Navigating PFAS with communities: Trust, transparency and transformation

Around the world, communities are grappling with the presence of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) - synthetic compounds found in everything from firefighting foam to non-stick cookware and water-proof fabrics. The widespread prevalence of PFAS is raising legitimate concerns about drinking water, health outcomes and environmental impacts.

But as governments and industry work to manage contamination and remediation, one thing is becoming clear: building trust in the community is just as critical as fixing the chemistry.

Understanding the nature of PFAS is foundational to addressing community concerns, but it is crucial to communicate this evolving scientific picture with care and transparency. 

As outlined in the Navigating PFAS Webinar Series, PFAS are valued in industrial and consumer applications for their unique water, oil and heat-resistant properties. Their strong molecular structure makes them highly persistent in the environment, earning them the nickname “forever chemicals”.

The OECD reports over 4,700 types of PFAS chemicals have been identified around the world. In one recent global survey, 99 per cent of bottled water tested across 15 countries contained PFAS. As concern spreads, utilities, regulators and consultants find themselves not just managing technical risk, but navigating social licence, fear and mistrust.

Engagement around PFAS is unlike other forms of stakeholder consultation. The science is complex, the timelines are long and the impacts are deeply personal. Community anxiety can be intense, and often the damage is invisible. In this context, conventional engagement strategies fall short. What’s needed is a model that prioritises inclusion, transparency and respect - and one that treats communication as a public health intervention in its own right.

While research into its health effects is ongoing, evidence suggests links between exposure to certain PFAS and a range of adverse health effects. This includes increased risks for some cancers, thyroid dysfunction and immune system impacts. However, it is important to note that the scientific community is still working to understand the full picture, including how different types of PFAS may have different risk profiles.

This uncertainty poses a communications challenge. Overstating the risks can trigger fear. Understating them undermines trust. The goal is not to offer false certainty, but to communicate clearly with candour and care.

One way to ground these conversations is with relatable analogies. Consider the often-cited example: one part per trillion (ppt) is like a teaspoon of water in an Olympic-sized swimming pool. Helping communities visualise risk is not about simplification, it’s about accessibility.

The journey of navigating PFAS contamination is as much about people as it is about science. Engaging with affected communities demands a nuanced, empathetic and strategic approach, focused on building trust and fostering collaboration.

Anxiety, outrage and stress are common in PFAS-impacted communities and this means that successfully engaging communities requires a clear understanding of these hurdles.

In a PFAS context, facts alone are insufficient. People want - and deserve - transparency about what’s known, what’s unknown and what’s being done. But even more than that, they want to be involved.

Once these challenges are understood, a tactical plan for proactive and empathetic engagement is essential.

Effective engagement must start before the technical work is complete and often before it even begins. Drawing on our experience across dozens of PFAS programs globally, the following principles stand out:

• Engage early and often: Initiate dialogue with communities at the earliest stages of a project and maintain regular, consistent communication throughout its lifecycle. Early and continuous stakeholder engagement is fundamental to project success.
• Be transparent and honest: Provide clear, scientifically verified and accessible information about PFAS risks and mitigation actions. This counters misinformation and helps communities understand the genuine risks and the steps being taken.
• Involve the community through meaningful engagement: Move beyond one-way information dissemination to create genuine opportunities for dialogue, collaboration and co-design. Regularly scheduled community meetings, open forums and accessible communication channels are vital for building trust over time. When communities feel respected and informed, their participation in achieving long-term solutions is greatly enhanced. Utilising graphics, infographics and videography can aid in explaining complex concepts and demonstrating transparency.
• Prioritise inclusivity and cultural sensitivity: Effective engagement strategies must acknowledge and respect cultural differences. This includes supporting Indigenous leadership and integrating traditional ecological knowledge into environmental assessments and remediation where appropriate. For culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) communities, providing multilingual resources and using culturally appropriate communication methods is crucial. Empowering community members, such as Indigenous rangers undertaking sampling, demonstrates trust and fosters shared problem-solving.
• Build and maintain trust: Trust is cultivated through consistent open dialogue, transparency and demonstrating a genuine commitment to addressing community concerns. Actively involving communities in decision-making processes fosters a sense of ownership and legitimacy. The GHD practice of involving community members directly through forums and advisory groups, for example, has significantly improved community confidence and participation. This sustained effort is key to building and maintaining a social licence to operate.

When engagement is built into the response, rather than tacked on at the end, communities feel ownership of the process. And with ownership comes trust.

Communities that feel informed and respected are more likely to engage constructively, support technical decisions and help shape meaningful outcomes. On the other hand, poor engagement creates reputational risk, project delays and long-term resistance.

The benefits of strong engagement go beyond individual projects. They contribute to regulatory confidence, interagency alignment and long-term resilience. This is especially important in the PFAS space, where public expectations are rising, regulatory responses are evolving and scientific uncertainty remains.

The PFAS challenge is far from over. Emerging contaminants, shifting health guidelines and evolving community expectations will continue to shape how organisations respond.

But one thing is certain: communities must be treated as partners, not problems. Navigating PFAS successfully means recognising that engagement is not an add-on - it’s a critical tool for protecting health, supporting transparency and enabling long-term solutions.

If your organisation is engaging on PFAS or other contaminants of concern, ask yourself:

• Are we listening as much as we’re explaining?
• Do our communications build confidence, or confusion?
• Have we embedded cultural awareness and local voices into our strategy?

Because when it comes to PFAS, the science will evolve, but trust must be built now.