Author: sHq_LoGiNz

Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)-related litigation continues to morph and expand, with states increasingly targeting airports for contamination linked to aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF). Recent legal developments illustrate diverging strategies and emerging precedents for future cases. 

It’s important to note that airports operate under a complex regulatory framework where federal mandates (from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)) often dictate operational and safety requirements. Because of this, PFAS responsibilities can differ substantially from other site types. Once contamination leaves airport property, however, additional state and local authorities increasingly come into play. 

Against this backdrop, several states are now testing new legal strategies to recover PFAS cleanup costs, most notably New Mexico, New York, and Michigan.

New Mexico: Setting the Stage 

In July 2024, New Mexico set the stage as the first state to take a targeted stance in the AFFF multidistrict litigation (MDL No. 2873) by seeking to add Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) Superfund cost recovery claims to its existing tort claims against the United States. This strategy leverages EPA’s designation of Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) and Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) as hazardous substances under CERCLA, enabling states to pursue federal cost-sharing for PFAS cleanup costs.1 New Mexico’s move signaled a shift toward using federal environmental statutes to supplement traditional tort theories—and other states are now following suit.  

“Thanks to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s science-driven leadership on PFAS, New Mexico will now hold the U.S. Department of Defense accountable for the monetary costs of clean-up and damages to our environment.” — James Kenney, New Mexico Environment Department Secretary

New York: Adding Superfund Claims to AFFF MDL 

Following New Mexico’s lead, New York has moved to add Superfund cost recovery claims under CERCLA to its existing tort claims against the United States in the massive AFFF multidistrict litigation (MDL No. 2873) pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina. Let’s review the details of the case:  

• Basis for Claims: New York cites EPA’s 2024 rule designating PFOA and PFOS as “hazardous substances” under CERCLA, which the agency reaffirmed in 2025 despite industry challenges.
• Relief Sought:
  • Costs for investigating, monitoring, and cleaning up PFAS contamination from AFFF.
  • Damages for injuries to natural resources.
  • Creation of a monetary abatement fund for future costs.
• Scope: The claims reference contamination at four former or current Air Force or Air National Guard bases in New York.
• Specifically, “New York is asking Judge Richard Gergel to allow it to amend its complaint to add CERCLA claims, citing EPA’s hazardous substance designation as critical support.”  

Implication: If successful, this approach could broaden recovery options for states and municipalities, leveraging CERCLA’s strict liability framework to pursue federal cost-sharing for PFAS cleanups. 

Michigan: Court Rejects State Enforcement Against Airport 

On November 22, 2025, a Michigan state court dismissed the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy’s (EGLE) enforcement action against Gerald R. Ford International Airport Authority (GFIAA). 

• State’s Position: EGLE alleged the airport violated Michigan’s Natural Resources & Environmental Protection Act (NREPA) by failing to obtain permits and sought fines, cleanup costs, and attorneys’ fees for PFAS contamination from AFFF use.
• Court’s Ruling: Judge George Quist found that federal aviation safety law preempts state cleanup mandates, noting that AFFF use was required by FAA regulations:
• “The use of AFFF is a matter of aviation safety, and federal law governs its application.”
• “State and federal regulations put the airport in an impossible situation regarding compliance.”  —Judge Quist 

Implication: This ruling may influence other states considering similar actions against commercial airports. If airports cannot be held liable under state law due to federal preemption, states may pivot toward federal cost recovery or target manufacturers instead. 

Broader Context 

• EPA’s CERCLA Designation: In April 2024, the EPA designated PFOA and PFOS as hazardous substances under CERCLA, triggering reporting requirements and expanding potential liability for cleanup costs. The rule remains in effect following the EPA’s 2025 reaffirmation.
• State Enforcement Trends: So far, Michigan and Washington are the only states that have pursued commercial airports for PFAS cleanups, though litigation against military bases is widespread.
• MDL Landscape: The AFFF MDL now includes over 10,000 cases, with billions in settlements already paid by manufacturers like 3M and DuPont.

Key Takeaways for Stakeholders 

• Evolving Litigation Landscape: PFAS-related litigation continues to change and expand, with states increasingly targeting airports for contamination linked to aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF).
• Two back-to-back developments in New York and Michigan highlight diverging strategies and potential precedents for future cases.
• Airports: Federal preemption may shield airports from state enforcement but does not eliminate reputational risk or potential federal cost recovery claims.
• Insurers & Risk Managers: CERCLA designation significantly expands liability exposure for PFAS contamination, making environmental insurance and contractual indemnities critical.
• States & Municipalities: Expect more states to follow NM, NY & MI lead in leveraging CERCLA claims to recover PFAS cleanup costs

Have any questions?

Contact us to discuss your environment, health, safety, and sustainability needs today.

Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)-related litigation continues to morph and expand, with states increasingly targeting airports for contamination linked to aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF). Recent legal developments illustrate diverging strategies and emerging precedents for future cases. 

It’s important to note that airports operate under a complex regulatory framework where federal mandates (from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)) often dictate operational and safety requirements. Because of this, PFAS responsibilities can differ substantially from other site types. Once contamination leaves airport property, however, additional state and local authorities increasingly come into play. 

Against this backdrop, several states are now testing new legal strategies to recover PFAS cleanup costs, most notably New Mexico, New York, and Michigan.

New Mexico: Setting the Stage 

In July 2024, New Mexico set the stage as the first state to take a targeted stance in the AFFF multidistrict litigation (MDL No. 2873) by seeking to add Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) Superfund cost recovery claims to its existing tort claims against the United States. This strategy leverages EPA’s designation of Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) and Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) as hazardous substances under CERCLA, enabling states to pursue federal cost-sharing for PFAS cleanup costs.1 New Mexico’s move signaled a shift toward using federal environmental statutes to supplement traditional tort theories—and other states are now following suit.  

“Thanks to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s science-driven leadership on PFAS, New Mexico will now hold the U.S. Department of Defense accountable for the monetary costs of clean-up and damages to our environment.” — James Kenney, New Mexico Environment Department Secretary

New York: Adding Superfund Claims to AFFF MDL 

Following New Mexico’s lead, New York has moved to add Superfund cost recovery claims under CERCLA to its existing tort claims against the United States in the massive AFFF multidistrict litigation (MDL No. 2873) pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina. Let’s review the details of the case:  

• Basis for Claims: New York cites EPA’s 2024 rule designating PFOA and PFOS as “hazardous substances” under CERCLA, which the agency reaffirmed in 2025 despite industry challenges.
• Relief Sought:
  • Costs for investigating, monitoring, and cleaning up PFAS contamination from AFFF.
  • Damages for injuries to natural resources.
  • Creation of a monetary abatement fund for future costs.
• Scope: The claims reference contamination at four former or current Air Force or Air National Guard bases in New York.
• Specifically, “New York is asking Judge Richard Gergel to allow it to amend its complaint to add CERCLA claims, citing EPA’s hazardous substance designation as critical support.”  

Implication: If successful, this approach could broaden recovery options for states and municipalities, leveraging CERCLA’s strict liability framework to pursue federal cost-sharing for PFAS cleanups. 

Michigan: Court Rejects State Enforcement Against Airport 

On November 22, 2025, a Michigan state court dismissed the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy’s (EGLE) enforcement action against Gerald R. Ford International Airport Authority (GFIAA). 

• State’s Position: EGLE alleged the airport violated Michigan’s Natural Resources & Environmental Protection Act (NREPA) by failing to obtain permits and sought fines, cleanup costs, and attorneys’ fees for PFAS contamination from AFFF use.
• Court’s Ruling: Judge George Quist found that federal aviation safety law preempts state cleanup mandates, noting that AFFF use was required by FAA regulations:
• “The use of AFFF is a matter of aviation safety, and federal law governs its application.”
• “State and federal regulations put the airport in an impossible situation regarding compliance.”  —Judge Quist 

Implication: This ruling may influence other states considering similar actions against commercial airports. If airports cannot be held liable under state law due to federal preemption, states may pivot toward federal cost recovery or target manufacturers instead. 

Broader Context 

• EPA’s CERCLA Designation: In April 2024, the EPA designated PFOA and PFOS as hazardous substances under CERCLA, triggering reporting requirements and expanding potential liability for cleanup costs. The rule remains in effect following the EPA’s 2025 reaffirmation.
• State Enforcement Trends: So far, Michigan and Washington are the only states that have pursued commercial airports for PFAS cleanups, though litigation against military bases is widespread.
• MDL Landscape: The AFFF MDL now includes over 10,000 cases, with billions in settlements already paid by manufacturers like 3M and DuPont.

Key Takeaways for Stakeholders 

• Evolving Litigation Landscape: PFAS-related litigation continues to change and expand, with states increasingly targeting airports for contamination linked to aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF).
• Two back-to-back developments in New York and Michigan highlight diverging strategies and potential precedents for future cases.
• Airports: Federal preemption may shield airports from state enforcement but does not eliminate reputational risk or potential federal cost recovery claims.
• Insurers & Risk Managers: CERCLA designation significantly expands liability exposure for PFAS contamination, making environmental insurance and contractual indemnities critical.
• States & Municipalities: Expect more states to follow NM, NY & MI lead in leveraging CERCLA claims to recover PFAS cleanup costs

Have any questions?

Contact us to discuss your environment, health, safety, and sustainability needs today.

Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)-related litigation continues to morph and expand, with states increasingly targeting airports for contamination linked to aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF). Recent legal developments illustrate diverging strategies and emerging precedents for future cases. 

It’s important to note that airports operate under a complex regulatory framework where federal mandates (from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)) often dictate operational and safety requirements. Because of this, PFAS responsibilities can differ substantially from other site types. Once contamination leaves airport property, however, additional state and local authorities increasingly come into play. 

Against this backdrop, several states are now testing new legal strategies to recover PFAS cleanup costs, most notably New Mexico, New York, and Michigan.

New Mexico: Setting the Stage 

In July 2024, New Mexico set the stage as the first state to take a targeted stance in the AFFF multidistrict litigation (MDL No. 2873) by seeking to add Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) Superfund cost recovery claims to its existing tort claims against the United States. This strategy leverages EPA’s designation of Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) and Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) as hazardous substances under CERCLA, enabling states to pursue federal cost-sharing for PFAS cleanup costs.1 New Mexico’s move signaled a shift toward using federal environmental statutes to supplement traditional tort theories—and other states are now following suit.  

“Thanks to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s science-driven leadership on PFAS, New Mexico will now hold the U.S. Department of Defense accountable for the monetary costs of clean-up and damages to our environment.” — James Kenney, New Mexico Environment Department Secretary

New York: Adding Superfund Claims to AFFF MDL 

Following New Mexico’s lead, New York has moved to add Superfund cost recovery claims under CERCLA to its existing tort claims against the United States in the massive AFFF multidistrict litigation (MDL No. 2873) pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina. Let’s review the details of the case:  

• Basis for Claims: New York cites EPA’s 2024 rule designating PFOA and PFOS as “hazardous substances” under CERCLA, which the agency reaffirmed in 2025 despite industry challenges.
• Relief Sought:
  • Costs for investigating, monitoring, and cleaning up PFAS contamination from AFFF.
  • Damages for injuries to natural resources.
  • Creation of a monetary abatement fund for future costs.
• Scope: The claims reference contamination at four former or current Air Force or Air National Guard bases in New York.
• Specifically, “New York is asking Judge Richard Gergel to allow it to amend its complaint to add CERCLA claims, citing EPA’s hazardous substance designation as critical support.”  

Implication: If successful, this approach could broaden recovery options for states and municipalities, leveraging CERCLA’s strict liability framework to pursue federal cost-sharing for PFAS cleanups. 

Michigan: Court Rejects State Enforcement Against Airport 

On November 22, 2025, a Michigan state court dismissed the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy’s (EGLE) enforcement action against Gerald R. Ford International Airport Authority (GFIAA). 

• State’s Position: EGLE alleged the airport violated Michigan’s Natural Resources & Environmental Protection Act (NREPA) by failing to obtain permits and sought fines, cleanup costs, and attorneys’ fees for PFAS contamination from AFFF use.
• Court’s Ruling: Judge George Quist found that federal aviation safety law preempts state cleanup mandates, noting that AFFF use was required by FAA regulations:
• “The use of AFFF is a matter of aviation safety, and federal law governs its application.”
• “State and federal regulations put the airport in an impossible situation regarding compliance.”  —Judge Quist 

Implication: This ruling may influence other states considering similar actions against commercial airports. If airports cannot be held liable under state law due to federal preemption, states may pivot toward federal cost recovery or target manufacturers instead. 

Broader Context 

• EPA’s CERCLA Designation: In April 2024, the EPA designated PFOA and PFOS as hazardous substances under CERCLA, triggering reporting requirements and expanding potential liability for cleanup costs. The rule remains in effect following the EPA’s 2025 reaffirmation.
• State Enforcement Trends: So far, Michigan and Washington are the only states that have pursued commercial airports for PFAS cleanups, though litigation against military bases is widespread.
• MDL Landscape: The AFFF MDL now includes over 10,000 cases, with billions in settlements already paid by manufacturers like 3M and DuPont.

Key Takeaways for Stakeholders 

• Evolving Litigation Landscape: PFAS-related litigation continues to change and expand, with states increasingly targeting airports for contamination linked to aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF).
• Two back-to-back developments in New York and Michigan highlight diverging strategies and potential precedents for future cases.
• Airports: Federal preemption may shield airports from state enforcement but does not eliminate reputational risk or potential federal cost recovery claims.
• Insurers & Risk Managers: CERCLA designation significantly expands liability exposure for PFAS contamination, making environmental insurance and contractual indemnities critical.
• States & Municipalities: Expect more states to follow NM, NY & MI lead in leveraging CERCLA claims to recover PFAS cleanup costs

Have any questions?

Contact us to discuss your environment, health, safety, and sustainability needs today.

Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)-related litigation continues to morph and expand, with states increasingly targeting airports for contamination linked to aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF). Recent legal developments illustrate diverging strategies and emerging precedents for future cases. 

It’s important to note that airports operate under a complex regulatory framework where federal mandates (from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)) often dictate operational and safety requirements. Because of this, PFAS responsibilities can differ substantially from other site types. Once contamination leaves airport property, however, additional state and local authorities increasingly come into play. 

Against this backdrop, several states are now testing new legal strategies to recover PFAS cleanup costs, most notably New Mexico, New York, and Michigan.

New Mexico: Setting the Stage 

In July 2024, New Mexico set the stage as the first state to take a targeted stance in the AFFF multidistrict litigation (MDL No. 2873) by seeking to add Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) Superfund cost recovery claims to its existing tort claims against the United States. This strategy leverages EPA’s designation of Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) and Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) as hazardous substances under CERCLA, enabling states to pursue federal cost-sharing for PFAS cleanup costs.1 New Mexico’s move signaled a shift toward using federal environmental statutes to supplement traditional tort theories—and other states are now following suit.  

“Thanks to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s science-driven leadership on PFAS, New Mexico will now hold the U.S. Department of Defense accountable for the monetary costs of clean-up and damages to our environment.” — James Kenney, New Mexico Environment Department Secretary

New York: Adding Superfund Claims to AFFF MDL 

Following New Mexico’s lead, New York has moved to add Superfund cost recovery claims under CERCLA to its existing tort claims against the United States in the massive AFFF multidistrict litigation (MDL No. 2873) pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina. Let’s review the details of the case:  

• Basis for Claims: New York cites EPA’s 2024 rule designating PFOA and PFOS as “hazardous substances” under CERCLA, which the agency reaffirmed in 2025 despite industry challenges.
• Relief Sought:
  • Costs for investigating, monitoring, and cleaning up PFAS contamination from AFFF.
  • Damages for injuries to natural resources.
  • Creation of a monetary abatement fund for future costs.
• Scope: The claims reference contamination at four former or current Air Force or Air National Guard bases in New York.
• Specifically, “New York is asking Judge Richard Gergel to allow it to amend its complaint to add CERCLA claims, citing EPA’s hazardous substance designation as critical support.”  

Implication: If successful, this approach could broaden recovery options for states and municipalities, leveraging CERCLA’s strict liability framework to pursue federal cost-sharing for PFAS cleanups. 

Michigan: Court Rejects State Enforcement Against Airport 

On November 22, 2025, a Michigan state court dismissed the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy’s (EGLE) enforcement action against Gerald R. Ford International Airport Authority (GFIAA). 

• State’s Position: EGLE alleged the airport violated Michigan’s Natural Resources & Environmental Protection Act (NREPA) by failing to obtain permits and sought fines, cleanup costs, and attorneys’ fees for PFAS contamination from AFFF use.
• Court’s Ruling: Judge George Quist found that federal aviation safety law preempts state cleanup mandates, noting that AFFF use was required by FAA regulations:
• “The use of AFFF is a matter of aviation safety, and federal law governs its application.”
• “State and federal regulations put the airport in an impossible situation regarding compliance.”  —Judge Quist 

Implication: This ruling may influence other states considering similar actions against commercial airports. If airports cannot be held liable under state law due to federal preemption, states may pivot toward federal cost recovery or target manufacturers instead. 

Broader Context 

• EPA’s CERCLA Designation: In April 2024, the EPA designated PFOA and PFOS as hazardous substances under CERCLA, triggering reporting requirements and expanding potential liability for cleanup costs. The rule remains in effect following the EPA’s 2025 reaffirmation.
• State Enforcement Trends: So far, Michigan and Washington are the only states that have pursued commercial airports for PFAS cleanups, though litigation against military bases is widespread.
• MDL Landscape: The AFFF MDL now includes over 10,000 cases, with billions in settlements already paid by manufacturers like 3M and DuPont.

Key Takeaways for Stakeholders 

• Evolving Litigation Landscape: PFAS-related litigation continues to change and expand, with states increasingly targeting airports for contamination linked to aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF).
• Two back-to-back developments in New York and Michigan highlight diverging strategies and potential precedents for future cases.
• Airports: Federal preemption may shield airports from state enforcement but does not eliminate reputational risk or potential federal cost recovery claims.
• Insurers & Risk Managers: CERCLA designation significantly expands liability exposure for PFAS contamination, making environmental insurance and contractual indemnities critical.
• States & Municipalities: Expect more states to follow NM, NY & MI lead in leveraging CERCLA claims to recover PFAS cleanup costs

Have any questions?

Contact us to discuss your environment, health, safety, and sustainability needs today.

SANTA ROSA, Calif., December 18, 2025 /3BL/ – Keysight Technologies, Inc. (NYSE: KEYS) announced the company has received multiple awards and recognitions for its corporate social responsibility (CSR) efforts throughout 2025.

Keysight’s inclusion in the JUST 100 Ranking of America’s Most Just Companies in 2025 marks the company’s eighth consecutive annual inclusion since the inaugural publication of this ranking. It also marks the sixth time Keysight has held the best in industry ranking.

The company also maintained its inclusion in the World’s Most Sustainable Companies by Time.

In addition to these honors, Keysight also received the following recognitions and awards in 2025:

• Continued constituent of the FTSE4Good Index Series (since June 2018)¹
• Constituent of the MSCI Selection Indices, formerly MSCI ESG Leaders Indices (since April 2018)²
• Continued to receive the highest Institutional Shareholder Services Inc. (ISS) Quality Score for the categories of social (since May 2018) and environment (since August 2022)
• TIME World’s Most Sustainable Companies of 2025
• Barron’s 100 Most Sustainable U.S. Companies 2025
• 2025 JUST 100 Ranking of America’s Most Just Companies, including #1 Industry Leader
• Ranked #10 on 3BL’s 100 Best Corporate Citizens 2025
• Listed on CDP’s Supplier Engagement Assessment (SEA) A-list
• Awarded Gold Medal from EcoVadis Sustainability Rating

Michele Robinson-Pontbriand, Keysight’s Director of Corporate Social Responsibility, said: “We continue to be honored by the leadership recognition of our CSR efforts. Our enduring commitment to contributing to societal prosperity remains a key company value that is operationalized through our ethical, environmentally sustainable, and socially responsible operations.”

Resources

• Keysight CSR News, Awards & Recognitions
• Keysight Annual CSR Report
• Keysight Corporate Social Responsibility Web site
• Keysight CSR Resources Hub

¹ FTSE Russell (the trading name of FTSE International Limited and Frank Russell Company) confirms that Keysight Technologies has been independently assessed according to the FTSE4Good criteria and has satisfied the requirements to become a constituent of the FTSE4Good Index Series. Created by the global index provider FTSE Russell, the FTSE4Good Index Series is designed to measure the performance of companies demonstrating strong Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) practices. The FTSE4Good indices are used by a wide variety of market participants to create and assess responsible investment funds and other products.

² The inclusion of Keysight Technologies, Inc. in any MSCI Index, and the use of MSCI logos, trademarks, service marks or index names herein, do not constitute a sponsorship, endorsement or promotion of Keysight Technologies, Inc. by MSCI or any of its affiliates. The MSCI Indexes are the exclusive property of MSCI. MSCI and the MSCI Index names and logos are trademarks or service marks of MSCI or its affiliates.

About Keysight Technologies 

At Keysight (NYSE: KEYS), we inspire and empower innovators to bring world-changing technologies to life. As an S&P 500 company, we’re delivering market-leading design, emulation, and test solutions to help engineers develop and deploy faster, with less risk, throughout the entire product life cycle. We’re a global innovation partner enabling customers in communications, industrial automation, aerospace and defense, automotive, semiconductor, and general electronics markets to accelerate innovation to connect and secure the world. Learn more at Keysight Newsroom and www.keysight.com.

Contacts

Andrea Mueller
Americas/Europe
andrea.mueller@keysight.com

Fusako Dohi, Asia
+81 42 660–2162
fusako_dohi@keysight.com

SANTA ROSA, Calif., December 18, 2025 /3BL/ – Keysight Technologies, Inc. (NYSE: KEYS) announced the company has received multiple awards and recognitions for its corporate social responsibility (CSR) efforts throughout 2025.

Keysight’s inclusion in the JUST 100 Ranking of America’s Most Just Companies in 2025 marks the company’s eighth consecutive annual inclusion since the inaugural publication of this ranking. It also marks the sixth time Keysight has held the best in industry ranking.

The company also maintained its inclusion in the World’s Most Sustainable Companies by Time.

In addition to these honors, Keysight also received the following recognitions and awards in 2025:

• Continued constituent of the FTSE4Good Index Series (since June 2018)¹
• Constituent of the MSCI Selection Indices, formerly MSCI ESG Leaders Indices (since April 2018)²
• Continued to receive the highest Institutional Shareholder Services Inc. (ISS) Quality Score for the categories of social (since May 2018) and environment (since August 2022)
• TIME World’s Most Sustainable Companies of 2025
• Barron’s 100 Most Sustainable U.S. Companies 2025
• 2025 JUST 100 Ranking of America’s Most Just Companies, including #1 Industry Leader
• Ranked #10 on 3BL’s 100 Best Corporate Citizens 2025
• Listed on CDP’s Supplier Engagement Assessment (SEA) A-list
• Awarded Gold Medal from EcoVadis Sustainability Rating

Michele Robinson-Pontbriand, Keysight’s Director of Corporate Social Responsibility, said: “We continue to be honored by the leadership recognition of our CSR efforts. Our enduring commitment to contributing to societal prosperity remains a key company value that is operationalized through our ethical, environmentally sustainable, and socially responsible operations.”

Resources

• Keysight CSR News, Awards & Recognitions
• Keysight Annual CSR Report
• Keysight Corporate Social Responsibility Web site
• Keysight CSR Resources Hub

¹ FTSE Russell (the trading name of FTSE International Limited and Frank Russell Company) confirms that Keysight Technologies has been independently assessed according to the FTSE4Good criteria and has satisfied the requirements to become a constituent of the FTSE4Good Index Series. Created by the global index provider FTSE Russell, the FTSE4Good Index Series is designed to measure the performance of companies demonstrating strong Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) practices. The FTSE4Good indices are used by a wide variety of market participants to create and assess responsible investment funds and other products.

² The inclusion of Keysight Technologies, Inc. in any MSCI Index, and the use of MSCI logos, trademarks, service marks or index names herein, do not constitute a sponsorship, endorsement or promotion of Keysight Technologies, Inc. by MSCI or any of its affiliates. The MSCI Indexes are the exclusive property of MSCI. MSCI and the MSCI Index names and logos are trademarks or service marks of MSCI or its affiliates.

About Keysight Technologies 

At Keysight (NYSE: KEYS), we inspire and empower innovators to bring world-changing technologies to life. As an S&P 500 company, we’re delivering market-leading design, emulation, and test solutions to help engineers develop and deploy faster, with less risk, throughout the entire product life cycle. We’re a global innovation partner enabling customers in communications, industrial automation, aerospace and defense, automotive, semiconductor, and general electronics markets to accelerate innovation to connect and secure the world. Learn more at Keysight Newsroom and www.keysight.com.

Contacts

Andrea Mueller
Americas/Europe
andrea.mueller@keysight.com

Fusako Dohi, Asia
+81 42 660–2162
fusako_dohi@keysight.com