So That Happened: Make Gas Cars? Electrics? Why Not Both?

Editor’s note: Welcome to So That Happened, our editors’ takes on things going on in the manufacturing world that deserve some extra attention. This will appear regularly in the Member’s Only section of the site.

Are Your Products Free of Forever Chemicals?

Public health organization NSF has announced a new PFAS-free certification for manufacturers: NSF Certification Guideline 537: PFAS-Free Products for Nonfood Compounds and Food Equipment Materials (NSF 537).

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are chemicals used in a variety of products because of their stain, grease and water-resistant qualities. According to the EPA, current research suggests exposure to PFAS, also called “forever chemicals,” may cause dangerous health effects, including increased cholesterol levels, increased risk of certain types of cancer, reduced vaccine response and developmental delays in children. In recent years, the EPA has announced several regulations targeting the chemicals, including drinking water regulations and the limitation of PFAS used in manufacturing and processing.

The new NSF 537 guideline was designed by food safety specialists and features formulation reviews of product ingredients, yearly comprehensive testing and rigorous disclosures from the manufacturers of food equipment materials and nonfood compounds.

“Certification to NSF 537 helps to reduce human exposure to these harmful chemicals while underscoring a commitment to meeting evolving regulations,” says NSF Director of Food Contact Evaluation Sam Cole. “This certification will empower forward-thinking manufacturers to clearly distinguish PFAS-free products, giving both retail and food businesses and consumers confidence and peace of mind.”

Click here to learn more about PFAS and NSF 537 compliance.

—Anna Smith

Strength in Numbers Matters for Tariff Lobbying, Too

CEOs of America, unite! You have nothing to lose but your supply chains!

That’s a tongue-in-cheek takeaway from a recent discussion between Foreign Policy Editor-in-Chief Ravi Agrawal and Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, founder and president of the Chief Executive Leadership Institute and professor at the Yale School of Management.

Discussing how corporate leaders can navigate the twists and turns of the second Trump administration, Sonnenfeld said March 24 that many of the big-company leaders he talks to and surveys are holding off on making investment decisions while they await some sort of resolution on tariffs and other trade measures. The post-election enthusiasm about deregulation and favorable tax policies, he added, has faded completely even though many of them agree about the need for the U.S. government to take some sort of action on trade imbalances.

What to do about it isn’t the main question. Asked by Agrawal about CEOs pushing for change by using the power they have from leading companies with massive market capitalizations, Sonnenfeld said it’s more important who CEOs are working with. And that comes down to old-fashioned street politics and coalition-building.

Leaders, Sonnenfeld said, can’t effectively challenge the administration’s policies—or at a minimum get a proper hearing—unless they get backing from stakeholders such as their directors, investors, customers and suppliers.

“You can’t joust with him one on one,” the professor said. “You either work together or you’re going to be destroyed.”

Sonnenfeld pointed to the recent interactions between President Trump and the Paul Weiss law firm, which Trump targeted due its work on an investigation into his finances. The clash ended with the firm committing to various measures, including providing $40 million worth of pro bono work on issues close to Trump’s agenda.

Case in point about solidarity: The Associated Press reported this week that the firm’s chair told his team that he was compelled to strike the deal in part because hoped-for support from other law firms didn’t materialize.

—Geert De Lombaerde

US Innovators Take on Europe, With AI Patent Applications Soaring

U.S. innovators demonstrated their continued interest in Europe as a key market for intellectual property in 2024, according to data released March 26 by the European Patent Office.

The United States led all countries in the number of European patent applications filed last year, a familiar position for the U.S., which led this category as well in 2023.

The data show that 47,787 patent applications came from U.S. inventors or organizations, according to Patent Index 2024, and represented nearly a quarter of the almost 200,000 patent applications filed with the EPO last year. The U.S. was followed by Germany and Japan as leading applicants, with China coming in fourth.

Overall patent activity was on par with 2023 (-0.1%), while the U.S. filed 0.8% fewer applications.

While the full Patent Index 2024 PDF shares much more detail around patent activity, here are a few details of note:

The top three fields for U.S. applicants, in order, were medical technology, computer technology and digital communications. Computer technology applications as a whole grew by 11.4% over the previous year, with patents related to AI fields, such as machine learning, soaring a whopping 20%.

U.S.-based applicants held six of the Top 20 businesses with the most applications. Qualcomm, with 3,015 patent applications, led among U.S. businesses in the fourth spot. Other U.S.-based companies include aerospace and defense manufacturer RTX Corp. (formerly Raytheon), Alphabet, Microsoft, Interdigital and Apple.

South Korea’s Samsung held the top position in terms of individual applicants, with 5,105 patent applications in 2024. 

—Jill Jusko

No Scooters or eBikes from Rivian, But Maybe Also?

In the struggling electric vehicle space, there’s a tendency to go wide – lots of products and technologies for lots of different applications. General Motors’ since-discontinued BrightDrop brand made electric vans and electric pallet jacks. Tesla makes cars and is promising humanoid robots. Workhorse commercial trucks experimented with flying drones.

Well, Rivian is getting out that game, spinning off its micromobility unit to focus on the electric vans, pickups and SUVs it needs to sell to thrive as a company. A few years ago, Rivian began experimenting with scooters, eBikes and other electrified small transportation devices. The company calls the small, stealth program more of a thought experiment on how its automotive software and electronics could work on smaller devices. The answer? Pretty darned well.

But, rather than launch new product lines while it struggles to deal with shifting demands for its primary products, Rivian will split that micro division into a new company called Also Inc. (a more creative editor would be coming up with a Who’s on First-style examination of the wisdom of naming a company Also). Venture capital fund Eclipse Ventures is putting $105 million in to launch Also and see what sorts of products it can invent.

“For the world to fully transition to electrified transportation, a range of vehicle types and form factors will be needed,” Rivian Founder and CEO RJ Scaringe said. “I am extremely excited about the innovations developed by the Also team that will underpin a range of highly compelling micromobility products that will help define new categories.”

—Robert Schoenberger

Flexing Those ICE Muscles

Plant managers at automotive facilities like BMW Spartanburg in North Carolina with flexible EV-to-ICE conversions on their manufacturing lines should be doing a happy dance right about now as electric vehicle incentives are scrapped and government money for EV plants dries up. Honda is betting on that approach, too, as in February it announced it would invest $1 billion to retool its Ohio plants to build ICE, hybrid and battery-electric vehicles on the same lines.

Switching up an EV plant to an ICE plant is a process that can take 9 to 18 months.

“If [a plant] is completely dedicated to electric, moving it to ICE is a challenge,” said C.J. Finn, automotive analyst for PwC. “Based on the pace of change” those that have a flexible line, “are pretty happy they did that. If you look at capital investment now, people are willing to pay a premium for that flexibility.”

In general, Finn is seeing very little movement from his automotive clients on reshoring as tariff announcements continue to be inconsistent. “In terms of pushing forward with substantive changes or outlay, people are just waiting to see where the dust settles.”

—Laura Putre