | | | | | | | | 2025 | | 2024 | | 2023 |
Year-on-year change in pre-tax income (loss) from foreign currency transactions | | | | | | | | | | $ | (59) | | | $ | (34) | | | $ | 40 | |
Note 16. Fair Value Measurements
Assets and Liabilities that are Measured at Fair Value on a Recurring Basis: For 3M, assets and liabilities that are measured at fair value on a recurring basis primarily relate to available-for-sale marketable securities, Solventum common stock and derivative instruments. The information in the following paragraphs and tables primarily addresses matters relative to these financial assets and liabilities. Separately, there were no material fair value measurements with respect to nonfinancial assets or liabilities that are recognized or disclosed at fair value in the Company’s financial statements on a recurring basis for 2025 and 2024.
3M uses various valuation techniques, which are primarily based upon the market and income approaches, with respect to financial assets and liabilities. Following is a description of the valuation methodologies used for the respective financial assets and liabilities measured at fair value.
•Available-for-sale marketable securities — except certain U.S. municipal securities: Marketable securities, except certain U.S. municipal securities, are valued utilizing multiple sources. A weighted average price is used for these securities. Market prices are obtained for these securities from a variety of industry standard data providers, security master files from large financial institutions, and other third-party sources. These multiple prices are used as inputs into a distribution-curve-based algorithm to determine the daily fair value to be used. 3M classifies U.S. government and treasury securities as level 1, while all other marketable securities (excluding certain U.S. municipal securities) are classified as level 2. Marketable securities are discussed further in Note 11.
•Available-for-sale marketable securities —certain U.S. municipal securities only: 3M holds municipal securities with several cities in the United States as of December 31, 2025. Due to the nature of these securities, the valuation method references the carrying value of the corresponding finance lease obligation, and as such, will be classified as level 3 securities separately.
•Solventum common stock: Solventum Corporation common stock is carried at stock prices that are readily available from active markets and are representative of fair value. 3M classifies this investment as Level 1.
•Derivative instruments: The Company’s derivative assets and liabilities within the scope of ASC 815, Derivatives and Hedging, are required to be recorded at fair value. The Company’s derivatives that are recorded at fair value include foreign currency forward and option contracts, cross-currency swaps, and interest rate swaps. Net investment hedges that use foreign currency denominated debt to hedge 3M’s net investment are not impacted by the fair value measurement standard under ASC 820, as the debt used as the hedging instrument is marked to a value with respect to changes in spot foreign currency exchange rates and not with respect to other factors that may impact fair value.
3M has determined that foreign currency forward and option contracts, cross-currency swaps, and interest rate swaps will be considered level 2 measurements. 3M uses inputs other than quoted prices that are observable for the asset. These inputs include foreign currency exchange rates, volatilities, and interest rates. Derivative positions are primarily valued using standard calculations/models that use as their basis readily observable market parameters. Industry standard data providers are 3M’s primary source for forward and spot rate information for both interest rates and currency rates, with resulting valuations periodically validated through third-party or counterparty quotes and a net present value stream of cash flows model.
The following table provides information by level for material assets and liabilities that are measured at fair value on a recurring basis at December 31, 2025 and 2024.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | Fair value at | | Fair value measurements using inputs considered as |
| | | Level 1 | | Level 2 | | Level 3 |
| (Millions) | | 2025 | | 2024 | | 2025 | | 2024 | | 2025 | | 2024 | | 2025 | | 2024 |
| Assets: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Available-for-sale marketable securities: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Corporate debt | | $ | 302 | | | $ | 850 | | | $ | — | | | $ | — | | | $ | 302 | | | $ | 850 | | | $ | — | | | $ | — | |
| Commercial paper | | 191 | | | 658 | | | — | | | — | | | 191 | | | 658 | | | — | | | — | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
U.S. government and treasury securities | | 53 | | | 407 | | | 53 | | | 407 | | | — | | | — | | | — | | | — | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Asset backed securities and certificates of/time deposits | | 148 | | | 209 | | | — | | | — | | | 148 | | | 209 | | | — | | | — | |
| U.S. municipal securities | | 16 | | | 20 | | | — | | | — | | | — | | | — | | | 16 | | | 20 | |
Solventum common stock (a) | | 2,026 | | | 2,270 | | | 2,026 | | | 2,270 | | | — | | | — | | | — | | | — | |
| Derivative instruments — assets: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Foreign currency forward/option contracts and cross-currency swaps | | 192 | | | 142 | | | — | | | — | | | 192 | | | 142 | | | — | | | — | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Liabilities: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Derivative instruments — liabilities: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Foreign currency forward/option contracts and cross-currency swaps | | 330 | | | 84 | | | — | | | — | | | 330 | | | 84 | | | — | | | — | |
| Interest rate contracts | | — | | | 81 | | | — | | | — | | | — | | | 81 | | | — | | | — | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
(a) Solventum common stock is reflected within other current assets and other assets on 3M's Consolidated Balance Sheet as of December 31, 2025 and 2024, respectively.
The Company had no material activity with level 3 assets and liabilities during the periods presented.
In addition, the plan assets of 3M’s pension and postretirement benefit plans are measured at fair value on a recurring basis (at least annually). Refer to Note 13.
Assets and Liabilities that are Measured at Fair Value on a Nonrecurring Basis: Disclosures are required for certain assets and liabilities that are measured at fair value, but are recognized and disclosed at fair value on a nonrecurring basis in periods subsequent to initial recognition. For 3M, such measurements of fair value relate primarily to indefinite-lived and long-lived asset impairments, goodwill impairments, and adjustment in carrying value of equity securities for which the measurement alternative of cost less impairment plus or minus observable price changes is used. For the periods presented, other than the below, 3M had no material measurements at fair value on a nonrecurring basis of applicable assets or liabilities.
In 2025, 3M's precision grinding and finishing business was classified as held for sale and written down to its fair value less costs to sell. Fair value was determined based upon terms of the underlying agreement entered into to sell the business. The disposal group continues to be similarly valued until the close of the transaction. See Note 4 for additional information on the disposal group.
Fair Value of Financial Instruments: The Company’s financial instruments include cash and cash equivalents, marketable securities, accounts receivable, certain investments, notes receivable, accounts payable, borrowings, and derivative contracts. The fair values of cash equivalents, accounts receivable, accounts payable, and short-term borrowings and current portion of long-term debt approximated carrying values because of the short-term nature of these instruments. The fair value of long-term notes receivable approximates the carrying value. Available-for-sale marketable securities, Solventum common stock and derivative instruments are recorded at fair values as indicated in the preceding disclosures, in addition to certain investments. To estimate fair values (classified as level 2) for its long-term debt, the Company utilized third-party quotes, which are derived all or in part from model prices, external sources, market prices, or the third-party’s internal records. Information with respect to the carrying amounts and estimated fair values of these financial instruments follow:
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | December 31, 2025 | | December 31, 2024 |
| (Millions) | | Carrying value | | Fair value | | Carrying value | | Fair value |
| Long-term debt, excluding current portion | | $ | 10,932 | | | $ | 9,889 | | | $ | 11,125 | | | $ | 9,856 | |
The fair values reflected in the sections above consider the terms of the related debt absent the impacts of derivative/hedging activity. The carrying amount of long-term debt referenced above is impacted by certain fixed-to-floating interest rate swaps that are designated as fair value hedges and by foreign exchange rates on non-U.S. dollar denominated debt.
Note 17. Commitments and Contingencies
Legal Proceedings: The Company and some of its subsidiaries are involved in numerous claims and lawsuits and regulatory proceedings worldwide. These claims, lawsuits and proceedings relate to matters including, but not limited to, commercial; products liability (involving products that the Company now or formerly manufactured and sold); securities and corporate governance; antitrust and competition; intellectual property; environmental, health and safety; tax; employment and employee benefits; the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) and other anti-bribery and anti-corruption laws; international import and export requirements and trade sanctions compliance; laws and regulations that apply to industries served by the Company, including the False Claims Act, anti-kickback laws, and the Sunshine Act; and other matters. Unless otherwise stated, the Company is vigorously defending all such litigation and proceedings. From time to time, the Company also receives subpoenas, investigative demands or requests for information from various government agencies in the United States and foreign countries. The Company generally responds in a cooperative, thorough and timely manner. These responses sometimes require time and effort and can result in considerable costs being incurred by the Company. Such requests can also lead to the assertion of claims or the commencement of administrative, civil, or criminal legal proceedings against the Company and others, as well as to settlements. The Company also from time to time becomes aware of certain writs of summons, pre-suit claims, demands or other preliminary or informal assertions of claims or potential future claims that may proceed in the United States or in foreign countries. In response, the Company or its subsidiaries may engage in respect of such matters where it believes it would be appropriate to work towards a negotiated resolution of such matters. Any determination that the Company’s operations or activities are not, or were not, in compliance with applicable laws or regulations could result in the imposition of fines, civil or criminal penalties, and equitable remedies, including disgorgement, suspension or debarment, or injunctive relief. The outcomes of legal proceedings and regulatory matters are often difficult to predict, and they could have a material adverse effect on the Company, its consolidated financial position, results of operations, and cash flows.
Process for Disclosure and Recording of Liabilities Related to Legal Proceedings: Many lawsuits and claims involve highly complex issues relating to causation, scientific evidence, and alleged actual damages, all of which are subject to substantial uncertainties. Assessments of lawsuits and claims can involve a series of complex judgments about future events and can rely heavily on estimates and assumptions. The categories of legal proceedings in which the Company is involved may include multiple lawsuits and claims, may be spread across multiple jurisdictions and courts which may handle the lawsuits and claims differently, may involve numerous and different types of plaintiffs, raising claims and legal theories based on specific allegations that may not apply to other matters, and may seek substantial compensatory and, in some cases, punitive, damages. These and other factors contribute to the complexity of these lawsuits and claims and make it difficult for the Company to predict outcomes and make reasonable estimates of any resulting losses. The Company's ability to predict outcomes and make reasonable estimates of potential losses is further influenced by the fact that a resolution of one or more matters within a category of legal proceedings may impact the resolution of other matters in that category in terms of timing, amount of liability, or both.
When making determinations about recording liabilities related to legal proceedings, the Company complies with the requirements of ASC 450, Contingencies, and related guidance, and records liabilities in those instances where it can reasonably estimate the amount of the loss and when the loss is probable. Where the reasonable estimate of the probable loss is a range, the Company records as an accrual in its financial statements the most likely estimate of the loss, or the low end of the range if there is no one best estimate. The Company either discloses the amount of a possible loss or range of loss in excess of established accruals if estimable, or states that such an estimate cannot be made. The Company discloses significant legal proceedings even where liability is not probable or the amount of the liability is not estimable, or both, if the Company believes there is at least a reasonable possibility that a loss may be incurred. Based on experience and developments, the Company reexamines its estimates of probable liabilities and associated expenses and receivables each period, and whether a loss previously determined to not be reasonably estimable and/or not probable is now able to be reasonably estimated or has become probable. Where appropriate, the Company makes additions to or adjustments of its reasonably estimated losses and/or accruals. As a result, the current accruals and/or estimates of loss and the estimates of the potential impact on the Company’s consolidated financial position, results of operations and cash flows for the legal proceedings, and claims pending against the Company will likely change over time.
Because litigation is subject to inherent uncertainties, and unfavorable rulings or developments could occur, the Company may ultimately incur charges substantially in excess of presently recorded liabilities, including with respect to matters for which no accruals are currently recorded, because losses are not currently probable and reasonably estimable. Many of the matters described herein are at varying stages, seek an indeterminate amount of damages, or seek damages in amounts that the Company believes are not indicative of the ultimate losses that may be incurred. It is not uncommon for claims to be resolved over many years. As a matter progresses, the Company may receive information, through plaintiff demands, through discovery, in the form of reports of purported experts, or in the context of settlement or mediation discussions, that purport to quantify an amount of alleged damages, but with which the Company may not agree. Such information may or may not lead the Company to determine that it is able to make a reasonable estimate as to a probable loss or range of loss in connection with a matter. However, even when a loss or range of loss is not probable and reasonably estimable, developments in, or the ultimate resolution of, a matter could be material to the Company and could have a material adverse effect on the Company, its consolidated financial position, results of operations, and cash flows. In addition, future adverse rulings or developments, or settlements in, one or more matters could result in future changes to determinations of probable and reasonably estimable losses in other matters.
Process for Disclosure and Recording of Insurance Receivables Related to Legal Proceedings: The Company estimates insurance receivables based on an analysis of the terms of its numerous policies, including their exclusions, pertinent case law interpreting comparable policies, its experience with similar claims, and assessment of the nature of the claim and remaining coverage, and records an amount it has concluded is recognizable and expects to receive in light of the loss recovery and/or gain contingency models under ASC 450, ASC 610-30, and related guidance. For those insured legal proceedings where the Company has recorded an accrued liability in its financial statements, the Company also records receivables for the amount of insurance that it concludes as recognizable from the Company’s insurance program. For those insured matters where the Company has not recorded an accrued liability because the liability is not probable or the amount of the liability is not estimable, or both, but where the Company has incurred an expense in defending itself, the Company records receivables for the amount of insurance that it concludes as recognizable for the expense incurred.
Impact of Solventum Spin-Off: On April 1, 2024, the Company completed the planned spin-off of its Health Care business as an independent company known as Solventum. Concurrent with the spin-off, the Company and Solventum entered into various agreements, including transition agreements and a separation and distribution agreement that, among other things, identified the assets to be transferred, the liabilities to be assumed, indemnification and defense obligations, and the contracts to be transferred to Solventum and 3M as part of the spin-off.
The following sections first describe the significant legal proceedings in which the Company is involved and then describe the liabilities and associated insurance recoveries the Company has recorded relating to its significant legal proceedings.
Respirator Mask/Asbestos Litigation: As of December 31, 2025, the Company is a named defendant, with multiple co-defendants, in numerous lawsuits in various courts that purport to represent approximately 3,700 individual claimants, compared to approximately 3,500 individual claimants with actions pending as of December 31, 2024.
The vast majority of the lawsuits and claims resolved by and currently pending against the Company allege use of some of the Company’s mask and respirator products and seek damages from the Company and other defendants for alleged personal injury from workplace exposures to asbestos, silica, coal mine dust or other occupational dusts found in products manufactured by other defendants or generally in the workplace. A minority of the lawsuits and claims resolved by and currently pending against the Company generally allege personal injury from occupational exposure to asbestos from products previously manufactured by the Company, which are often unspecified, as well as products manufactured by other defendants, or occasionally at Company premises.
The Company’s current volume of new and pending matters is substantially lower than it experienced at the peak of filings in 2003. The number of claims alleging more serious injuries, including mesothelioma, other malignancies, and black lung disease, is expected to represent a greater percentage of total claims than in the past. Over the past twenty plus years, the Company has prevailed in nineteen of the twenty cases tried to a jury.
The Company has demonstrated in these past trial proceedings that its respiratory protection products are effective as claimed when used in the intended manner and in the intended circumstances. Consequently, the Company believes that claimants are unable to establish that their medical conditions, even if significant, are attributable to the Company’s respiratory protection products. Nonetheless, the Company’s litigation experience indicates that claims of persons alleging more serious injuries, including mesothelioma, other malignancies, and black lung disease, are costlier to litigate and resolve than the claims of unimpaired persons, and it therefore believes the average cost of resolving pending and future claims on a per-claim basis will continue to be higher than it experienced in prior periods when the vast majority of claims were asserted by medically unimpaired claimants.
As previously reported, the State of West Virginia, through its Attorney General, filed a complaint in 2003 against the Company and two other manufacturers of respiratory protection products in the Circuit Court of Lincoln County, West Virginia, and amended its complaint in 2005. The amended complaint seeks substantial, but unspecified, compensatory damages primarily for reimbursement of the costs allegedly incurred by the State for workers' compensation and healthcare benefits provided to all workers with occupational pneumoconiosis and unspecified punitive damages. In October 2019, the court granted the State’s motion to sever its unfair trade practices claim, which seeks civil penalties of up to $5,000 per violation under the state's Consumer Credit Protection Act relating to statements that the State contends were misleading about 3M’s 8710 respirators, which were last sold by the Company in 1998 in the United States. An initial bench trial began in January 2025 and remains ongoing with periodic trial days. The issues presented during the bench trial include the statute of limitations, the period available for any penalties under the West Virginia Consumer Protection Act, and the State’s claims that the 8710 respirators did not perform as advertised. Following resolution by the court of the issues presented during the initial bench trial, the amount, if any, of any civil penalties upon a finding of liability against the Company would be determined through subsequent trial proceedings at an unspecified future date. An expert witness retained by the State has estimated that 3M sold over five million respirators into the state during the relevant time period, and the State alleges that each respirator sold constitutes a separate violation under the Act. 3M disputes the expert's estimates and the State's position regarding what constitutes a separate violation of the Act. 3M has asserted various additional defenses, including that the Company's marketing did not violate the Act at any time, and that the State's claims are barred under the applicable statute of limitations. No liability has been recorded for any portion of this matter because the Company believes that liability is not probable and reasonably estimable at this time. In addition, the Company is not able to estimate a possible loss or range of loss due to open factual and legal questions.
On December 22, 2025, the State of West Virginia, through its Attorney General, filed a complaint in the Circuit Court of Kanawha County, West Virginia against the Company alleging violations of the West Virginia's Consumer Credit and Protection Act in connection with 3M's 8210 respirators. On December 23, 2025, 3M removed the case to federal court. The case is in its initial stages.
Respirator Mask/Asbestos Liabilities
The Company regularly conducts a comprehensive legal review of its respirator mask/asbestos liabilities. The Company reviews recent and historical claims data, including without limitation, (i) the number of pending claims filed against the Company, (ii) the nature and mix of those claims (i.e., the proportion of claims asserting usage of the Company’s mask or respirator products and alleging exposure to each of asbestos, silica, coal or other occupational dusts, and claims pleading use of asbestos-containing products allegedly manufactured by the Company), (iii) the costs to defend and resolve pending claims, and (iv) trends in filing rates and in costs to defend and resolve claims (collectively, the “Claims Data”). As part of its comprehensive legal review, the Company regularly provides the Claims Data to a third party with expertise in determining the impact of Claims Data on future filing trends and costs. The third party assists the Company in estimating the costs to defend and resolve pending and future claims. The Company uses this analysis to develop its estimate of probable liability.
Developments may occur that could affect the Company’s estimate of its liabilities. These developments include, but are not limited to, significant changes in (i) the key assumptions underlying the Company’s accrual, including the number of future claims, the nature and mix of those claims, and the average cost of defending and resolving claims and in maintaining trial readiness (ii) trial and appellate outcomes, (iii) the law and procedure applicable to these claims, and (iv) the financial viability of other co-defendants and insurers.
As a result of its review of its respirator mask/asbestos liabilities, of pending and expected lawsuits and of the cost of resolving claims of persons who claim more serious injuries, including mesothelioma, other malignancies, and black lung disease, the Company adjusts its associated accrual. As of December 31, 2025 and December 31, 2024, the Company's accruals for respirator mask/asbestos liabilities and defense costs (excluding Aearo) were $473 million and $523 million, respectively. This accrual represents the Company’s estimate of probable loss and reflects an estimation period for future claims that may be filed against the Company approaching the year 2050. The Company cannot estimate the amount or upper end of the range of amounts by which the liability may exceed the accrual the Company has established because of (i) the inherent difficulty in projecting the number of claims that have not yet been asserted or the time period in which future claims may be asserted, (ii) the fact that complaints nearly always assert claims against multiple defendants where the damages alleged are typically not attributed to individual defendants so that a defendant’s share of liability may turn on the law of joint and several liability, which can vary by state, (iii) the multiple factors described above that the Company considers in estimating its liabilities, and (iv) the several possible developments described above that may occur that could affect the Company’s estimate of liabilities.
Respirator Mask/Asbestos Litigation — Aearo Technologies: On April 1, 2008, a subsidiary of the Company acquired the stock of Aearo Holding Corp., the parent of Aearo Technologies (“Aearo”). Aearo manufactured and sold various products, including personal protection equipment, such as eye, ear, head, face, fall and certain respiratory protection products. Aearo and/or other companies that previously owned and operated Aearo’s respirator business (American Optical Corporation, Warner-Lambert LLC, AO Corp. and Cabot Corporation (“Cabot”)) are named defendants, with multiple co-defendants, including the Company, in numerous lawsuits in various courts in which plaintiffs allege use of mask and respirator products and seek damages from Aearo and other defendants for alleged personal injury from workplace exposures to asbestos, silica-related, coal mine dust, or other occupational dusts found in products manufactured by other defendants or generally in the workplace.
As of December 31, 2025, the Company, through its Aearo subsidiary, had recorded accruals of $59 million for product liabilities and defense costs related to current and future Aearo-related asbestos, silica-related and coal mine dust claims. Responsibility for legal costs, as well as for settlements and judgments, is shared in an informal arrangement among Aearo, Cabot, American Optical Corporation and a subsidiary of Warner Lambert and their respective insurers (the “Payor Group”). Liability is allocated among the parties based on the number of years each company sold respiratory products under the “AO Safety” brand and/or owned the AO Safety Division of American Optical Corporation and the alleged years of exposure of the individual plaintiff. Aearo’s share of the contingent liability is further limited by an agreement entered into between Aearo and Cabot on July 11, 1995. This agreement provides that, so long as Aearo pays to Cabot a quarterly fee of $100,000, Cabot will retain responsibility and liability for, and indemnify Aearo against, any product liability claims involving exposure to asbestos, silica, or silica products for respirators sold prior to July 11, 1995. Because of the difficulty in determining how long a particular respirator remains in the stream of commerce after being sold, Aearo and Cabot have applied the agreement to claims arising out of the alleged use of respirators involving exposure to asbestos, silica or silica products prior to January 1, 1997. With these arrangements in place, Aearo’s potential liability is limited to exposures alleged to have arisen from the use of respirators involving exposure to asbestos, silica, or silica products on or after January 1, 1997. To date, Aearo has elected to pay the quarterly fee. Aearo could potentially be exposed to additional claims for some part of the pre-July 11, 1995, period covered by its agreement with Cabot if Aearo elects to discontinue its participation in this arrangement, or if Cabot is no longer able to meet its obligations in these matters.
Developments may occur that could affect the estimate of Aearo’s liabilities. These developments include, but are not limited to: (i) significant changes in the number of future claims, (ii) significant changes in the average cost of resolving claims, (iii) significant changes in the legal costs of defending these claims, (iv) significant changes in the mix and nature of claims received, (v) trial and appellate outcomes, (vi) significant changes in the law and procedure applicable to these claims, (vii) significant changes in the liability allocation among the co-defendants, (viii) the financial viability of members of the Payor Group including exhaustion of available insurance coverage limits, and/or (ix) a determination that the interpretation of the contractual obligations on which Aearo has estimated its share of liability is inaccurate. The Company cannot determine the impact of these potential developments on its current estimate of Aearo’s share of liability for these existing and future claims. If any of the developments described above were to occur, the actual amount of these liabilities for existing and future claims could be significantly larger than the amount accrued. Because of the inherent difficulty in projecting the number of claims that have not yet been asserted, the complexity of allocating responsibility for future claims among the Payor Group, and the several possible developments that may occur that could affect the estimate of Aearo’s liabilities, the Company cannot estimate the amount or range of amounts by which Aearo’s liability may exceed the accrual the Company has established.
Environmental Matters and Litigation: The Company’s operations are subject to environmental laws and regulations including those pertaining to air emissions, wastewater discharges, toxic or hazardous substances, and the handling and disposal of solid and hazardous wastes, which are enforceable by national, state, and local authorities around the world, and many for which private parties in the United States and abroad may have related rights of action. These laws and regulations can form the basis of, under certain circumstances, claims for the investigation and remediation of contamination, for capital investment in pollution control equipment, for restoration of and/or compensation for damages to natural resources, and for personal injury and property damages. The Company has incurred, and will continue to incur, costs and capital expenditures in complying with these laws and regulations, defending personal injury, natural resource and property damage claims, and modifying its business operations in light of its environmental responsibilities. In its effort to satisfy its environmental responsibilities and comply with environmental laws and regulations, the Company has established, and periodically updates, policies relating to environmental standards of performance for its operations worldwide.
Under certain environmental laws, including the United States Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 ("CERCLA") and similar state laws, the Company may be jointly and severally liable, sometimes with other potentially responsible parties, for the costs of investigation and remediation of environmental contamination at current or former facilities and at off-site locations where hazardous substances have been released or disposed of. The Company has identified numerous locations, many of which are in the United States, at which it may have some liability for remediation of contamination under applicable environmental laws. Please refer to the section entitled “Environmental Liabilities” that follows for information on the amount of the accrual for such liabilities.
Environmental Matters
As previously reported, the Company has been voluntarily cooperating with ongoing reviews by local, state, federal (primarily the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA")), and international agencies of possible environmental and health effects of various perfluorinated compounds, including perfluorooctanoate ("PFOA"), perfluorooctane sulfonate ("PFOS"), perfluorohexane sulfonic acid ("PFHxS"), perfluorobutane sulfonate ("PFBS"), hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid ("HFPO-DA") and other per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (collectively, "PFAS").
As a result of a phase-out decision in May 2000, the Company no longer manufactures certain PFAS compounds including PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS, and their precursor compounds. The Company ceased manufacturing and using the vast majority of those compounds within approximately two years of the phase-out announcement and ceased all manufacturing and the last significant use of those compounds by the end of 2008.
3M announced in December 2022 it would take two further actions with respect to PFAS: exiting all PFAS manufacturing by the end of 2025 and working to discontinue the use of PFAS across its product portfolio by the end of 2025. 3M completed its exit of PFAS manufacturing at the end of 2025. 3M will continue to take actions to address PFAS manufactured prior to the exit. For example, the Company's water treatment assets at facilities that manufactured PFAS will continue to treat PFAS from historical manufacturing activities and remediate residual PFAS in waste streams from the Company's operations. 3M also will continue to work through the disposition of its assets and its interests in manufacturing facilities, which may include dismantling, cleaning and repurposing, and other dispositions of facilities or equipment. 3M remains in ongoing discussions with customers, government authorities, and other stakeholders and interested parties about customer agreements and the Company's interests in assets and facilities, which may be owned or leased from other parties that have interests and rights related to those facilities.
As also noted, 3M has been working to discontinue the use of PFAS across its product portfolio and has made substantial progress in eliminating such use in the Company's products. With respect to PFAS-containing products not manufactured by 3M in the Company's supply chains, the Company continues to evaluate the availability and feasibility of adopting and incorporating third-party products into its product portfolio that do not contain PFAS. Depending on the availability and feasibility of such third-party products not containing PFAS, the Company continues to evaluate circumstances in which the use of PFAS-containing products manufactured by third parties and used in certain applications in 3M’s product portfolios will continue beyond the end of 2025. Examples of PFAS-containing third-party products include lithium ion batteries, printed circuit boards, certain seals and gaskets, and other products widely used in commerce across a variety of industries, and in some cases required by regulatory or industry standards. In certain cases, sales and use of products manufactured before the end of 2025, and sales of products through customer transitions to new products, regulatory approvals, or customer re-certifications or re-qualifications of substitutes or replacements to eliminate the use of PFAS, were not completed by the end of 2025 and transitional efforts are ongoing.
PFAS Regulatory and Legislative Activity
Regulatory and legislative activities concerning PFAS continue to accelerate in the United States, Europe and elsewhere, and before certain international bodies. These activities include gathering exposure and use information, risk assessment activities, and increasingly stringent restrictions on various uses of PFAS in products and on PFAS in manufacturing emissions and environmental media, in some cases moving towards presently non-detectable limits for certain PFAS compounds. Regulatory limits for PFAS in emissions and in environmental media such as soil and water (including drinking water) are being set at increasingly low levels. Global regulations also appear to be increasingly focused on a broader group of PFAS, including PFAS compounds manufactured by 3M prior to its 2025 exit from PFAS manufacturing, third-party supplied materials containing PFAS used in current 3M products, or compounds found in wastewater and other environmental media associated with 3M's legacy production processes. Finally, in certain jurisdictions, legislation is being considered that, if enacted, might authorize the recovery from individuals or entities costs alleged to have been imposed on the jurisdiction's healthcare system, as well as related costs. If such activity continues, including as regulations become final and enforceable, 3M may incur material costs to comply with new regulatory requirements or as a result of regulation-related litigation or regulatory enforcement actions. Such regulatory changes may also have an impact on 3M’s reputation and may also increase its costs and potential litigation exposure to the extent legal defenses rely on regulatory thresholds, or changes in regulation influence public perception. Given divergent and rapidly evolving regulatory drinking water and other environmental standards, there is currently significant uncertainty about the potential costs to industry and communities associated with remediation and control technologies that may be required.
Europe
In the European Union, recent regulatory activities have included various proposed and enacted restrictions of PFAS or certain PFAS compounds, including, among others, under the EU’s Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction of Chemicals ("REACH"), the EU’s Persistent Organic Pollutants ("POPs") Regulation, the EU's Food Contaminants Regulation and the EU's Water Drinking Directive. PFOA, PFOS and PFHxS (and their related compounds) are listed under several Annexes of the POPs Regulation, resulting in a ban in manufacture, placing on the market and use as well as some waste management requirements of these substances in EU Member States.
These substances have also been listed in the Stockholm Convention, which has been ratified by more than 180 countries and aims for global elimination of certain listed substances (with narrow exceptions). In February 2023, an EU-wide restriction on the manufacture, use, placing on the market and import of certain perfluoro carboxylic acids (C9-C14 PFCAs), which are PFAS substances, also went into effect. A proposal for the global restriction on production and use of long-chain PFCAs was adopted by the parties to the Stockholm Convention in May 2025, and will enter into force in most countries globally in late 2026. In September 2024, the EU adopted a restriction on certain uses of perfluorohexanoic acid (“PFHxA”) and PFHxA-related substances, including in consumer goods and some uses of firefighting foams and concentrates.
In February 2023, the European Chemicals Agency published a proposal to restrict the manufacture, placing on the market, and use of PFAS under REACH, subject to certain proposed exceptions. Depending on the timing, scope, and obligations contained in any final restriction, PFAS manufacturers and manufacturers of PFAS-containing products including 3M could incur additional costs and potential exposures, including costs of having to discontinue or modify products, future compliance costs, possible litigation and/or enforcement actions. In addition, in April 2025, EU member states adopted a REACH amendment to restrict the manufacturing, use and placing on the market of all PFAS substances in Aqueous Film Forming Foam ("AFFF"). There is a general 5-year transition plan, with shorter and longer transitional periods for certain uses. This amendment entered into force in October 2025.
Effective January 2023, the EU Food Contaminants Regulation targeting four PFAS (PFOS, PFOA, perfluorononanoic acid ("PFNA"), and PFHxS) in foodstuff (eggs and animal derived meat) prohibits the sale in all member states of foods containing levels of these chemicals exceeding certain regulatory thresholds. This change may impact 3M, but any such impact is unknown at this time.
The EU regulates PFAS in drinking water via a Drinking Water Directive, which includes a limit of 0.1 micrograms per liter (µg/l) (or 0.1 parts per billion (ppb)) for a sum of 20 PFAS in drinking water. January 2023 was the deadline for Member States to implement the Directive. A majority of Member States have implemented the EU Directive. Some Member States, including Germany, adopted more restrictive limits for certain PFAS substances. These new standards may have an impact on remedial obligations and liabilities, though such impact is unknown at this time.
Government interactions related to PFAS manufacturing in Gendorf
Dyneon and the predecessor operators of the Gendorf, Germany facility commissioned a voluntary feasibility study by an independent soil consultant. The study discusses the feasibility of various options to treat PFOA in soil and groundwater as well as associated costs and the environmental impact of such treatment or disposal. The study has been shared with the competent authority. An expert body advising the competent authority in the county provided feedback on the feasibility study and identified several additional recommended steps, including certain immediate measures and additional soil and groundwater investigations, and the competent authority has indicated that it is likely to adopt at least some of the recommended steps. As a result of this process, Dyneon has agreed to sponsor environmental studies related to the potential establishment of a landfill to dispose of PFOA-impacted soil, and a local authority has indicated that Dyneon should contribute to the financing of that landfill.
In July and August 2025, Dyneon was served with orders requiring it to plan a hydraulic barrier to capture a PFOA plume in groundwater originating from the Dyneon site and assess measures to remediate the impact of PFOA in and around the site. In August and September 2025 Dyneon filed appeals of the orders, suspending the enforceability of the orders pending a decision on Dyneon's appeals. Dyneon continues to engage with the competent authorities about potential remedial actions related to the Gendorf facility that may be required in the future.
PFAS manufacturing in Zwijndrecht:
3M Belgium, a subsidiary of the Company, owns and operates a facility in Zwijndrecht, Antwerp, Belgium that formerly manufactured various PFAS containing products. All PFAS manufacturing was completed and discontinued at the Zwijndrecht facility in 2024 as part of the Company’s previously-announced global exit of all PFAS manufacturing by the end of 2025.
3M Belgium has been working with the Public Flemish Waste Agency ("OVAM") for several years to investigate and remediate PFAS contamination at and near the Zwijndrecht facility. In connection with a ring road construction project (the Oosterweel Project) in Antwerp that involves extensive soil work, an investigative committee with judicial investigatory powers was formed in June 2021 by the Flemish Parliament to investigate PFAS found in the soil and groundwater near the Zwijndrecht facility. At various points, the Flemish Parliament, the Minister of the Environment, and regulatory authorities initiated investigations and demands for information related to the release of PFAS from the Zwijndrecht facility. 3M Belgium has cooperated with the authorities with respect to the investigations and information requests and is working with the authorities on an ongoing basis.
In August 2024, the province of Antwerp approved 3M Belgium's latest application for modifying its water discharge permit related to certain PFAS parameters. Following an appeal against the permit by a local non-profit organization, in March 2025, the Flemish Government confirmed the permit. The Flemish Government's confirmation was judicially appealed by a Belgian non-profit organization. 3M Belgium cannot predict the outcome of such judicial appeal and is therefore unable to assess whether the current Zwijndrecht wastewater treatment system, or currently conceived additional treatment technology, will be able to meet the ultimately determined permit limits with respect to ongoing non-PFAS manufacturing at the Zwijndrecht facility. It is possible that the outcome of the appeal or future permit amendments will alter discharge limits and will require additional actions to reduce legacy sources of PFAS or that the wastewater treatment system there will be unable to meet future discharge limits. If 3M Belgium is unable to meet the eventual discharge limits, such development could have a significant adverse impact on 3M Belgium's normal operations and the Company's businesses that receive products and other materials from the Zwijndrecht facility, some of which may not be available or in similar quantities from other 3M facilities, which could in turn impact these businesses' ability to fulfill supply obligations to their customers.
Soil remediation and environmental law compliance:
Flemish government actions and Remediation Agreement. As previously disclosed, following the issuance of a notice of default from the Flemish Region alleging violations of environmental laws and seeking PFAS-related action and compensation, in July 2022, 3M Belgium and the Flemish Government announced an agreement (the “Remediation Agreement”) in connection with the Zwijndrecht facility. Pursuant to the Remediation Agreement, 3M Belgium, among other things, committed an aggregate of €571 million, including enhancements to site discharge control technologies, support for qualifying local commercial farmers impacted by restrictions on sale of agricultural products, ongoing off-site descriptive soil investigation, amounts to address certain identified priority remedial actions (which may include supporting additional actions as required under the Flemish Soil Decree), funds to be used by the Flemish Government in its sole discretion in connection with PFAS emissions from the Zwijndrecht facility, and support for the Oosterweel Project in cash and support services. The agreement contains certain provisions ending litigation and providing certain releases of liability for 3M Belgium, while recognizing that the Flemish Government retains its authority to act in the future to protect its citizenry, as specified in the agreement. In connection with these actions, the Company recorded a pre-tax charge of approximately $500 million in the first half of 2022.
Soil/groundwater remediation. Consistent with Flemish environmental law, descriptive soil investigations (“DSIs”) have been carried out to assess areas of potential PFAS contamination that may require remediation. An accredited third-party soil remediation expert has conducted these DSIs. 3M Belgium has submitted all previously required DSIs. In the fourth quarter of 2025, OVAM required that 3M Belgium submit an additional DSI relating to ultra-short chain PFAS by June 2026.
Further, as previously disclosed, the accredited third-party soil remediation expert has prepared multiple remedial action plans (RAPs) that have been approved by OVAM, the competent authority, and implementation activities are underway. 3M Belgium has also submitted additional required RAPs, which OVAM deemed to be not in conformity with the Flemish Soil Decree and will require additional analysis. OVAM provided extensions of time for 3M Belgium to revise and re-submit each RAP it found to be non-conforming. 3M Belgium representatives continue to have discussions with the relevant authorities regarding further soil remedial actions and related groundwater actions in connection with the Flemish Soil Decree.
Changes to Flemish Soil Decree. In December 2022, the Flemish Cabinet took steps to implement an executive action (the “Site Decision”) designed to expand 3M Belgium’s remedial obligations around the Zwijndrecht site. 3M Belgium filed a legal challenge seeking to annul the Site Decision. In March 2025, the Council of State affirmed 3M Belgium's petition and annulled the Site Decision in its entirety.
In July 2023, the Flemish government approved another executive action establishing a temporary action framework setting soil and groundwater values for evaluation of remediation of PFAS. In December 2023, 3M Belgium filed a legal challenge seeking to annul the temporary action framework.
Following the Flemish Government’s June 2025 announcement of the intent to withdraw the temporary action framework, in September 2025, the Flemish Government formally adopted and then published the withdrawal triggering a 60 day period in which an appeal could be filed. In January 2026, 3M learned that one or more NGOs have appealed the withdrawal. 3M Belgium is unable to predict the ultimate outcome of this regulatory review process and any changes to existing standards could impose additional financial and remedial obligations on 3M Belgium depending on the standards ultimately adopted.
In May 2024, the Flemish government adopted legislation expanding the authority of OVAM to require financial security for remediation work and giving it the ability to impose a percentage of the cost of remediating river sediment on various parties while requiring financial assurance for such work. OVAM has not yet required such financial security from 3M Belgium or imposed such costs on 3M Belgium. These actions potentially could create presently undetermined additional financial obligations for 3M Belgium.
Pending or potential litigation and investigations outside the United States
Litigation.
Belgium. As of December 31, 2025, a total of eighteen actions against 3M Belgium are pending in Belgian civil courts. 3M Belgium has also received pre-litigation notices from individuals and entities in Belgium indicating potential claims. The pending cases include claims by individuals, municipalities, and other entities for alleged soil and wastewater or rainwater contamination with PFAS, nuisance, tort liability, personal injury and for an environmental injunction.
While most of the actions are in early stages, one of the actions resulted in an award of provisional damages of 500 euros to each of four family members who live near the Zwijndrecht site. Approximately 1,400 individuals have petitioned to intervene in a second "follow-on action" primarily alleging nuisance claims. The Belgian court has not yet determined that the interventions will be permitted. A hearing in the case is scheduled to take place in February 2026.
In December 2023, 3M Belgium, 3M Company, and several additional 3M entities were named in a lawsuit identifying approximately 1,400 individuals as plaintiffs, which suit is separate from the above-referenced "follow-on action." The suit involves claims for defective products, liability for unlawful acts, and alleges liability of 3M entities as directors and/or shareholders of 3M Belgium, among other claims. At an introductory hearing in November 2024, the case was stayed with no new deadlines established.
In June 2024, Lantis, an entity involved in the Oosterweel project, filed a lawsuit against 3M Belgium seeking damages related to soil storage costs and other alleged claims. The parties previously engaged in mediation regarding the dispute that did not resolve the claims at that time. In November 2025 the parties resolved a claim with respect to which Lantis had reserved its rights. The litigation will proceed with regard to other claims, according to a briefing schedule set by the court, with all pre-hearing submissions to be completed by November 2026.
Investigations. As previously disclosed, the Company is aware that criminal complaints have been filed against 3M Belgium with an Antwerp investigatory judge alleging 3M Belgium unlawfully abandoned waste in violation of its environmental care obligations, among other allegations. Certain additional parties reportedly joined the complaints. 3M Belgium has not been served with any such complaints. 3M Belgium has been cooperating with the investigation.
The Netherlands. In May 2023, the government of the Netherlands sent 3M Belgium a notice of liability stating that it holds 3M Belgium liable for damages related to alleged PFAS contamination in the Netherlands. The notice purports to identify claims by the Dutch government and references potential damages to other parties. 3M Belgium has met with representatives of the Dutch government to discuss the notice as well as with parties whose interests the Dutch government may also represent.
Certain private groups in the Netherlands have indicated that they may bring legal claims on behalf of one or more parties for purported damages allegedly caused by PFAS. In December 2024, a lawsuit was filed in a Dutch court by the Dutch Fishermen's Association acting on behalf of an individual fisherman, naming 3M Belgium and 3M Company as defendants. The lawsuit generally alleges that PFAS from 3M Belgium’s Zwijndrecht facility impacted certain aspects of the Dutch fishing industry and seeks damages arising from that alleged contamination.
Germany. In July 2025, Dyneon received pre-litigation notices from two cities in Germany, as well as a private citizen, requesting payment for alleged costs incurred/expected from handling PFAS impacted soil during construction works.
Canada. In December 2023, a putative class action was filed in the British Columbia Supreme Court on behalf of Canadians alleging personal injuries from exposure to AFFF.
In June 2024, the province of British Columbia, Canada, filed a putative class action in the British Columbia Supreme Court purportedly on behalf of all provincial and territorial governments in Canada, including all municipalities and other local governments responsible for drinking water systems, alleging contamination of drinking water and other natural resources by PFAS-containing products, including AFFF.
In July 2024, a putative class action was filed in the Quebec Superior Court on behalf of public water suppliers and private well owners in Quebec alleging contamination of drinking water by PFAS-containing products, including AFFF.
In August 2024 and August 2025, putative class actions were filed in the Manitoba Court of King’s Bench and British Columbia Supreme Court on behalf of Indian bands in Canada alleging contamination of drinking water and other natural resources by PFAS-containing products, including AFFF.
In August and September 2024, putative class actions were filed in the Ontario Superior Court and British Columbia Supreme Court on behalf of all private well owners in Canada alleging contamination of drinking water by PFAS-containing products, including AFFF. In August 2025, plaintiffs filed a motion to discontinue the Ontario action.
In September 2024, a putative nationwide consumer class action was filed in the British Columbia Supreme Court on behalf of all persons who purchased carpeting treated with PFAS-containing products before January 1, 2020.
In September 2024, the Canadian Department of Transport filed a third-party contribution and indemnification action in connection with a pending putative class action filed in British Columbia Supreme Court in April 2024, alleging property contamination from AFFF as a result of firefighting training at the Abbotsford International Airport.
In November 2025, the Canadian Department of Transport filed a third-party contribution and indemnification action in connection with a pending putative class action filed in Newfoundland Supreme Court in May 2025, alleging property contamination from AFFF as a result of firefighting training at St. John's International Airport.
In March 2025, Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) and Health Canada announced plans to add PFAS as toxic substances under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA) and to enact a phased ban of certain PFAS in products. Depending on the timing, scope, and obligations contained in any final ban, PFAS manufacturers and manufacturers of products containing PFAS could incur additional costs and potential exposures, including costs of having to discontinue or modify products.
Australia. In May 2025, the New South Wales Environmental Protection Agency issued a Clean Up Notice requiring 3M Australia to investigate and clean up PFAS contamination at a site that 3M Australia formerly leased. 3M is working with the regulatory authority to address the Clean Up Notice.
The Company is aware of a writ of summons that was filed in Australia on behalf of individuals with connections to property that has been allegedly impacted by 3M PFAS products, however, the Company has not been served with any such summons. In November 2025, the Court extended the service period to June 8, 2026.
Regulation in the United States
Federal Activity
In the United States, in April 2025, the EPA announced “Major EPA Actions to Combat PFAS Contamination,” including the designation of an agency lead for PFAS, the creation of effluent limitations guidelines (ELGs) for certain PFAS, and initiatives to engage with Congress and industry to establish a clear liability framework that includes “polluter pays” and “passive receiver” protection principles. 3M is evaluating the potential impact of this announcement.
The Company has previously discussed the evolving regulatory environment in the United States with respect to PFAS in past filings. Updates relevant to this reporting period are below.
With respect to drinking water, in April 2024, EPA announced final drinking water standards for five individual PFAS – PFOA (4 ppt), PFOS (4 ppt), PFHxS (10 ppt), PFNA (10 ppt), and HFPO-DA (10 ppt). EPA also set a drinking water standard for a combination of two or more of PFHxS, PFNA, HFPO-DA and PFBS in drinking water, which is based on a “hazard index” approach. Public drinking water suppliers in the United States have five years to meet the limits. Multiple petitions challenging the rule have been filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. In May 2025, EPA announced that it would maintain the 4 ppt standards for PFOA and PFOS but rescind and reconsider the standards for PFHxS, PFNA, HFPO-DA and the hazard index standard for a combination of PFAS. In September 2025, EPA filed a motion asking the Court to vacate the standards for PFHxS, PFNA, HFPO-DA, and the hazard index standard and confirming that it intends to defend the standards for PFOA and PFOS.
In April 2024, EPA released its final rule listing PFOA and PFOS, and their salts and structural isomers, as CERCLA hazardous substances. Multiple industry groups have filed challenges to the rule in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. In February 2025, EPA sought and was granted an abeyance of the proceedings to allow the new administration time to review the case. In September 2025, EPA confirmed it intends to defend the rule. Briefing has concluded and oral argument was held in January 2026.
As a result of the CERCLA designation of PFOA and PFOS, and to the extent EPA finalizes additional proposals related to PFAS, 3M may be required to undertake additional investigative and/or remediation activities, including where 3M conducts operations or where 3M has disposed of waste. 3M may also face additional litigation from other entities that have liability under CERCLA for claims seeking contribution for clean-up costs other entities may incur.
In February 2024, EPA proposed two rules under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”). One of the proposed rules would list nine PFAS (PFOA, PFOS, PFBS, Gen-X, PFHxA, PFHxS, PFNA, PFDA, and PFBA) and their salts and structural isomers as "hazardous constituents" under RCRA. The other proposed rule would expand the definition of hazardous waste subject to corrective action under RCRA. The Company submitted comments on both proposed rules.
In December 2024, as amended in January 2025, EPA published draft National Recommended Ambient Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Human Health for PFOA, PFOS, and PFBS. These criteria, once finalized, may be used by states and tribes to establish water quality standards.
In October 2023, EPA published a final rule imposing reporting and recordkeeping requirements under TSCA for manufacturers or importers, including 3M, of certain PFAS in any year since January 2011. The rule requires manufacturers and importers to report certain data to EPA regarding each covered PFAS, including the following: chemical identity, total volumes, uses, byproducts, information about environmental and health effects, number of individuals exposed during manufacture, and the manner or method of disposal. This is a one-time reporting requirement covering in-scope activities over a 12-year look-back period from 2011-2022. In November 2025, EPA published a proposed rule modifying the scope of the reporting rule. The proposed rule incorporates several new exemptions from the reporting requirement and would tie the submission period to the effective date of the finalized revisions to the rule.
In August 2024, three states (New Jersey, New Mexico, and North Carolina) petitioned EPA to list PFOA, PFOS, PFNA, and HFPO-DA as hazardous air pollutants under Clean Air Act and to establish emission standards from source categories. EPA has 18 months to respond to the petition.
In December 2024, EPA proposed updates to its general industrial stormwater permit applicable to various industries, including chemical manufacturing. The updates include provisions that, if finalized, would require dischargers in those sectors and in jurisdictions where EPA is the permitting authority to monitor for certain PFAS in their stormwater discharges and report the results. Public comments on the proposed permit were due in May 2025.
In January 2025, EPA released a draft risk assessment for PFOA and PFOS in biosolids. The Company submitted comments in August 2025. If finalized, that risk assessment could inform future regulations on PFAS in wastewater and biosolids.
State Activity
Several state legislatures and state agencies have been evaluating or have taken various regulatory actions related to PFAS in the environment, including proposing or finalizing cleanup standards for PFAS in soil and water, groundwater standards, surface water standards, and/or drinking water standards for PFOS, PFOA, and other PFAS. 3M has submitted various responsive comments to various of these proposals. Examples of state actions related to PFAS are discussed below.
States with finalized drinking water standards for certain PFAS include Vermont, New Jersey, New York, New Hampshire, Michigan, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Several states, including California, Connecticut, Maine, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Vermont have started processes to adopt EPA’s federal drinking water standards for PFAS into state rules. Delaware, Idaho, Rhode Island, and North Carolina previously began those processes.
In April 2021, 3M filed a lawsuit against the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy ("EGLE") to invalidate the drinking water standards EGLE promulgated under an accelerated timeline. In November 2022, the court granted 3M’s motion for summary judgment and invalidated EGLE’s rule based on its failure to properly consider relevant costs. The court stayed the effect of its decision pending appeal. EGLE appealed the decision in December 2022. In August 2023, the Michigan Court of Appeals upheld the lower court’s decision that EGLE’s rule was invalid. EGLE appealed that ruling to the Michigan Supreme Court. In March 2025, the Michigan Supreme Court vacated the decision of the Court of Appeals and remanded the case for resolution of certain questions not previously addressed. In September 2025, the Court of Appeals again affirmed the lower court's decision. In October 2025, EGLE again filed an application for leave to appeal with the Michigan Supreme Court. 3M filed its response in December 2025.
Multiple states have also been evaluating or have taken actions relating to PFOA, PFOS and other PFAS compounds in products. As discussed in previous disclosures, Maine, Minnesota and New Mexico have enacted laws that include broad PFAS prohibition and reporting obligations. In addition, multiple other states, including Colorado, California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nevada, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington, have enacted restrictions on PFAS in certain categories of products, including textiles, children’s products, cosmetics, fire fighter personal protective equipment and food packaging products. In September 2025, the New Mexico Environment Department announced it intends to require labeling for all products containing intentionally added PFAS beginning January 1, 2027. 3M continues to evaluate the potential impact of these laws on its operations and products.
The Company cannot predict what additional regulatory or legislative actions in the United States, Europe and elsewhere arising from the foregoing or other proceedings and activities, if any, may be taken regarding such compounds or the consequences of any such actions to the Company, including to its operations and its products. Given divergent and rapidly evolving regulatory standards, there currently is significant uncertainty about the potential costs to industry and communities associated with remediation and control technologies that may be required.
Litigation Related to Historical PFAS Manufacturing Operations in Alabama
As previously reported, 3M has resolved numerous claims relating to PFAS contamination of properties and water supplies allegedly caused by 3M’s Decatur, Alabama manufacturing facility. 3M continues to make payments pursuant to these resolutions. 3M will continue to address PFAS at certain other closed municipal sites at which the Company historically disposed waste and continue environmental characterization in the area. This work will complement an Interim Consent Order that 3M entered into with the Alabama Department of Environmental Management (“ADEM") in 2020 and includes sampling of environmental media, such as ground water, regarding the potential presence of PFAS at the 3M Decatur facility and legacy disposal sites, as well as supporting the execution of appropriate remedial actions.
In August 2022, Colbert County, Alabama, filed a lawsuit against 3M and several co-defendants alleging that discharge from operations in Decatur had contaminated the Tennessee River, from which the County draws its drinking water. The City of Muscle Shoals, Alabama filed a substantially similar lawsuit in February 2023. 3M removed both cases to federal court in August 2024, and the JPML transferred the cases to the AFFF MDL in December 2024. In April 2025, Colbert County and the City of Muscle Shoals filed a joint motion to remand the two cases to state court. 3M has responded to that motion, which remains pending.
Since December 2023, a number of personal injury actions have been filed against 3M and other defendants, alleging exposure to PFAS from defendants' operations in Decatur. 3M has removed these cases to federal court, where they were transferred to the AFFF MDL. Plaintiffs have filed motions to remand most of these cases back to state court.
State Attorneys General Litigation Related to PFAS
As previously reported, several state attorneys general have filed lawsuits against 3M and other defendants related to alleged PFAS contamination. A number of these lawsuits are now pending in the federal MDL in South Carolina regarding AFFF, described further below, and there are also multiple state attorneys general lawsuits that are proceeding outside the AFFF MDL. Several state attorneys general have also filed multiple lawsuits against 3M and other defendants. In general, preliminary judicial proceedings evaluate whether these lawsuits should proceed in state or federal court and inside the AFFF MDL or outside of the AFFF MDL. Cases at times are moved to the AFFF MDL or remanded to another venue, such as state court.
The lawsuits generally seek on a state-wide basis: injunctive relief, investigative and remedial work, compensatory damages, natural resource damages, consumer protection civil penalties, attorneys’ fees, and, where available, punitive damages related to the states’ response to PFAS contamination. Currently in the AFFF MDL, state attorneys general lawsuits have been brought against 3M on behalf of the people of the states of Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin, as well as on behalf of the people of the District of Columbia and the territories of Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Northern Mariana Islands.
New Jersey. In March 2019, the New Jersey Attorney General filed two actions against 3M on behalf of New Jersey and certain of its departments regarding alleged PFAS discharges at two facilities: the Chambers Works facility in Salem County (“Chambers Works”) and the Parlin facility in Middlesex County. Although 3M has never owned or operated either facility, New Jersey alleged that 3M supplied PFAS to the facilities, which was then discharged into the environment. In May 2025, 3M agreed to a proposed Judicial Consent Order with the State (the “New Jersey Settlement”). The New Jersey Settlement is subject to public notice and comment and court approval. If the court approves the Settlement, New Jersey and its departments would agree to dismiss with prejudice the two actions described above and the State’s case against 3M pending in the AFFF MDL. In addition, the New Jersey Settlement resolved broader statewide PFAS claims that the State and its departments have, or may in the future have, against 3M, as more fully described in the proposed Judicial Consent Order. The New Jersey Settlement is not an admission of liability.
If the court approves the New Jersey Settlement and all conditions are met, 3M will pay the State up to $450 million. 3M recorded a pre-tax charge of $281 million in the second quarter of 2025 related to the New Jersey Settlement. The charge reflected the present value of the $400 million amount 3M expects to pay, discounted at an estimated 5.0% blended interest rate at time of proposed settlement. The New Jersey Settlement includes payments with a present value of $207 million for Chambers Works and other elements of the settlement beginning in 2026 over 8 years and payments with a present value of $74 million for existing and future PFAS-related claims by the State of New Jersey starting in 2030 and running through 2050. The actual amount that 3M will pay will be determined in part by how much 3M is ultimately obligated to pay under the PWS Settlement, as discussed elsewhere in this Note 17. 3M may also receive certain credits towards its payment obligations under the New Jersey Settlement based on other contingencies. The Court held a hearing on approval of the settlement on January 7, 2026. The Court will determine if further proceedings are necessary following the submission of certain additional information to the Court by the State.
Additional state attorneys general lawsuits that are proceeding outside the AFFF MDL are described below.
New Hampshire. In May 2019, the New Hampshire Attorney General filed a lawsuit in state court, which 3M removed to federal court. Following the federal court's remand of the case to state court, 3M filed an appeal, which the federal court of appeals denied in March 2025. The state court has set a Spring 2029 trial ready date.
Vermont. In June 2019, the Vermont Attorney General filed a lawsuit in state court, which 3M removed to federal court. In December 2025, the federal court held a hearing on the State's motion to remand the case to state court.
Illinois. In March 2022, the Illinois Attorney General filed a lawsuit in Illinois state court against 3M alleging contamination of the state's natural resources by PFAS compounds disposed of by, or discharged, or emitted from 3M's Cordova plant. The complaint requests monetary damages, injunctive relief, civil penalties, a testing program, and a public outreach and information sharing program. In August 2024, a federal court of appeals affirmed the order remanding the case to state court. In April 2025, the state court granted in part and denied in part a motion to dismiss filed by 3M. In July 2025, the state court entered a Case Management Order, setting the case for trial in September 2026. In October 2025, 3M re-removed the case to federal court. In November 2025, the federal court remanded the case back to state court. 3M appealed that decision to the federal court of appeals. In the interim, the case is proceeding in state court.
Maine. In March 2023, the Maine Attorney General filed a lawsuit in state court, which 3M removed to federal court. Following the federal court's remand of the case to state court, 3M filed an appeal, which the federal court of appeals granted in November 2025. In December 2025, the JPML clerk conditionally transferred the case to the AFFF MDL, which the State has opposed.
Maryland. In May 2023, the Maryland Attorney General filed a lawsuit in state court, which 3M removed to federal court. Following the federal court's remand of the case to state court, 3M filed an appeal, which the federal court of appeals granted in March 2025. The State filed a petition for review by the U.S. Supreme Court in October 2025.
South Carolina. In August 2023, the South Carolina Attorney General filed a lawsuit in state court, which 3M removed to the AFFF MDL. Following the MDL court's remand of the case to state court, 3M filed an appeal, which the federal court of appeals granted in March 2025. The State filed a petition for review by the U.S. Supreme Court in October 2025.
Connecticut. In January 2024, the Connecticut Attorney General filed a lawsuit in state court, which 3M removed to federal court. Following the federal court's remand of the case to state court, 3M filed an appeal. The federal court of appeals held a hearing on 3M's appeal in November 2025.
Texas. In December 2024, the Texas Attorney General filed a consumer-production lawsuit in state court, which 3M removed to federal court. Following the federal court's remand of the case to state court, 3M filed an application for leave to appeal, which the federal court of appeals denied in October 2025. In January 2026, 3M filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.
Oklahoma. In August 2025, the Oklahoma Attorney General filed a lawsuit in state court, which 3M removed to federal court. In December 2025, the JPML transferred the case to the AFFF MDL.
In addition, the Company is in discussions with several state attorneys general and agencies, responding to information and other requests, including entering into tolling agreements, relating to PFAS matters and exploring potential resolution of some of the matters raised.
Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF) Litigation
As of January 2026, according to data compiled by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ("JPML"), there were approximately 15,200 cases related in whole or in part, to PFAS contamination or exposure allegedly caused by AFFF pending in a consolidated multi-district litigation ("MDL") in federal court in South Carolina. These cases are in addition to cases that have been filed in state and other federal courts which also allege such injuries or damages (along with purported unfiled personal injury claims). Many of the personal injury cases both inside and outside the MDL have included and continue to include multiple plaintiffs and, therefore, the number of plaintiffs who have asserted such claims is substantially higher than the number of cases noted above. With respect to cases filed outside the MDL, 3M continues, where possible, to seek the transfer of those matters into the MDL and the vast majority of the pending cases are being litigated in the MDL.
Claims in the MDL are asserted by individuals, public water systems, putative class members, state and territorial sovereigns, and other entities. Plaintiffs seek a variety of forms of relief in cases in the MDL, including, where applicable, damages for personal injury, property damage, water treatment costs, medical monitoring, natural resource damages, and punitive damages. 3M also continues to defend certain AFFF cases that remain in state court and is in discussions with pre-suit claimants for possible resolutions where appropriate. In general, preliminary judicial proceedings evaluate whether these lawsuits should proceed in the AFFF MDL or outside of the AFFF MDL, with some cases being moved to the AFFF MDL or remanded to another venue, such as state court.
AFFF MDL and Water System Cases
In December 2018, the JPML granted motions to transfer and consolidate all AFFF cases pending in federal courts to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina to be managed in an MDL proceeding to centralize pre-trial proceedings. Over the past seven years, the parties in the MDL have conducted and are continuing to conduct ongoing master discovery and discovery regarding specific groups of cases, including public water suppliers, personal injury, and attorneys general cases, among other types of cases.
In September 2022, the court issued an order denying defendants' MDL-wide summary judgment motions on the government contractor defense, which defense can be presented to a jury at future trials.
In June 2023, 3M entered into a class-action settlement to resolve a wide range of drinking water claims by public water suppliers ("PWS") in the United States (the “PWS Settlement”), which was approved by the court in March 2024 and took effect in May 2024. Eligible class members are United States public water suppliers as defined in the PWS Settlement. The PWS Settlement provides that 3M does not admit any liability or wrongdoing and does not waive any defenses.
Following the PWS Settlement, a number of cases filed by PWS are still pending, including cases brought by water suppliers that did not qualify as eligible claimants and water suppliers that did not participate in the PWS settlement, which includes cases pending in both the MDL and various state courts.
3M will pay $10.5 billion to $12.5 billion in total to resolve the claims released by the PWS Settlement. 3M recorded a pre-tax charge of $10.3 billion in the second quarter of 2023. The charge reflected the present value (discounted at an estimated 5.2% interest rate at time of proposed settlement) of the expected $12.5 billion nominal value of 3M’s payments under the PWS Settlement. The PWS Settlement, as amended to include payments to certain other water providers, calls for 3M to make payments from 2024 through 2036. The actual amounts that 3M will pay will be determined in part by the results of PFAS testing received by certain class members by the end of 2025. Those class members who seek compensation on the basis of such test results must submit those results to the Claims Administrator by no later than July 1, 2026.
In December 2023, the parties selected an initial set of 25 plaintiffs for potential personal injury bellwether cases. In March 2024, the Court issued an order establishing a process for addressing most personal injury claims for diseases not included in the initial set of 25 cases and four other diseases, which has resulted in the dismissal without prejudice of thousands of personal injury claims. The process includes a tolling provision for certain dismissed claims filed in or transferred to the MDL by April 24, 2024. In July 2024, the court selected 9 out of the 25 bellwether cases to undergo additional discovery, including expert discovery. In January 2025, the Court issued an order setting the first bellwether personal injury trial to begin on October 20, 2025. In May 2025, the Court decided that the trial would involve one or more of three kidney cancer plaintiffs. On June 20, 2025, the Court conducted a "Science Day" regarding liver and thyroid cancers. At the Court's direction, the parties continue to negotiate processes for bellwethers of certain other personal injury claims. The Court continues to encourage the parties to settle matters and 3M is participating in Court-ordered settlement discussions facilitated by a Court-appointed mediator. In August 2025, the Court entered an order vacating the schedule for the first bellwether trial that had been scheduled to begin in October 2025. Also in August 2025, the Court entered orders relating to the filing of personal injury cases in the MDL and requesting the transfer of certain types of cases, including cases involving firefighter turnout gear, to the MDL. Following those orders, thousands of additional plaintiffs filed claims in the AFFF MDL. The number of cases in the MDL has remained relatively stable since November 2025 according to the MDL panel's case counts. The orders require, among other obligations, that plaintiffs provide certain information regarding their claims, and the parties are reviewing the information submitted for compliance with the Court's orders. In December 2025, the JPML declined to transfer several turnout gear cases to the MDL.
In November 2024, the Court issued an order directing the parties to work together to develop a process to select sites allegedly contaminated with PFAS from AFFF use for the purpose of conducting focused product identification discovery. In April 2025 the Court entered a case management order proposed by the parties identifying 12 sites on which the parties then conducted product-identification discovery. The parties are engaged in discussions regarding next steps.
Other AFFF Cases
In June 2019, several subsidiaries of Valero Energy Corporation, an independent petroleum refiner, filed eight AFFF cases against 3M and other defendants, including DuPont/Chemours, National Foam, Buckeye Fire Equipment, and Kidde-Fenwal, in various state courts. Plaintiffs seek damages that allegedly have been or will be incurred in investigating and remediating PFAS contamination at their properties and replacing or disposing of AFFF products containing long-chain PFAS compounds. Two of these cases have been removed to federal court and transferred to the AFFF MDL, and one case was voluntarily dismissed. The five cases that remain pending in state courts are stayed by agreement of the parties.
The Company is aware of other AFFF suits outside the AFFF MDL in which the Company has been named as a defendant. 3M anticipates seeking to have most of these cases removed to federal court and transferred to the AFFF MDL; however, several cases are expected to remain pending in state courts, including two cases in Illinois state alleging harm caused by exposure to PFAS from AFFF as well as other chemicals, the first of which is set for trial in September 2026.
Other PFAS-related Product and Environmental Litigation
Numerous other PFAS-related suits naming 3M as a defendant have been filed outside the MDL in courts across the country. The Company anticipates seeking to have most of the cases that relate to AFFF removed to federal court and transferred to the MDL. However, some of the cases initially filed outside the MDL are likely to remain in state or federal courts outside the MDL.
Since 2017, 3M has been served with individual and putative class action complaints in various state and federal courts alleging, among other things, that 3M’s customers’ improper disposal of certain forms of PFAS resulted in the contamination of groundwater, surface water, or biosolids that were then land-applied. The plaintiffs in these cases generally allege that 3M failed to warn its customers or the plaintiffs themselves about the hazards of improper disposal of the product. They also generally allege that contaminated groundwater has caused various injuries, including personal injury, loss of use and enjoyment of their properties, diminished property values, investigation costs, and remediation costs. Several companies have been sued along with 3M, including, but not limited to, DuPont, Chemours, and various carpet, paper and textile manufacturers.
As described immediately below, some of these cases have been brought by drinking water providers that opted out of the PWS Settlement.
In Alabama, 3M, together with multiple co-defendants, are defending several court cases brought by municipal water utilities. The plaintiffs in four of these cases (Shelby/Talladega Counties, Five Star Water Supply District, City of Clanton WWSB, and Coosa Valley Water Supply District) are water utilities alleging that the discharge of PFAS chemicals has contaminated drinking water supplies of cities located downstream along the Coosa River in Alabama. 3M removed these cases to federal court. Plaintiffs moved to remand all of these cases to state court, but those motions have been denied without prejudice and all of the cases have been stayed pending the federal appeals court's ruling in the Town of Pine Hill appeal (discussed below). 3M has filed a tag-along notice with the JPML seeking to transfer three of these cases (Shelby/Talladega Counties, City of Clanton WWSB, and Coosa Valley Water Supply District) to the AFFF MDL, and the JPML clerk entered a conditional transfer order with respect to all three cases in December 2025, which plaintiffs opposed.
The City of Albertville, Alabama filed suit in Alabama state court for alleged contamination of the Tennessee River (upstream of 3M’s Decatur facility) by a carpet manufacturer in Alabama. Defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss in May 2024. The Court dismissed plaintiff’s private nuisance and trespass claims, but allowed remaining claims to proceed. 3M and the other supplier defendants filed their answers in October 2025. The Court has not yet entered a scheduling order, but fact discovery is in its initial stages and is ongoing.
The City of Mobile, Alabama filed suit in Alabama state court alleging that 3M and other defendants are responsible for PFAS contamination of the city’s water supply resulting from PFAS released by a local landfill. In October 2024, the Court granted 3M’s and several other defendants’ motions to dismiss. Claims against one local defendant remain pending, which prevents the motion to dismiss ruling from becoming final.
The Town of Pine Hill, Alabama filed suit in Alabama state court alleging that PFAS discharges from paper mills currently owned by International Paper have contaminated its water supply. 3M removed the case to federal district court. In March 2025, the federal district court granted plaintiff’s motion to remand the case to state court. 3M filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, and the federal district court granted 3M’s motion to stay the remand order. Briefing in the Eleventh Circuit was completed in August 2025. In June 2025, the state court ruled that it could proceed with discovery notwithstanding the federal district court’s stay of the remand order. In July 2025, defendants filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus in the Alabama Supreme Court challenging that state court ruling. Both the Eleventh Circuit appeal and the Writ of Mandamus before the Alabama Supreme Court have been fully briefed and remain pending.
The City of Irondale, Alabama filed suit alleging PFAS contamination of its water supply due to industrial discharges from several users of PFAS in different industries, including alleged customers of 3M. 3M removed the case to federal court and in August 2025, the plaintiffs’ motion to remand was denied. In September 2025, and the case was stayed pending the Eleventh Circuit’s decision in Pine Hill. 3M filed a tag-along notice with the JPML seeking to transfer this case to the AFFF MDL, and the JPML clerk entered a conditional transfer order in December 2025, which plaintiff opposed.
In May 2025, the City of Opelika, Alabama sued 3M and numerous other defendants alleging that releases by users of PFAS in carpet, textile, and paper manufacturing operations upstream of its drinking water intake have contaminated its water supply. 3M removed the case to federal court and has moved to transfer the case to the AFFF MDL. Plaintiff filed a motion to remand, and in September 2025, the case was stayed pending the Eleventh Circuit’s decision in Pine Hill. The case was transferred to the AFFF MDL in October 2025.
In May 2025 the City of Foley, Alabama sued 3M and others alleging that releases by users of PFAS in local manufacturing operations contaminated groundwater used for drinking water supplies. 3M filed a Motion to Dismiss in July 2025. The court held a hearing in September 2025 on the motion to dismiss, but plaintiff has since amended its complaint. 3M moved to strike plaintiff’s amended complaint in December 2025.
3M is also defending a mass action filed in Alabama in June 2024 by hundreds of individual customers of the Water Works and Sewer Board for the City of Gadsden, Alabama, alleging emotional distress and property damage related to PFAS contamination of their drinking water. 3M removed the case to federal court, where the case was proceeding through discovery. In December 2025, 3M filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings based on the expiration of the applicable statute of limitations prior to the filing of the complaint. The Court stayed discovery pending a ruling on 3M’s motion and briefing on the motion is ongoing.
In Georgia, 3M, together with other defendants, is defending a putative class action in federal court, in which plaintiffs seek relief on behalf of a class of individual ratepayers in Summerville, Georgia who allege their water supply was contaminated by PFAS discharged from a textile mill. The City of Summerville intervened in the case and also brought claims against 3M and other defendants. Discovery is finished and briefing on dispositive motions concluded in July 2025. Trial is expected in 2026.
Another case currently pending in federal court in Georgia was brought by individuals asserting PFAS contamination by 3M and other defendants, seeks economic damages and injunctive relief on behalf of a putative class of Rome and Floyd County water subscribers. Class certification has been fully briefed, and the plaintiff's injunctive relief claims were recently dismissed. Plaintiff's claims for economic damages related to alleged increases in their water rates due to the presence of PFAS remain pending. Discovery was reopened in a limited fashion due to plaintiffs’ request to investigate whether recent increases in water utility rates by the City of Rome was attributable to PFAS. Defendants filed a consolidated motion for summary judgment in December 2025. No trial date has been set.
In February 2024, two landowners in Gordon County, Georgia sued 3M and other defendants for alleged contamination of their properties from wastewater treatment sludge allegedly containing PFAS from nearby carpet manufacturing operations. One of 3M’s co-defendants, the City of Calhoun, Georgia, filed a cross claim against 3M and other defendants alleging that biosolids from its wastewater treatment plant were contaminated with PFAS that has migrated into its water supply. In June 2024, a related lawsuit was filed on behalf of other property owners who allege that their properties are contaminated with PFAS due to runoff from the properties of the Gordon County landowners from the initial lawsuit. Motions to dismiss were denied, and discovery closed in December 2025. In January 2025, a private plaintiff filed a lawsuit against 3M and other defendants in Gordon County, Georgia alleging similar property contamination due to PFAS. All of these cases remain pending. Some of these cases are set for trial in December 2026 or January 2027.
In July 2024, the City of Lyerly, Georgia sued 3M and other defendants, alleging that discharges from local carpet mills contaminated the City's water supply. 3M's motion to dismiss was denied in March 2025 and discovery is underway.
In November 2024, Mohawk Industries, a carpet manufacturer, filed a lawsuit in Whitfield County, Georgia against 3M, DuPont, and Daikin alleging various counts of tort and contract liability, including fraud, related to sales of fluorochemicals. Motions to dismiss the case were denied. Discovery in the case is proceeding. Trial is currently set for March 2027.
In December 2024, Dalton Utilities, located in Dalton, Georgia, filed a suit against 3M and other defendants seeking clean-up costs under CERCLA and common law theories for alleged PFAS contamination related to the Dalton Land Application System, which is a nearly 10,000 acre field that has received carpet mill effluent pursuant to a Georgia Environmental Protection Division permit since the late 1980s. Briefing on motions to dismiss is complete, and a hearing was held in October, 2025. The parties are awaiting a ruling on those motions.
In December 2024, Murray County, Georgia filed suit against 3M and other defendants seeking clean-up costs for alleged PFAS contamination related to the Murray County landfill and other locations throughout the County. 3M filed a motion to dismiss, which was denied. Discovery in the case is proceeding.
In January 2025, Catoosa County, Georgia and Gordon County, Georgia filed substantively identical complaints alleging similar PFAS impacts as Murray County related to county-owned landfills. 3M filed motions to dismiss, which were denied. Discovery in the cases is proceeding.
In October 2025, Walker County, Georgia filed a substantively identical complaint alleging similar PFAS impacts as Murray, Catoosa, and Gordon Counties related to the Walker County landfill. 3M’s response to the complaint is due in January 2026.
In July 2025, property owners in Gordon County and Murray County, Georgia, filed eight separate lawsuits against PFAS chemical manufacturers and carpet manufacturers alleging that the discharge of PFAS from various carpet manufacturer facilities contaminated their properties. Motions to dismiss these cases are currently pending.
In October 2025, property owners in Floyd County and Whitfield County, Georgia filed three separate lawsuits against PFAS chemical manufacturers and carpet manufacturers that are substantively identical to those filed by property owners in Gordon County and Murray County. 3M’s response to these complaints is due in January 2026.
In February 2025, the City of Savannah, Georgia sued 3M and multiple other defendants, including carpet makers, alleging PFAS discharges upstream of its surface water drinking intake have contaminated its water supply. 3M removed the case to federal court, where plaintiff has filed a motion to remand. 3M filed a motion to transfer the case to the MDL, which was granted in June 2025. There are no current responsive pleading deadlines.
In April 2025, the City of Chatsworth, Georgia sued 3M and multiple other defendants, including carpet makers, alleging PFAS discharges have contaminated its water supply. 3M filed a motion to dismiss, which remains pending.
In April 2025, a private landowner and an environmental organization (Coosa River Basin Initiative) sued 3M and others, including carpet makers and Dalton Utilities, for property damages and injunctive relief related to the Dalton Utilities Land Application System. Dalton Utilities filed a motion to stay the case in favor of its pending action in the same district court, and briefing on that issue is ongoing. All other deadlines are stayed until the stay is decided. In September 2025, Plaintiffs filed a motion to consolidate this case with the putative class of Rome and Floyd County ratepayer class action discussed above, which is pending before the same judge. The motion remains pending.
In April 2025, private landowners in Chattooga County, Georgia sued 3M and multiple other defendants, including a textile mill, alleging that PFAS discharges to the Town of Trion, Georgia wastewater treatment plant made its way to sludge that was deposited on plaintiffs’ properties via land application for years. In August 2025, the case was voluntarily dismissed. In September 2025, it was re-filed in Gwinnett County, Georgia. 3M has filed a motion to dismiss and briefing is underway.
In June 2025, private landowners in northwest Georgia filed three cases against 3M and other defendants alleging PFAS from nearby carpet making facilities has contaminated soil, water, and indoor dust at their properties. 3M has filed motions to dismiss and briefing on the motions is underway.
In June 2025, Walker County, Georgia and the City of Chickamauga, Georgia sued 3M and multiple other defendants, including carpet makers, alleging that the carpet manufacturers discharged PFAS into the public sewer system, which caused it to enter plaintiffs’ drinking water. 3M has filed a motion to dismiss, which remains pending.
In September 2025, Dougherty County and Chattooga County Georgia filed a case against 3M in the Middle District of Georgia on behalf of a putative class of all governmental entities in Georgia who own or operate municipal landfills impacted by PFAS. 3M filed a motion to dismiss and briefing is underway.
In November 2025, the City of Fresno, California filed a case against 3M and multiple other defendants alleging that various industrial PFAS discharges contaminated the City's drinking water. 3M removed the case to federal court in December 2025. In January 2026, the clerk of the JPML issued a conditional order to transfer the case to the AFFF MDL, which the City has moved to vacate.
In Delaware, 3M, together with several co-defendants, has been defending one putative class action brought by individuals alleging PFAS contamination of their water supply resulting from the operations of local metal plating facilities. In August 2023, the court dismissed all but plaintiffs' negligence claim. In March 2025, the court granted 3M's motion for summary judgment as to the remaining claim.
In New Jersey, 3M, together with several co-defendants, is also defending numerous cases in federal court brought by individuals with private drinking water wells near certain DuPont and Solvay facilities that were allegedly supplied with PFAS by 3M. 3M settled for an immaterial amount with the plaintiffs in certain cases that sought property damages, and for those cases requiring court approval, such approval was granted in May 2025, and all such cases have been dismissed as to 3M. Plaintiffs in the remaining individual cases allege personal injuries to themselves or to their adult children. In addition, 3M and several other defendants were named in a complaint filed in New Jersey state court in May 2025 by individuals who resided near Solvay’s facility and who allege personal injuries to themselves or to their children from PFAS exposure. 3M removed the case to federal court in August 2025. 3M's motion to transfer the case to the AFFF MDL was denied in December 2025.
3M and Middlesex Water Company were defendants in a putative class action filed in New Jersey federal court in November 2021 by individuals who received drinking water from Middlesex Water Company that was allegedly contaminated with PFOA. In May 2022, Middlesex Water Company filed a third-party complaint against the Company in New Jersey state court in a putative class action brought by customers of the water company, seeking contribution and indemnity from the Company. In November 2023, Middlesex Water Company dismissed its third-party complaint against the Company in connection with the settlement of Middlesex Water Company's separate action against 3M. The parties to the New Jersey federal and state court class actions agreed to settle these cases for an immaterial amount, which settlement was approved by the state court in October 2025. The New Jersey state and federal court class actions have each been dismissed. In March 2023, a personal injury lawsuit was filed against 3M and Middlesex Water Company by another Middlesex Water Company customer. The case is now proceeding in discovery. Trial in that case is set for May 2026.
In South Carolina, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in South Carolina state court against 3M and other defendants in March 2022. The lawsuit alleges property damage from contamination from PFAS compounds used and disposed of at a defunct textile plant in Society Hill, South Carolina. The operative complaint seeks both property and punitive damages. The case has been removed to federal court. In August 2024, a companion personal injury case was filed in South Carolina state court. 3M removed this case to federal court. Discovery is proceeding in the putative property damage class action. Motions to dismiss filed by 3M and other defendants are pending in the personal injury case.
In January 2025, eight water systems that opted out of the PWS Settlement filed complaints in South Carolina state court against 3M and other defendants, alleging PFAS contamination from a variety of industrial sources. 3M removed all eight cases into the AFFF MDL in federal court in February 2025. In April 2025, plaintiffs filed motions to remand all eight cases to state court, which have now been fully briefed.
In Massachusetts, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in August 2022 in state court against 3M and several other defendants alleging PFAS contamination from waste generated by local paper manufacturing facilities that was subsequently incorporated into biosolids at a local composting facility. The lawsuit alleges property damage and seeks medical monitoring on behalf of plaintiffs within the Town of Westminster. This case was removed to federal court, where it was consolidated with a previously filed federal case involving similar allegations and claims against 3M’s co-defendants. In February and March 2024, 3M and the remaining defendants answered the complaint and filed cross claims against one another. In April 2025, the class action was consolidated with another class action brought by the same plaintiffs against different defendants. With the exception of certain limited discovery, class certification proceedings in the original action are stayed until April 2026 to allow the cases to proceed to a single class certification hearing, which is expected in the third quarter of 2026. No trial date has been set.
In October 2024, one of the former plaintiffs in the putative class action filed a separate suit in Massachusetts state court against 3M and other defendants alleging PFAS-related personal injury as well as property damage to a private well. 3M filed a motion to dismiss that case in June 2025, which remains pending. In March 2025, another resident of Westminster, Massachusetts filed an additional suit against 3M and other defendants alleging PFAS-related personal injury. 3M filed a motion to dismiss in September 2025, which remains pending.
In Maine, a group of landowners filed a second amended complaint in October 2022 in federal district court, adding 3M and several other alleged chemical suppliers as defendants in a case previously filed against several paper mills, alleging PFAS contamination from waste generated by the paper mills that was then incorporated into biosolids. As of the fourth amended complaint, the case involves 98 plaintiffs asserting property damage claims against the owner of one paper mill and three alleged chemical suppliers, including 3M. Discovery closed as to the six original plaintiffs in December of 2025. The parties must now confer and file a proposed scheduling order governing the remainder of the case. No trial date has been set.
In Wisconsin, in August 2023, 3M and other defendants were named as defendants in a putative class action brought in federal court by several residents of Oneida County alleging property damage resulting from PFAS contamination they attribute to waste generated from the operations of a paper mill in Rhinelander, Wisconsin that was then incorporated into biosolids. 3M’s motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part in June 2025. The case is in class certification expert discovery. A class certification hearing is expected in the fourth quarter of 2026. The court has set a trial date in June 2027.
In December 2024, 3M was named as a defendant in a putative class action brought in federal court by several private well owners near 3M's Wausau Greystone quarry seeking to recover for property damages and medical monitoring related to alleged PFAS contamination. The case also includes (non-class) personal injury claims on behalf of select plaintiffs. 3M filed a motion to dismiss this case in February 2025, which remains pending. In October 2025, the Court formally adopted a case schedule setting a July 24, 2026, deadline for plaintiffs to move for class certification and set a trial date for November 2027.
In Illinois, 3M has been sued in three separate actions by individual plaintiffs alleging personal injury and/or property damage claims relating to alleged PFAS contamination from 3M’s Cordova facility. 3M removed all three cases to federal court, where two were transferred to the AFFF MDL. The remaining case was remanded to state court in May 2025.
In Missouri, in April 2024, 3M was added as a defendant to a pending putative class action brought by individuals alleging PFAS contamination of their properties and drinking water from metal plating operations in southeastern Missouri. In October 2024, the court denied 3M's motion to dismiss.
In September 2025, 3M was named a defendant in a personal injury suit filed in Missouri state court alleging plaintiff’s injuries were caused by exposure to chemicals in firefighting protective gear. 3M removed the case to federal court and in September 2025 moved to transfer the case to the AFFF MDL. The JPML denied 3M's motion to transfer in December 2025. Plaintiff has filed a motion for remand that remains pending.
In Connecticut, in June 2024, 3M and numerous other defendants were sued in a putative class action brought by individual firefighters and several firefighter unions, alleging exposure to PFAS from certain turnout gear worn by the class members. Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint in April 2025. 3M filed its motion to dismiss the amended complaint in June 2025, and that motion is still pending.
In October 2018, 3M and other defendants, including DuPont and Chemours, were named in a putative class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio brought by the named plaintiff, a firefighter allegedly exposed to PFAS chemicals through his use of firefighting foam, purporting to represent a putative class of all U.S. individuals with detectable levels of PFAS in their blood. In March 2022, the court certified a class of "[i]ndividuals subject to the laws of Ohio, who have 0.05 [ppt] of PFOA (C-8) and at least 0.05 ppt of any other PFAS in their blood serum." In November 2023, the Sixth Circuit issued an order vacating the class certification decision and remanding the case with instructions that the district court dismiss the case and later denied a motion for rehearing en banc. In March 2024, the district court vacated the class certification order and dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. In June 2024, 3M was named as a defendant in a new putative nationwide class action by the same named plaintiff who filed the Ohio suit that was dismissed and is described above. The new suit was brought against only 3M and DuPont entities and seeks to establish a putative class of anyone subject to the laws of Ohio or subject to the law of states that recognize the claims for relief filed by plaintiffs with blood serum levels of 2 ppb or more of PFOS and PFOA (combined) manufactured by defendants. 3M was served with the suit in July 2024 and subsequently filed a motion to transfer the case to the AFFF MDL, which was denied in October 2024. In October 2024, 3M filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, which remains pending.
In Virginia, in August 2024, 3M was named as a defendant in a case alleging that plaintiff’s decedent, a civilian firefighter, died from cancer allegedly caused by exposure to PFAS from turnout gear. A co-defendant removed the case to federal court, and plaintiffs’ motion to remand has been fully briefed since December 2024. In April 2025, 3M was named as a defendant in a similar case in Virginia, which was removed to federal court by another defendant. In August 2025, 3M filed motions to transfer both cases to the AFFF MDL. Plaintiffs’ motions to remand remain pending in both matters. In September 2025, 3M removed three additional firefighter turnout gear cases to Virginia federal court and moved to transfer all of these cases to the AFFF MDL. Plaintiffs in these cases have moved to remand which remain pending. In December 2025, the JPML declined to transfer the three Virginia turnout gear cases that were before it at that hearing.
In Minnesota, in August 2024, 3M, DuPont, and Chemours were named in a putative nationwide class action brought on behalf of all persons who purchased carpeting treated with PFAS-containing products before January 1, 2020. The lawsuit alleges claims under RICO and state consumer protection, product liability, and nuisance laws. In September 2025, the federal district court granted 3M's motion to dismiss all claims, which plaintiffs did not appeal.
In Minnesota, in May 2025, 3M, DuPont, and Chemours were named in a putative nationwide class action in federal court brought on behalf of all municipalities and governmental entities who purchased fire fighter personal protective equipment from the named defendants alleging injuries from exposure to PFAS in the protective equipment. 3M filed a motion to dismiss, but plaintiffs have indicated they will file an amended complaint by February 10, 2026.
In Pennsylvania, in March 2025, 3M, DuPont, and the designers, manufacturers, and distributors of AstroTurf were named in a complaint filed in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas by former Philadelphia Phillies players alleging personal injury claims allegedly resulting from exposure to PFAS and ethylene oxide in AstroTurf at Veterans Stadium. Plaintiffs’ alleged exposures date back to the 1970s. In September 2025, 3M removed the case to federal court. In October 2025, plaintiffs moved to remand the case to state court. That motion remains pending.
In Montana, in April 2025, 3M, DuPont, and Chemours were named in a putative nationwide class action in Montana District Court, brought on behalf of all entities who bought turnout gear from the named defendants alleging injuries from exposure to PFAS in the turnout gear. The lawsuit alleges claims under RICO and state conspiracy, product liability, consumer protection, and deceptive trade practices laws. On September 23, 2025, the court denied Defendants’ motion to transfer the case to the District of Delaware. 3M filed a motion to dismiss in October 2025. The court denied the motion in January 2026.
In New York, in May 2025, the owner of a tree nursery located in Hoosick Falls filed suit against 3M, Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp., Honeywell International Inc., and DuPont seeking to recover for property damage allegedly resulting from PFOA contamination that plaintiff attributes to a nearby fabric coating facility. 3M filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint in October 2025.
In Michigan, 3M previously settled claims brought by Wolverine World Wide (Wolverine) related to Wolverine’s alleged use of 3M Scotchgard in its shoe manufacturing operations. 3M continues to incur liabilities for immaterial amounts pursuant to the settlement agreement. In December 2025, the owners of two landfills sued Wolverine and 3M in federal court in Michigan, alleging that both are liable for the remediation of PFAS contamination at and around the landfills under CERCLA and Michigan's Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act. 3M's response to that complaint is due in February 2026.
Other PFAS-related Matters
Decatur, Alabama
Grand Jury Matter. The Company previously operated under a 2009 consent order issued under the federal TSCA (the “2009 TSCA consent order”) for the manufacture and use of two perfluorinated materials (FBSA and FBSEE) at the Decatur site that prohibits release of these materials into “the waters of the United States.” In March 2019, the Company halted the manufacture, processing, and use of these materials at the site upon learning that these materials may have been released from certain specified processes at the Decatur site into the Tennessee River. In April 2019, the Company voluntarily disclosed the releases to the U.S. EPA and the Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM). During June and July 2019, the Company took steps to fully control the aforementioned processes by capturing all wastewater produced by the processes and treating all air emissions. These processes are no longer in use.
As previously reported, in December 2019, the Company received a grand jury subpoena from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Alabama for documents related to, among other matters: (1) the Company’s compliance with the 2009 TSCA Consent Order; and (2) unpermitted discharges to the Tennessee River from its Decatur facility. The Company continues to cooperate with the U.S. Attorney’s Office, the U.S. Department of Justice, and the EPA with respect to these issues.
In parallel, the Company continues to engage with the EPA, ADEM, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) and the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) related to potential civil claims arising out of the discharges at issue in the above-described grand jury investigation, as well as with respect to certain discharges of PFAS from the Cottage Grove and Cordova facilities, which are described below.
Other Regulatory. The Company is authorized to discharge wastewater from its Decatur plant pursuant to an NPDES permit issued by ADEM. In June 2019, as previously reported, the Company voluntarily disclosed to the EPA and ADEM that it had included incorrect values in certain of its monthly and quarterly reports. The Company has submitted the corrected values to both the EPA and ADEM. In addition, as previously reported, the Company discovered it had not fully characterized its PFAS discharge in its NPDES permit. In September 2019, the Company disclosed the matter to the EPA and ADEM and temporarily idled certain manufacturing processes at 3M Decatur.
An application to add the additional PFAS to its NPDES permit was submitted to ADEM and the Company installed additional wastewater treatment controls to address PFAS. The wastewater controls are now on-line and in operation as 3M works to optimize wastewater control operations. ADEM and 3M are in discussions about 3M's application for a modified NPDES permit.
3M and ADEM agreed to the terms of an interim consent order in July 2020 to cover all PFAS-related wastewater discharges and air emissions from the Company’s Decatur facility. Under the interim consent order, the Company’s principal obligations include commitments related to (i) future ongoing site operations such as (a) providing notices or reports and performing various analytical and characterization studies and (b) future capital improvements; and (ii) remediation activities, including on-site and off-site investigations and studies. Obligations related to ongoing future site operations under the Consent Order or any further investigations may involve additional operating costs and capital expenditures over multiple years.
Cordova, Illinois
The Company is authorized to discharge wastewater from its Cordova plant pursuant to an NPDES permit issued by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (“IEPA”). As previously reported, in November 2019, the Company disclosed to the EPA, and, in January 2020, disclosed to the IEPA, that the Company's NPDES permit for the Cordova facility did not include all PFAS that had been identified in its water discharge. As noted above, 3M continues to engage with EPA and IEPA on potential civil claims related to these discharges. An application to add the additional PFAS to the plant's permit was submitted to IEPA, and the Company has now brought on-line and continues to optimize a wastewater treatment specifically designed to treat PFAS. IEPA and 3M are in discussions about 3M's application for a modified NPDES permit.
In November 2022, the Company entered into an Administrative Consent Order under the Safe Drinking Water Act ("SDWA") that requires the Company to continue to sample and survey private and public drinking water wells within the vicinity of the Cordova facility, provide treatment of private water wells within a three-mile radius of the Cordova facility, and to provide alternate treatment/supply for the Camanche, Iowa public drinking water system. The Company continues to work with EPA and the City of Camanche as it implements the SDWA Administrative Consent Order.
In January 2025, the Company reached an agreement with the EPA on the terms of a consent order under RCRA, that requires the Company to delineate PFAS in soil and groundwater at the Cordova plant and a surrounding area that extends up to 1/2 mile from the plant site. The order also requires collecting a specified number of soil and groundwater samples at up to 80 locations in the area extending 5 miles from the plant. The Company continues to work with EPA as it implements the RCRA consent order.
Cottage Grove, Minnesota
The Company is authorized to discharge wastewater from its Cottage Grove plant pursuant to an NPDES permit issued by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). As previously reported, the Company discovered it had not fully characterized its PFAS discharge in its NPDES permit for the Cottage Grove facility and, in March 2020, disclosed this matter to the EPA and MPCA. As noted above, 3M continues to engage with EPA and MPCA on potential civil claims related to these discharges. The Company is currently installing a new wastewater treatment system to address PFAS.
The Company continues to work with the MPCA pursuant to the terms of an ongoing and previously disclosed May 2007 Settlement Agreement and Consent Order ("SACO") to address the presence of certain PFAS compounds in the soil and groundwater at former disposal sites in Washington County, Minnesota (Oakdale and Woodbury) and at the Company’s manufacturing facility at Cottage Grove, Minnesota. Under this agreement, the Company’s principal obligations include (i) evaluating releases of certain PFAS compounds from these sites and proposing response actions, including actions to provide treatment or alternative drinking water upon identifying any level exceeding a Health Based Value ("HBV") or Health Risk Limit ("HRL") (i.e., the amount of a chemical in drinking water determined by the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) to be safe for human consumption over a lifetime) for certain PFAS compounds for which a HBV and/or HRL exists; (ii) remediating identified sources of other PFAS compounds at these sites that are not controlled by actions to remediate PFOA and PFOS; and (iii) sharing information with the MPCA about certain perfluorinated compounds. In January 2024, the MDH issued updated, more stringent, HBVs for PFOA and PFOS. In October 2024, MDH proposed HRLs for PFOA and PFOS. 3M continues to evaluate any potential impact of these developments on its obligations under the SACO. The Company also continues to implement the previously disclosed 2008 remedial decision adopted by MPCA for the Woodbury and Oakdale sites and the 2009 remedial decision adopted by MPCA for the Cottage Grove site.
In January 2021, MPCA issued a Notice of Violation that included measures requiring the Company to address the presence of PFAS in wastewater and to undertake certain facility improvements related to its wastewater discharge system. The Company continues to work with MPCA to address the Notice of Violation.
In June 2022, MPCA directed that the Company address the presence of PFAS in its stormwater discharge from the Cottage Grove facility. The Company worked with MPCA to develop a plan to address its stormwater, which is embodied in an order issued by MPCA in December 2022, which the Company is working to implement.
In May 2025, MPCA issued a final NPDES permit for the Cottage Grove plant, with an effective date of June 1, 2025. The permit includes ultra-low effluent limits for certain PFAS, some of which are below current limits of quantification for those compounds. The permit also includes low, but measurable "compliance limits" for those same compounds that are deemed to demonstrate compliance with the permit. In June 2025, 3M filed a notice of appeal challenging several elements of the permit, and in November 2025 filed its opening brief in the matter. The Company cannot predict the outcome of the appeal. It is possible that the outcome of the appeal or future permit amendments will result in discharge limits that will require additional capital or operational expenditures in order to meet discharge limits. If the Company is unable to meet discharge limits, such development could have a significant adverse impact on 3M's normal operations and the Company's businesses that receive products and other materials from the Cottage Grove facility, some of which may not be available or in similar quantities from other 3M facilities, which could in turn impact these businesses' ability to fulfill supply obligations to their customers.
Minnesota 2018 Natural Resources Defense Settlement
As previously disclosed, in February 2018, the Company recorded a pre-tax charge of $897 million, inclusive of legal fees and other related obligations, in the first quarter of 2018 with respect to the settlement of a matter brought by the State of Minnesota involving the presence of PFAS in the groundwater, surface water, fish or other aquatic life, and sediments in the state. The settlement created a fund to enhance drinking water quality in the East Metropolitan Area of Minneapolis-St. Paul. The projects approved by MPCA drawing on the fund must be reasonable and necessary. If the fund is depleted, additional funding could be sought from 3M. MPCA and 3M disagree that certain projects MPCA has approved are reasonable and necessary and otherwise satisfy the conditions created by the 2018 settlement. MPCA and 3M also disagree over whether certain projected long-term operations and maintenance and other expenses that will not be paid for many years should be factored into determining when the fund is depleted. 3M initiated the mediation process in February of 2025 under the settlement to address these disagreements. That process remains ongoing.
Hutchinson, Minnesota
MPCA issued to the Company a Notice of Violation in March 2023, alleging that the Company is discharging stormwater containing PFAS at the 3M’s facility in Hutchinson, Minnesota. The Company is working with MPCA regarding the allegations in the Notice of Violation.
Fairmont, Minnesota
MPCA issued a Notice of Violation (NOV) dated July 22, 2025, to the Company for alleged violations related to stormwater and fire water discharges containing PFAS constituents at the 3M Fairmont MN facility. The major corrective actions required in the NOV include completion of a stormwater action plan to improve collection and treatment of stormwater and a soil and groundwater investigation at the site. The Company has provided a response to the NOV contesting the validity of the alleged violations and a plan for addressing the requested corrective actions and is working with the MPCA regarding the alleged violations.
The Company continues to work with relevant federal and state agencies (including EPA, the U.S. Department of Justice, state environmental agencies and state attorneys general) as it responds to information, inspection, and other requests from the agencies. As noted above, the Company is in negotiations with EPA, the U.S. Department of Justice, and the Alabama, Illinois, and Minnesota state environmental agencies to address claims arising under the CWA and the TSCA related to the Company’s plants in those states. The Company cannot predict at this time the outcomes of resolving these compliance matters, what actions may be taken by the regulatory agencies or the potential consequences to the Company.
Wausau, Wisconsin
In August 2024, the Company received a request for information from EPA under CERCLA seeking information and documents, including regarding the use and disposal of PFAS at its Greystone facility and its downtown Wausau facility. 3M has provided the EPA with information responsive to that request and, in October 2025, EPA informed 3M it has not identified any immediate need for 3M to take additional action with respect to EPA's request. In March 2025, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) issued a letter to 3M stating that it has determined there has been a release of hazardous substances from the Greystone facility based on PFAS detected in groundwater and ordering 3M to submit a work plan for investigation. A site investigation work plan, which describes the initial scope of sampling to take place at the facility, was submitted to the WDNR in June 2025. The WDNR has approved the work plan. The soil and groundwater sampling is in process.
Cynthiana, Kentucky
In May 2025, 3M’s Cynthiana facility received a subpoena and a letter from the Kentucky Energy and Environment Cabinet. The subpoena seeks information regarding PFAS and alleged hazardous substances used or released at the site. The letter directs 3M to develop a site characterization plan to investigate suspected PFAS releases at the site. 3M is engaged with the regulatory authority on these issues.
Hartford City, Indiana
In July 2025, the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) issued notices of liability requiring 3M to investigate and remediate hazardous substances, including PFAS, at 3M’s Hartford City facility and nearby off-site properties. IDEM also issued related information requests. 3M is engaged in discussions with IDEM about the notices and information requests.
Other Environmental Matters
In July 2018, the Company, along with more than 120 other companies, was served with a complaint seeking cost recovery and contribution towards the cleaning up of approximately eight miles of the Lower Passaic River in New Jersey. The plaintiff, Occidental Chemical Corporation, alleges that it agreed to design and pay the estimated $165 million cost to remove and cap sediment containing eight chemicals of concern, including PCBs and dioxins. The complaint seeks to spread those costs among the defendants, including the Company. The Company’s involvement in the case relates to its past use of two commercial drum conditioning facilities in New Jersey. Whether, and to what extent, the Company may be required to contribute to the costs at issue in the case remains to be determined.
In January 2025, the EPA issued a Notice of Violation (NOV) to the Cottage Grove facility based on a 2021 EPA RCRA inspection. The NOV was received by the facility in February 2025. In the NOV, the EPA asserts that during the inspection, it observed improper management of hazardous waste related to containers and tanks and improper recordkeeping. Several issues identified by EPA were corrected at the time of the inspection and the Company responded to the NOV in March 2025.
In July 2024, the Company received a Violation Notice from the IEPA alleging regulatory violations related to certain air emissions of volatile organic material at the Cordova facility. The Company has responded to the Violation Notice. For environmental matters and litigation described above, unless otherwise described below, no liability has been recorded as the Company believes liability in those matters is not probable and reasonably estimable and the Company is not able to estimate a possible loss or range of possible loss at this time. The Company’s environmental liabilities are described below.
Environmental Liabilities
The Company periodically examines whether the contingent liabilities related to the environmental matters and litigation described above are probable and reasonably estimable based on experience and ongoing developments in those matters, including discussions regarding negotiated resolutions. During 2025, primarily as a result of the New Jersey Settlement, interest accretion on the PWS Settlement, and updates to site remediation obligations, the Company increased its accrual for PFAS-related other environmental litigation and made related payments. As of December 31, 2025 and December 31, 2024, the Company had recorded “other environmental liabilities” of $7.7 billion ($0.7 billion within other current liabilities and $7.0 billion within other liabilities on 3M’s consolidated balance sheet) and $8.6 billion ($2.0 billion within other current liabilities and $6.6 billion within other liabilities on 3M’s consolidated balance sheet), respectively. The accruals represent the Company’s estimate of the probable loss in connection with the environmental matters and PFAS-related matters and litigation described above. The Company is not able to estimate a possible loss or range of possible loss in excess of the established accruals at this time.
As of December 31, 2025, the Company had recorded liabilities of $40 million for estimated non-PFAS related “environmental remediation” costs to clean up, treat, or remove hazardous substances at current or former 3M manufacturing or third-party sites. The Company evaluates available facts with respect to each individual site each quarter and records liabilities for remediation costs on an undiscounted basis when they are probable and reasonably estimable, generally no later than the completion of feasibility studies or the Company’s commitment to a plan of action. Liabilities for estimated costs of environmental remediation, depending on the site, are based primarily upon internal or third-party environmental studies, and estimates as to the number, participation level and financial viability of any other potentially responsible parties, the extent of the contamination and the nature of required remedial actions. The Company adjusts recorded liabilities as further information develops or circumstances change. The Company expects that it will pay the amounts recorded over the periods of remediation for the applicable sites, currently ranging up to 20 years.
It is difficult to estimate the cost of environmental compliance and remediation given the uncertainties regarding the interpretation and enforcement of applicable environmental laws and regulations, the extent of environmental contamination and the existence of alternative cleanup methods. Developments may occur that could affect the Company’s current assessment, including, but not limited to: (i) changes in the information available regarding the environmental impact of the Company’s operations and products; (ii) changes in environmental regulations, changes in permissible levels of specific compounds in drinking water sources, or changes in enforcement theories and policies, including efforts to recover natural resource damages; (iii) new and evolving analytical and remediation techniques; (iv) success in allocating liability to other potentially responsible parties; and (v) the financial viability of other potentially responsible parties and third-party indemnitors. For sites included in both “environmental remediation liabilities” and “other environmental liabilities,” at which remediation activity is largely complete and remaining activity relates primarily to operation and maintenance of the remedy, including required post-remediation monitoring, the Company believes the exposure to loss in excess of the amount accrued would not be material to the Company’s consolidated results of operations or financial condition. However, for locations at which remediation activity is largely ongoing, the Company cannot estimate a possible loss or range of possible loss in excess of the associated established accruals for the reasons described above.
Other Regulatory Matters
In May 2023, an incident at a Company facility in Prairie du Chien, Wisconsin resulted in an employee fatality. The United States Department of Labor’s (“DOL”) Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”) began an investigation into the incident and, as reflected by a DOL press release dated November 7, 2023, issued two citations to the Company for alleged willful safety violations. In September 2024, the Company entered into a settlement agreement with OSHA and the DOL related to the incident, which included an immaterial payment amount. The settlement agreement did not include a finding of willful safety violations in connection with the incident. In October 2024, the Company received a grand jury subpoena from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Wisconsin seeking records related to, among other things, the Prairie du Chien facility, records related to the incident, and other injuries that have occurred at Prairie du Chien and other 3M facilities, and OSHA safety inspections conducted at other 3M facilities. The Company is cooperating and providing information responsive to the subpoena.
Product Liability Litigation
Combat Arms Earplugs Litigation
Aearo Technologies sold Dual-Ended Combat Arms – Version 2 Earplugs starting in about 1999. 3M acquired Aearo Technologies in 2008 and sold these earplugs from 2008 through 2015, when the product was discontinued. 3M and Aearo Technologies believe the Combat Arms Earplugs (CAE) were effective and safe when used properly, but nevertheless, as discussed below, prior to the CAE Settlement (as defined below), Aearo Technologies and certain of its related entities (collectively, the "Aearo Entities") and 3M faced litigation from a significant number of claimants.
In August 2023, 3M and the Aearo Entities entered into a settlement arrangement (as amended, the “CAE Settlement”) which is structured to promote participation by claimants and is intended to resolve, to the fullest extent possible, all litigation and alleged claims involving the Combat Arms Earplugs sold or manufactured by the Aearo Entities and/or 3M, as well as potential future claims.
Pursuant to the CAE Settlement, 3M will contribute up to a total amount of $6.0 billion between 2023 and 2029. The actual amount, payment terms and dates are subject to satisfaction of certain collective participation thresholds claimants must meet and provision to 3M of a full release of claims involving the Combat Arms Earplugs.
The CAE Settlement provides that 3M does not admit any liability or wrongdoing. As a result of the CAE Settlement, 3M recorded a pre-tax charge of $4.2 billion in the third quarter of 2023. The charge reflected the $5.3 billion pre-tax present value (discounted at an estimated 5.6% interest rate at time consummation) of contributions under the CAE Settlement net of 3M’s then-existing accrual of $1.1 billion related to this matter.
On March 26, 2024, the Company announced that, as of the final registration date for the CAE settlement agreement, more than 99% of claimants were either participating in the settlement or have been dismissed with prejudice. With a 98% participation threshold having been met, the Company began making payments pursuant to the payment schedule set forth in the amended settlement agreement. On September 19, 2025, the court overseeing the CAE Multidistrict Litigation issued an order announcing that all cases in the MDL had been resolved through dismissals or through the Settlement Agreement, and that no cases remain pending in the MDL. However, existing or new litigation may continue or be filed in the United States or internationally relating to the products that are the subject of the settlement. For example, the Company is aware of a writ of summons filed in Australia and has received a Letter Before Action in the United Kingdom, both on behalf of purported users of the Company's earplug products.
During 2025, the Company increased its existing accrual for CAE primarily for interest accretion on the CAE settlement and made related payments. As of December 31, 2025 and December 31, 2024, and the Company had an accrued CAE liability of $2.4 billion ($1.4 billion within other current liabilities and $1.0 billion within other liabilities on 3M’s consolidated balance sheet) and $3.7 billion ($1.3 billion within other current liabilities and $2.4 billion within other liabilities on 3M’s consolidated balance sheet), respectively. The accruals represent the Company’s estimate of the probable loss in connection with the CAE Settlement. The Company is not able to estimate a possible loss or range of possible loss in excess of the established accruals at this time.
Insurance Recoveries
The Company is actively engaged in insurance recovery activities to offset a portion of its liabilities, including those described above. For respirator mask/asbestos, CAE, and PFAS-related litigation and liabilities, recovery processes are underway through lawsuits filed in U.S. courts, arbitration proceedings, mediations, and negotiations with insurers. During 2025 and 2024, the Company recorded $392 million and $349 million, respectively, in insurance recovery benefits related to respirator mask/asbestos, CAE, and PFAS-related matters. Insurance recoveries related to CAE litigation are provided to the Qualified Settlement Fund as part of the consideration for the settlement. Various factors could affect the timing and amount of insurance recoveries, including (i) delays in or avoidance of payment by insurers; (ii) the extent to which insurers may become insolvent in the future, (iii) the outcome of negotiations with insurers; and (iv) the scope of the insurers’ purported defenses and exclusions to avoid coverage. The Company’s aggregate liabilities are unlikely to be fully covered by applicable insurance, and, to the extent covered, will exceed the applicable limits of such insurance.
Note 18. Leases
3M's lease arrangements include both operating and finance leases. Amounts associated with finance leases (such as right-of-use assets, liabilities, costs, cash flow information, and maturities) were not material to the consolidated financial statements. Finance lease right-of-use assets are included in property, plant, and equipment, net, and finance lease liabilities are included in other current liabilities and other liabilities on the consolidated balance sheets.
The following table summarizes the components of operating lease cost:
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| (Millions) | | 2025 | | 2024 | | 2023 |
| Operating lease cost | | $ | 203 | | | $ | 210 | | | $ | 259 | |
| Variable lease cost | | 105 | | | 114 | | | 103 | |
| Total operating lease cost | | $ | 308 | | | $ | 324 | | | $ | 362 | |
Short-term lease cost and income related to sub-lease activity is immaterial for the Company.
Supplemental balance sheet, lease term and discount rate information related to operating leases is as follows:
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
(Millions unless noted) | | Location on face of balance sheet | | December 31, 2025 | | December 31, 2024 |
Right of use assets | | Other assets | | $ | 516 | | | $ | 565 | |
| Current liability | | Other current liabilities | | 167 | | | 163 | |
| Noncurrent liability | | Other liabilities | | 363 | | | 405 | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
Weighted average remaining lease term (in years) | | 4.9 | | 5.3 |
Weighted average discount rate | | 3.5 | % | | 3.5 | % |
As previously noted, the consolidated statements of cash flows include the results of continuing and discontinued operations. Supplemental cash flow information related to operating lease is as follows:
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| (Millions) | | 2025 | | 2024 | | 2023 |
Cash paid for amounts included in the measurement of lease liabilities | | $ | 200 | | | $ | 212 | | | $ | 260 | |
Right of use assets obtained in exchange for operating lease liabilities | | 144 | | | 196 | | | 262 | |
Sale leased-back activity for the periods presented was not material.
Maturities of operating leases as of December 31, 2025 are as follows:
| | | | | | | | | | |
| (Millions) | | | | |
| 2026 | | | | $ | 181 | |
| 2027 | | | | 125 | |
| 2028 | | | | 83 | |
| 2029 | | | | 53 | |
| 2030 | | | | 39 | |
After 2030 | | | | 82 | |
| Total expected lease payments | | | | 563 | |
| Less: Amounts representing interest | | | | (33) | |
| Present value of future minimum lease payments | | | | 530 | |
| Less: Current obligations | | | | 167 | |
| Long-term obligations | | | | $ | 363 | |
As of December 31, 2025, the Company has an immaterial amount of additional operating lease commitments that have not yet commenced. These commitments pertain to 3M’s right of use of certain buildings.
Note 19. Stock-Based Compensation
At the May 2021 Annual Meeting, the shareholders approved the Amended and Restated 3M Company 2016 Long-Term Incentive Plan (LTIP), which included an increase of 27 million in the number of shares available for issuance. Awards may be issued in the form of incentive stock options, nonqualified stock options, stock appreciation rights, restricted stock, restricted stock units, other stock awards, and performance units and performance shares. As of December 31, 2025, the remaining shares available for grant under the LTIP are 21 million and there were approximately 6,400 participants with outstanding options, restricted stock, or restricted stock units.
The Company’s annual stock option and restricted stock unit grant is typically made in February to provide a strong and immediate link between the performance of individuals during the preceding year and the size of their annual stock compensation grants. The grant to eligible employees uses the closing stock price on the grant date. Accounting rules require recognition of expense under a non-substantive vesting period approach, requiring compensation expense recognition when an employee is eligible to retire. Employees are considered eligible to retire at age 55 and after having completed ten years of service. This retiree-eligible population represents 31 percent of the annual grant stock-based compensation expense; therefore, higher stock-based compensation expense is typically recognized in the first quarter. However, due to the spin-off of Solventum (see Note 2), the 2024 annual grant was made in May, after the April 1, 2024 separation.
In addition to the annual grants, the Company makes other minor grants of stock options, restricted stock units and other stock-based grants. The Company issues cash settled restricted stock units and stock appreciation rights in certain countries. The cash settled grants do not result in the issuance of common stock and are considered immaterial by the Company, and not included in the tables below.
In connection with the Solventum separation on April 1, 2024 (see Note 2), all outstanding stock-based compensation awards associated with Solventum employees converted into Solventum awards, became Solventum’s responsibility and were cancelled from 3M plans. In addition, for awards associated with remaining 3M employees, the number of shares underlying unvested stock awards was adjusted along with the exercise price and the number of shares underlying outstanding stock options. The adjustments to shares underlying unvested stock awards and outstanding stock options did not result in a material stock-based compensation cost.
Stock-Based Compensation Expense: Amounts recognized in the financial statements with respect to stock-based compensation programs, which include stock options, restricted stock, restricted stock units, performance shares and the General Employees’ Stock Purchase Plan (GESPP), are provided in the following table. Capitalized stock-based compensation amounts were not material.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| (Millions) | | | | | | | | | | 2025 | | 2024 | | 2023 |
| Cost of sales | | | | | | | | | | $ | 32 | | | $ | 39 | | | $ | 38 | |
| Selling, general and administrative expenses | | | | | | | | | | 158 | | | 185 | | | 165 | |
| Research, development and related expenses | | | | | | | | | | 35 | | | 44 | | | 38 | |
| Stock-based compensation expenses | | | | | | | | | | 225 | | | 268 | | | 241 | |
| Income tax benefits | | | | | | | | | | (41) | | | (31) | | | (41) | |
| Stock-based compensation expenses (benefits), net of tax | | | | | | | | | | $ | 184 | | | $ | 237 | | | $ | 200 | |
Stock Option Program: The following table summarizes stock option activity:
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| (Options in thousands) | | Number of options | | Weighted average exercise price | | Weighted average remaining contractual life (months) | | Aggregate intrinsic value (millions) |
| Under option — | | | | | | | | |
As of January 1, 2025 | | 32,523 | | | $ | 150.50 | | | | | |
| Expired | | (91) | | | 167.20 | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| Granted | | 723 | | | 148.87 | | | | | |
| Exercised | | (10,871) | | | 139.29 | | | | | |
| Forfeited | | (41) | | | 143.52 | | | | | |
As of December 31, 2025 | | 22,243 | | | 155.87 | | | 45 | | $ | 284 | |
| Options exercisable | | | | | | | | |
As of December 31, 2025 | | 20,716 | | | $ | 158.35 | | | 41 | | $ | 227 | |
Stock options generally vest over a period from one to three years with the expiration date at ten years from date of grant. As of December 31, 2025, there was $14 million of compensation expense that has yet to be recognized related to non-vested stock option based awards. This expense is expected to be recognized over the remaining weighted-average vesting period of 23 months.
The following table summarizes additional information relative to stock options exercised during the respective years:
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | |
(Millions) | | 2025 | | 2024 | | 2023 |
| Cash received from options exercised | | $ | 1,514 | | | $ | 26 | | | $ | 147 | |
| Intrinsic value of options exercised | | 163 | | | 3 | | | 29 | |
| Tax benefit realized related to options exercised | | 35 | | | 1 | | | 6 | |
For the primary annual stock option grant, the weighted average fair value at the date of grant was calculated using the Black-Scholes option-pricing model and the assumptions that follow.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | 2025 | | 2024 | | 2023 |
| Exercise price | | $ | 148.87 | | | $ | 97.15 | | | $ | 116.90 | |
| Risk-free interest rate | | 4.5 | % | | 4.4 | % | | 3.8 | % |
| Dividend yield | | 3.9 | % | | 3.8 | % | | 3.3 | % |
| Expected volatility | | 26.1 | % | | 24.6 | % | | 22.8 | % |
| Expected life (months) | | 91 | | 95 | | 84 |
| Black-Scholes fair value | | $ | 33.04 | | | $ | 20.53 | | | $ | 22.22 | |
Expected volatility is a statistical measure of the amount by which a stock price is expected to fluctuate during a period. Expected volatility is based upon three volatilities of 3M stock: the median of the term of the expected life rolling volatility; the median of the most recent term of the expected life volatility; and the implied volatility on the grant date. The expected term assumption is based on the weighted average of historical grants.
Restricted Stock Units: The following table summarizes restricted stock unit activity:
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | |
| (Units in thousands) | | Number of units | | Weighted average grant date fair value |
| Nonvested balance — | | | | |
As of January 1, 2025 | | 6,150 | | | $ | 104.83 | |
| Vested | | (1,193) | | | 127.28 | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| Granted | | 517 | | | 149.12 | |
| Forfeited | | (347) | | | 103.22 | |
As of December 31, 2025 | | 5,127 | | | 104.18 | |
Restricted stock units granted generally vest three years following the grant date assuming continued employment. Dividend equivalents equal to the dividends payable on the same number of shares of 3M common stock accrue on these restricted stock units during the vesting period, although no dividend equivalents are paid on any of these restricted stock units that are forfeited prior to the vesting date. Dividends are paid out in cash at the vest date on restricted stock units. Since the rights to dividends are forfeitable, there is no impact on basic earnings per share calculations. Weighted average restricted stock unit shares outstanding are included in the computation of diluted earnings per share.
As of December 31, 2025, there was $139 million of compensation expense that has yet to be recognized related to non-vested restricted stock units. This expense is expected to be recognized over the remaining weighted-average vesting period of 17 months.
The following table summarizes additional information relative to restricted stock units for the respective years:
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | |
(Millions, except per-unit amounts) | | 2025 | | 2024 | | 2023 |
| Weighted-average grant-date fair value of restricted stock units (per unit) that were granted | | $ | 149.12 | | | $ | 98.01 | | | $ | 114.71 | |
| Intrinsic value of restricted stock units that vested | | 176 | | | 73 | | | 81 | |
| Tax benefit realized related to restricted stock units that vested | | 35 | | | 14 | | | 16 | |
Performance Shares: Instead of restricted stock units, the Company makes annual grants of performance shares to members of its executive management. The 2025 performance criteria for these performance shares (free cash flow and earnings per share) were selected because the Company believes that they are important drivers of long-term stockholder value. The 2025 plan also includes a multiplier based on 3M total shareholder return versus an index. The number of shares of 3M common stock that could actually be distributed at the end of the three-year performance period may be anywhere from 0% to 200% of each performance share granted, depending on the performance of 3M during such performance period. When granted, these performance shares are awarded at 100% of the estimated number of shares at the end of the three-year performance period and are reflected under “granted” in the table below. Non-substantive vesting requires that expense for the performance shares be recognized over one or three years depending on if the employee is retirement eligible. The performance share grants accrue dividends; therefore, the grant date fair value is equal to the closing stock price on the date of grant. Since the rights to dividends are forfeitable, there is no impact on basic earnings per share calculations. Weighted average performance shares whose performance period is complete are included in computation of diluted earnings per share.
The following table summarizes performance share activity:
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | |
| (Shares in thousands) | | Number of shares | | Weighted average grant date fair value |
| Undistributed balance — | | | | |
As of January 1, 2025 | | 782 | | | $ | 101.99 | |
| Vested | | (99) | | | 127.42 | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| Granted | | 325 | | | 169.38 | |
| | | | |
| Performance change | | 26 | | | 79.53 | |
| Forfeited | | (122) | | | 114.86 | |
As of December 31, 2025 | | 912 | | | 120.88 | |
As of December 31, 2025, there was $50 million of compensation expense that has yet to be recognized related to performance shares. This expense is expected to be recognized over the remaining weighted-average earnings period of 21 months.
The following table summarizes additional information relative to performance shares for the respective years:
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | |
(Millions, except per-share amounts) | | 2025 | | 2024 | | 2023 |
| Weighted average grant date fair value per performance share that were granted | | $ | 169.38 | | | $ | 97.82 | | | $ | 110.21 | |
| Intrinsic value of performance shares that were distributed | | 15 | | | 9 | | | 19 | |
| Tax benefit realized related to performance shares that were distributed | | 4 | | | 2 | | | 5 | |
General Employees’ Stock Purchase Plan (GESPP): As of December 31, 2025, shareholders have approved 60 million shares for issuance under the Company’s GESPP. Substantially all employees are eligible to participate in the plan. Participants are granted options at 85% of market value at the date of grant. There are no GESPP shares under option at the beginning or end of each year because options are granted on the first business day and exercised on the last business day of the same month.
The following table summarizes additional information relative to GESPP for the respective years:
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
(Millions, except per-share amounts) | | 2025 | | 2024 | | 2023 |
Weighted average fair value per option granted(a) | | $ | 22.44 | | | $ | 16.76 | | | $ | 15.77 | |
GESPP options compensation expense | | 14 | | | 12 | | | 21 | |
(a) The fair value of GESPP options was based on the 15% purchase price discount.
Note 20. Business Segments and Geographic Information
3M’s businesses are organized, managed and internally grouped into segments based on differences in markets, products, technologies and services. 3M manages its continuing operations in three business segments: Safety and Industrial; Transportation and Electronics; and Consumer. 3M’s three business segments bring together common or related 3M technologies, enhancing the development of innovative products and services and providing for efficient sharing of business resources. On April 1, 2024, 3M completed the previously announced separation of its Health Care business as a separate public company, Solventum (see Note 2 for additional information). 3M is an integrated enterprise characterized by substantial intersegment cooperation, cost allocations and inventory transfers. Therefore, management does not represent that these segments, if operated independently, would report the operating income information shown.
3M discloses business segment operating income as its measure of segment profit, reconciled to both total 3M operating income and income before taxes. Business segment operating income excludes certain expenses and income that are not allocated to business segments (as described below in “Corporate and Other”). Business segment disclosures consider information used by/provided to 3M's chief operating decision maker (CODM). For 3M, the CODM is the chief executive officer. The CODM uses business segment operating income to allocate resources to segments in the planning and forecasting process along with periodic ongoing reviews of results and overall market activity.
Business Segment Products
| | | | | | | | |
Business segment | | Representative revenue-generating activities, products or services |
| Safety and Industrial | | •Industrial abrasives and finishing for metalworking applications •Autobody repair solutions •Industrial specialty products such as personal hygiene products, masking, and packaging materials •Electrical products and materials for construction and maintenance, power distribution and electrical original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) •Structural adhesives and tapes •Respiratory, hearing, eye and fall protection solutions •Natural and color-coated mineral granules for shingles |
| | |
| Transportation and Electronics | | •Advanced ceramic solutions •Attachment/bonding, films, sound and temperature management for vehicles •Premium large format graphic films for advertising and fleet signage •Reflective signage for highway, and vehicle safety •Light management films and electronics assembly solutions •Aerospace, industrial/commercial solutions •Chip packaging and interconnection solutions •Semiconductor production materials •Solutions for data centers |
| | |
| Consumer | | •Cleaning products for the home •Consumer air quality products •Picture hanging accessories •Retail abrasives, paint accessories and safety products •Stationery and office products •Automotive appearance products •Consumer bandages, tapes, braces and supports
Some seasonality impacts this business segment, for example back-to-school and holiday |
Business Segment Information
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
| Net sales (millions) | | | | | | 2025 | | 2024 | | 2023 |
| Safety and Industrial | | | | | | $ | 11,384 | | | $ | 10,961 | | | $ | 10,956 | |
| Transportation and Electronics | | | | | | 8,272 | | | 8,380 | | | 8,501 | |
| Consumer | | | | | | 4,920 | | | 4,931 | | | 5,026 | |
| Total reportable business segment net sales | | | | | | 24,576 | | | 24,272 | | | 24,483 | |
| Corporate and Other | | | | | | 372 | | | 303 | | | 127 | |
Total Company | | | | | | $ | 24,948 | | | $ | 24,575 | | | $ | 24,610 | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| Significant segment expenses and operating performance (millions) | | | | | | 2025 | | 2024 | | 2023 |
| Safety and Industrial | | | | | | | | | | |
| Cost of sales | | | | | | $ | 6,172 | | | $ | 5,965 | | | $ | 6,137 | |
| Selling, general and administrative expenses | | | | | | 1,858 | | | 2,020 | | | 2,023 | |
| Research, development and related expenses | | | | | | 518 | | | 485 | | | 472 | |
| Safety and Industrial operating income | | | | | | 2,836 | | | 2,491 | | | 2,324 | |
| Transportation and Electronics | | | | | | | | | | |
| Cost of sales | | | | | | 5,270 | | | 5,106 | | | 5,524 | |
| Selling, general, administrative expenses | | | | | | 1,080 | | | 1,236 | | | 1,207 | |
| Research, development and related expenses | | | | | | 486 | | | 460 | | | 458 | |
| Transportation and Electronics operating income | | | | | | 1,436 | | | 1,578 | | | 1,312 | |
| Consumer | | | | | | | | | | |
| Cost of sales | | | | | | 2,941 | | | 2,912 | | | 3,064 | |
| Selling, general and administrative expenses | | | | | | 855 | | | 955 | | | 933 | |
| Research, development and related expenses | | | | | | 128 | | | 132 | | | 125 | |
| Consumer operating income | | | | | | 996 | | | 932 | | | 904 | |
| Total reportable business segment operating income | | | | | | 5,268 | | | 5,001 | | | 4,540 | |
| Corporate and Other | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
| Corporate-level (expense) income | | | | | | 75 | | | (114) | | | (485) | |
| Corporate special items: | | | | | | | | | | |
| Net costs for significant litigation | | | | | | (483) | | | (45) | | | (14,785) | |
| Divestiture costs | | | | | | — | | | (20) | | | (13) | |
Gain (loss) on business divestitures | | | | | | (162) | | | — | | | 36 | |
| Russia exit (charges) benefits | | | | | | — | | | — | | | 18 | |
| Transformation costs | | | | | | (69) | | | — | | | — | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
Total Corporate and Other | | | | | | (639) | | | (179) | | | (15,229) | |
Total Company operating income | | | | | | 4,629 | | | 4,822 | | | (10,689) | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
| Other expense/(income), net | | | | | | 416 | | | 3 | | | 582 | |
| Income from continuing operations before income taxes | | | | | | $ | 4,213 | | | $ | 4,819 | | | $ | (11,271) | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | |
Depreciation and amortization (millions) | | | | | | 2025 | | 2024 | | 2023 |
| Safety and Industrial | | | | | | $ | 569 | | | $ | 556 | | | $ | 530 | |
| Transportation and Electronics | | | | | | 572 | | | 458 | | | 537 | |
| Consumer | | | | | | 155 | | | 157 | | | 160 | |
| Corporate and Other | | | | | | 12 | | | 53 | | | 206 | |
| Total continuing operations | | | | | | $ | 1,308 | | | $ | 1,224 | | | $ | 1,433 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | |
Capital expenditures (millions) | | | | | | 2025 | | 2024 | | 2023 |
| Safety and Industrial | | | | | | $ | 347 | | | $ | 373 | | | $ | 285 | |
| Transportation and Electronics | | | | | | 300 | | | 468 | | | 723 | |
| Consumer | | | | | | 61 | | | 80 | | | 105 | |
| Corporate and Other | | | | | | 202 | | | 183 | | | 275 | |
| Total continuing operations | | | | | | $ | 910 | | | $ | 1,104 | | | $ | 1,388 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | |
Assets (millions) | | December 31, 2025 | | December 31, 2024 | | December 31, 2023 |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| Business segment assets: | | | | | | |
| Inventories | | | | | | |
| Safety and Industrial | | $ | 1,636 | | | $ | 1,509 | | | $ | 1,592 | |
| Transportation and Electronics | | 1,093 | | | 1,269 | | | 1,459 | |
| Consumer | | 694 | | | 719 | | | 699 | |
| Total business segment assets | | 3,423 | | | 3,497 | | | 3,750 | |
| All other current assets | | 12,964 | | | 12,387 | | | |
| Total non-current assets | | 21,346 | | | 23,984 | | | |
| Total assets | | $ | 37,733 | | | $ | 39,868 | | | |
Beginning in 2025, "business segment assets" represent inventories, based on the extent of business segment information regularly provided to 3M's CODM. This impact is reflected in the table above for all periods presented.
Business segment depreciation reflected above is based on the underlying usage of assets and allocated depreciation.
Corporate and Other: Outside of 3M's reportable segments, 3M has Corporate and Other which is not a reportable business segment as it does not meet the segment reporting criteria. Because Corporate and Other includes a variety of miscellaneous items, it is subject to fluctuation on a quarterly and annual basis.
Corporate and Other operating income (loss) includes:
•Corporate-level (expense) income includes:
◦certain enterprise and governance activities resulting in unallocated corporate costs and other activity or costs that 3M may choose not to allocate directly to its business segments,
◦commercial activity with Solventum following its April 1, 2024 Separation and certain operations of the former Health Care business segment retained by 3M,
◦transition arrangement agreements (e.g., fees charged by 3M, net of underlying costs) related to divested businesses, including those related to the Solventum Separation,
◦operations of businesses of the former Health Care segment divested prior to the Separation and therefore not reflected as discontinued operations within 3M's financial statements, along with limited-duration supply agreements with previous divestitures, and
◦costs previously allocated to Solventum prior to the Separation that were not eligible to be part of discontinued operations.
•Corporate special items include, for the periods presented:
◦net costs for significant litigation impacting operating income (loss) associated with PFAS-related other environmental and Combat Arms Earplugs matters,
◦gain (loss) on business divestitures (see Note 4),
◦divestiture costs (related to separating and divesting substantially an entire business segment of 3M following public announcement of its intended divestiture) that were not eligible to be part of discontinued operations, and
◦transformation program restructuring (see Note 6) and related charges.
Geographic Information: Geographic area information is used by the Company as a secondary performance measure to manage its businesses. Export sales and certain income and expense items are generally reported within the geographic area where the final sales to 3M customers are made. Refer to Note 3 for geographic net sales.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Net PP&E by geographic area (millions) | | December 31, 2025 | | December 31, 2024 |
| Americas | | $ | 5,123 | | | $ | 5,284 | |
| Asia Pacific | | 1,010 | | | 1,053 | |
| Europe, Middle East and Africa | | 968 | | | 1,051 | |
Total Company | | $ | 7,101 | | | $ | 7,388 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Net PP&E by particular country (millions) | | | | | | December 31, 2025 | | December 31, 2024 |
United States | | | | | | $ | 4,769 | | | $ | 4,966 | |
China/Hong Kong | | | | | | 392 | | | 407 | |