On June 26, 2026, Daikin Industries held its 123rd Annual General Shareholders Meeting at a hotel in Osaka City.

Concerning the PFAS pollution at Daikin’s Yodogawa Plant, local residents submitted a pollution mediation request to Osaka Prefecture last December, and the mediation process, involving 1,131 petitioners, is currently in progress.

However, at the shareholders’ meeting held that day, Daikin did not respond to a shareholder’s question regarding pollution mediation.

In June 2022, Daikin acknowledged to Tansa that its Yodogawa Plant was the source of the contamination. As the years passed, Daikin found itself increasingly under pressure, and at the 2026 shareholders’ meeting, questions regarding PFAS contamination were the focus of the discussion.

Even so, Daikin refuses to take responsibility. What kind of excuses are they coming up with?

We will report based on an audio recording of the shareholders’ meeting Tansa obtained.

Repeating the same explanation as last year

In preparation for the annual general meeting, Daikin had solicited questions from shareholders in advance. At the meeting, the company first addressed four topics of high interest. One of these was PFAS contamination.

Naofumi Takenaka, President and CEO, who is serving as chair, takes the floor to explain.

“Regarding the detection of PFOA in groundwater around the Yodogawa Plant, we recognize that our company is one of the causes, and we are currently working to address the issue in consultation with Osaka Prefecture and Settsu City.”

Internationally, the “Polluter Pays Principle” (PPP) applies to the cleanup of chemical contamination and associated compensation. How will Daikin, which calls itself a global corporation, respond as a “polluter”? Takenaka continued as follows.

“In consultation with Osaka Prefecture and Settsu City, we have built new wastewater treatment facilities capable of removing PFOA and upgraded existing ones to treat and purify groundwater, while also working to increase the volume of water we pump.”

“Starting in 2022, as a further measure—and taking into account the opinions of experts—we decided to install an impermeable wall to prevent groundwater from flowing outside the Yodogawa Plant premises, and we have been proceeding with its construction since 2023.”

Takenaka’s response simply repeats the same arguments he presented at last year’s shareholders’ meeting held on June 27, 2025. However, the effectiveness of none of these measures has been confirmed since that time.

Take, for example, the installation of an impermeable wall. PFOA-contaminated water has accumulated underground at the Yodogawa Plant and is contaminating the entire surrounding area through the groundwater. Therefore, in 2023, the company began driving steel plates into the ground along the perimeter of the site to prevent the PFOA-contaminated water from spreading beyond the site boundaries.

However, at a well located several meters outside the site where the impermeable wall was installed, PFOA concentrations have actually risen. Although the reason is unclear, the concentration was 21,000 ng/L in August 2022, before the wall was installed, but rose to 30,000 ng/L in August 2024, after installation. This figure is approximately 1.4 times the pre-installation level and 600 times the national guideline value.

Takenaka made the following remarks regarding accountability to local residents.

“In terms of engaging with local residents, we have held informational sessions for the community and created opportunities for dialogue with nearby residents. Since last year, we have also established a dedicated consultation desk for local residents.”

Nevertheless, the reality is different. Only a select few residents—such as the heads of neighborhood associations in the areas surrounding the Yodogawa Plant—are able to attend the information sessions.

At last year’s shareholders’ meeting, a shareholder familiar with the situation pointed out, “Local residents have clearly stated that ‘this is not a public information session for residents.’” However, Daikin has made no improvements over the past year.

Reasons for not explaining about pollution mediation

In December 2025, local residents filed a pollution mediation claim with Osaka Prefecture regarding PFAS contamination caused by Daikin. The mediation proceedings, with 1,131 people listed as claimants, are currently underway.

This is a matter of great relevance to shareholders that could influence the company’s future management. However, Takenaka stated the following.

“With regard to the pollution mediation, the Osaka Prefectural Pollution Review Board has requested that we not disclose any information, stating that, under the law, mediation proceedings are closed to the public. Therefore, in order to comply with the law, we kindly ask for your understanding that we are unable to share the details of the proceedings.”

Even though pollution mediation takes place privately between the parties involved, sharing the number of applicants, the specifics of their claims, and the overall timeline is not an issue. In fact, the applicants themselves have made this information public and have held press conferences.

However, Daikin refused to disclose the information, citing a “request from the Osaka Prefectural Pollution Review Board.”

Shareholder: “While I don’t think that could possibly be the case…”

After answering the pre-submitted questions, the audience was invited to ask questions. All of the questions were related to PFAS contamination.

One shareholder had this to say about the dedicated consultation desk that Daikin has had in place since last year.

“Concerns have been raised that the consultation desk may be operating in a discriminatory manner. I have heard that a representative from your company explained to a representative from Settsu City that ‘our policy is to handle inquiries to the consultation desk differently depending on whether the inquirer is an applicant or a non-applicant for pollution mediation.’ While I don’t think that could possibly be the case, I would very much like to receive your response regarding this matter.”

In response to a shareholder’s question seeking clarification—which ended with the remark, “While I don’t think that could possibly be the case”—Yoshiyuki Hiraga, the executive in charge of the chemical business, replied as follows.

“We have received feedback regarding the information session, and we would like to take it as valuable input.”

Daikin did not explicitly deny that it was treating applicants and non-applicants for pollution mediation differently.

PFAS manufacturers facing lawsuits around the world

In 2018, Daikin settled a lawsuit in Alabama, U.S., regarding PFAS contamination by paying $4 million to the plaintiffs, who were local residents. The company is currently facing litigation in France.

It all began in 2022, when large-scale PFAS contamination was discovered in Lyon, France—a city known for its abundant water resources. The responsible parties were Daikin (Daikin Chemical France) and Arkema, another major chemical manufacturer. High concentrations of PFAS were detected in rivers and groundwater near the factories, and local residents have been experiencing numerous health effects caused by PFAS, including cancer, thyroid dysfunction, and dyslipidemia. In January 2026, approximately 200 local residents filed a lawsuit against Daikin and Arkema, seeking 36 million euros in damages.

Companies that manufacture and use PFAS are facing lawsuits around the world over PFAS contamination. On June 24, two days before the shareholders’ meeting, Chemours (formerly DuPont), which caused PFAS contamination in West Virginia, reached a settlement with the state government to pay $450 million.

A shareholder asked about Daikin’s overseas litigation.

“I have seen in the news and other sources that the Australian government is suing 3M, while local residents in the United States and France are suing your company. Yesterday, it was reported that the U.S. government reached a settlement with the former DuPont, now Chemours, regarding PFAS contamination. On the other hand, it is believed that settlement payments in the hundreds of billions of yen may be required in the future.”

While Hiraga spoke in general terms, he did not respond to a question regarding the lawsuit against his company.

“We are closely monitoring and tracking developments related to PFAS both domestically and internationally, and we are aware of the lawsuit you mentioned through media reports. We will continue to monitor these developments and ensure the appropriate management of our business operations.”

“Please note that since we are not a party involved in the Chemours lawsuit, we will refrain from commenting on the specific case.”

Daikin’s attitude of not to face the pollution sincerely it has caused has drawn criticism even from the United Nations.

In August 2023, Damilola Olawuyi, Chair of the United Nations Working Group on Business and Human Rights, and Pichamon Yeophantong, a member representing the Asia-Pacific region, visited Japan. They held hearings with local residents and scientists regarding Daikin’s PFAS contamination and made the following statement at a press conference.

“We would like to highlight the responsibility of the businesses involved to address this issue as required under the UNGP (Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights) and the polluter pays principle.”

The findings and proposal of the two experts were presented at the United Nations Human Rights Council in June 2024.

(Originally published in Japanese on June 26 2026. Translation by Mana Shibata.)

Polluted with PFOA: All articles