3M CO 10-Q

Item 1. Financial Statements 3M Company and Subsidiaries Consolidated Statement of Income (Unaudited) Three months ended June 30, Six months ended June 30, (Millions, except per share amounts) 2025 2024 2025 2024 Net sales $ 6,344 $ 6,255 $ 12,298 $ 12,271 Operating expenses Cost of sales 3,646 3,571 7,124 7,056 Selling, general and administrative expenses 1,267 1,132 2,212 2,260 Research, development and related expenses 288 280 573 534 Loss on business divestitures 3 — 3 — Total operating expenses 5,204 4,983 9,912 9,850 Operating income 1,140 1,272 2,386 2,421 Other expense (income), net 217 ( 138 ) 78 82 Income from continuing operations before income taxes 923 1,410 2,308 2,339 Provision for income taxes 245 203 510 423 Income from continuing operations of consolidated group 678 1,207 1,798 1,916 Income from unconsolidated subsidiaries, net of taxes 47 3 49 4 Net income from continuing operations including noncontrolling interest 725 1,210 1,847 1,920 Less: net income attributable to noncontrolling interest 2 6 8 11 Net income from continuing operations attributable to 3M 723 1,204 1,839 1,909 Net income (loss) from discontinued operations, net of taxes — ( 59 ) — 164 Net income attributable to 3M $ 723 $ 1,145 $ 1,839 $ 2,073 Earnings per share attributable to 3M common shareholders: Weighted average 3M common shares outstanding — basic 537.4 553.8 540.6 554.4 Earnings per share from continuing operations — basic $ 1.35 $ 2.17 $ 3.40 $ 3.44 Earnings (loss) per share from discontinued operations — basic — ( 0.10 ) — 0.30 Earnings per share — basic $ 1.35 $ 2.07 $ 3.40 $ 3.74 Weighted average 3M common shares outstanding — diluted 540.6 554.8 544.2 555.3 Earnings per share from continuing operations — diluted $ 1.34 $ 2.17 $ 3.38 $ 3.44 Earnings (loss) per share from discontinued operations — diluted — ( 0.10 ) — 0.29 Earnings per share — diluted $ 1.34 $ 2.07 $ 3.38 $ 3.73 The accompanying Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements are an integral part of this statement. 3 Table of Contents 3M Company and Subsidiaries Consolidated Statement of Comprehensive Income (Unaudited) Three months ended June 30, Six months ended June 30, (Millions) 2025 2024 2025 2024 Net income attributable to 3M $ 723 $ 1,145 $ 1,839 $ 2,073 Net income attributable to noncontrolling interest 2 6 8 11 Net income including noncontrolling interest 725 1,151 1,847 2,084 Other comprehensive income (loss), net of tax: Cumulative translation adjustment 339 ( 145 ) 510 ( 353 ) Defined benefit pension and postretirement plans adjustment 49 826 107 961 Cash flow hedging instruments ( 83 ) ( 7 ) ( 112 ) 19 Total other comprehensive income (loss), net of tax 305 674 505 627 Comprehensive income including noncontrolling interest 1,030 1,825 2,352 2,711 Comprehensive (income) attributable to noncontrolling interest ( 2 ) ( 5 ) ( 8 ) ( 11 ) Comprehensive income attributable to 3M $ 1,028 $ 1,820 $ 2,344 $ 2,700 The accompanying Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements are an integral part of this statement. 4 Table of Contents 3M Company and Subsidiaries Consolidated Balance Sheet (Unaudited) (Dollars in millions, except per share amount) June 30, 2025 December 31, 2024 Assets Current assets Cash and cash equivalents $ 3,712 $ 5,600 Marketable securities — current 502 2,128 Accounts receivable — net of allowances of $ 61 and $ 60 3,760 3,194 Inventories Finished goods 2,092 1,849 Work in process 1,131 1,051 Raw materials and supplies 854 798 Total inventories 4,077 3,698 Prepaids 642 493 Other current assets 734 771 Total current assets 13,427 15,884 Property, plant and equipment 24,118 23,406 Less: accumulated depreciation ( 16,725 ) ( 16,018 ) Property, plant and equipment — net 7,393 7,388 Operating lease right of use assets 573 565 Goodwill 6,433 6,281 Intangible assets — net 1,162 1,210 Other assets 9,001 8,540 Total assets $ 37,989 $ 39,868 Liabilities Current liabilities Short-term borrowings and current portion of long-term debt $ 669 $ 1,919 Accounts payable 2,840 2,660 Accrued payroll 594 712 Accrued income taxes 315 331 Operating lease liabilities — current 180 163 Other current liabilities 3,210 5,471 Total current liabilities 7,808 11,256 Long-term debt 12,477 11,125 Pension and postretirement benefits 1,808 1,813 Operating lease liabilities 400 405 Other liabilities 11,145 11,375 Total liabilities 33,638 35,974 Commitments and contingencies (Note 17) Equity 3M Company shareholders’ equity: Common stock par value, $ .01 par value; 944,033,056 shares issued 9 9 Shares outstanding - June 30, 2025: 532,629,702 , December 31, 2024: 539,470,303 Additional paid-in capital 7,345 7,229 Retained earnings 37,693 36,797 Treasury stock, at cost: ( 35,542 ) ( 34,462 ) Shares at June 30, 2025: 411,403,354 , December 31, 2024: 404,562,753 Accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) ( 5,215 ) ( 5,731 ) Total 3M Company shareholders’ equity 4,290 3,842 Noncontrolling interest 61 52 Total equity 4,351 3,894 Total liabilities and equity $ 37,989 $ 39,868 The accompanying Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements are an integral part of this statement. 5 Table of Contents 3M Company and Subsidiaries Consolidated Statement of Cash Flows 1 (Unaudited) Six months ended June 30, (Millions) 2025 2024 Cash flows from operating activities Net income including noncontrolling interest $ 1,847 $ 2,084 Adjustments to reconcile net income including noncontrolling interest to net cash provided by operating activities Depreciation and amortization 580 731 Company pension and postretirement contributions ( 61 ) ( 86 ) Company pension and postretirement expense 135 898 Stock-based compensation expense 129 200 Loss on business divestitures 3 — Deferred income taxes 217 115 Changes in assets and liabilities Accounts receivable ( 419 ) ( 219 ) Inventories ( 240 ) ( 270 ) Accounts payable 182 166 Accrued income taxes (current and long-term) ( 201 ) ( 172 ) Other — net ( 3,205 ) ( 1,659 ) Net cash provided by (used in) operating activities ( 1,033 ) 1,788 Cash flows from investing activities Purchases of property, plant and equipment (PP&E) ( 444 ) ( 644 ) Proceeds from sale of PP&E and other assets 21 53 Purchases of marketable securities and investments ( 419 ) ( 943 ) Proceeds from maturities and sale of marketable securities and investments 2,130 707 Proceeds from sale of businesses, net of cash sold 5 — Other — net ( 3 ) ( 29 ) Net cash provided by (used in) investing activities 1,290 ( 856 ) Cash flows from financing activities Change in short-term debt — net — ( 205 ) Repayment of debt (maturities greater than 90 days) ( 1,250 ) ( 2,653 ) Proceeds from debt (maturities greater than 90 days) 1,099 8,367 Purchases of treasury stock ( 2,227 ) ( 421 ) Proceeds from issuance of treasury stock pursuant to stock option and benefit plans 988 30 Dividends paid to shareholders ( 786 ) ( 1,221 ) Cash transferred to Solventum related to separation, net — ( 577 ) Other — net ( 15 ) ( 57 ) Net cash provided by (used in) financing activities ( 2,191 ) 3,263 Effect of exchange rate changes on cash and cash equivalents 46 ( 45 ) Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents ( 1,888 ) 4,150 Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of year 5,600 5,933 Cash and cash equivalents at end of period $ 3,712 $ 10,083 The accompanying Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements are an integral part of this statement. 1 The Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows include the results of continuing and discontinued operations and, therefore, also include cash and cash equivalents associated with Solventum through its April 2024 separation from 3M that were presented in current assets of discontinued operations in the 3M Consolidated Balance Sheet. 6 Table of Contents 3M Company and Subsidiaries Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements (Unaudited) Note 1. Significant Accounting Policies Basis of Presentation: The interim consolidated financial statements are unaudited but, in the opinion of management, reflect all adjustments necessary for a fair statement of the Company’s consolidated financial position, results of operations and cash flows for the periods presented. These adjustments consist of normal, recurring items. The results of operations for any interim period are not necessarily indicative of results for the full year. The interim consolidated financial statements and notes are presented as permitted by the requirements for Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q. This Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q should be read in conjunction with the Company’s consolidated financial statements and notes included in its 2024 Annual Report on Form 10-K. Certain amounts in prior periods’ consolidated financial statements have been reclassified to conform to current period presentation. New Accounting Pronouncements: Refer to Note 1 to the Consolidated Financial Statements in 3M's 2024 Annual Report on Form 10-K for a discussion of applicable standards issued and not yet adopted by 3M. Note 2. Discontinued Operations On April 1, 2024, 3M completed the separation of its Health Care business (the Separation) through a pro rata distribution of 80.1 % of the outstanding shares of Solventum Corporation (Solventum) to 3M stockholders. As a result, Solventum became an independent public company, 3M no longer consolidates Solventum into 3M’s financial results and the historical net income of Solventum and applicable assets and liabilities included in the Separation are reported in 3M's consolidated financial statements as discontinued operations. Refer to Note 2 to the Consolidated Financial Statements in 3M's 2024 Annual Report on Form 10-K for more information regarding the Separation and the various agreements (supply, transition and other agreements) that provide for the relationship between 3M and Solventum. 3M continuing involvement with Solventum in the form of net sales under supply agreements and income from transition agreements is reflected in amounts disclosed in "Corporate and Other" in Note 19, recorded as net sales and associated costs and recorded as a direct offset to associated costs within selling, general and administrative expenses, respectively. Solventum transition agreement income for the three and six and months ended June 30, 2025 was approximately $ 40 million and $ 90 million, respectively (approximately $ 0.2 billion and $ 0.4 billion gross fees, net of assigned costs, respectively). Solventum transition agreement income for the three and six months ended June 30, 2024 was approximately $ 30 million (approximately $ 0.2 billion gross fees, net of assigned costs). Transition services or purchases from Solventum are not material to 3M. Amounts due from Solventum and amounts due to Solventum under the agreements referenced above were approximately $ 0.4 billion and $ 0.2 billion, respectively, as of June 30, 2025 and as of December 31, 2024. Information regarding net income from discontinued operations, net of taxes includes the following: Net income (loss) from discontinued operations, net of taxes (millions) Three months ended June 30, 2024 Six months ended June 30, 2024 Net sales $ — $ 1,987 Cost of sales — 844 Other operating expenses 46 837 Other expense (income), net — 44 Income (loss) from discontinued operations before income taxes ( 46 ) 262 Provision for income taxes 13 98 Net income (loss) from discontinued operations, net of taxes $ ( 59 ) $ 164 Cash flows related to discontinued operations have not been segregated, and are included in the Consolidated Statement of Cash Flows for all periods presented. Selected financial information related to cash flows from discontinued operations is below. Selected cash flow information from discontinued operations (millions) Six months ended June 30, 2024 Depreciation and amortization $ 139 Purchases of PP&E 77 7 Table of Contents Note 3. Revenue Disaggregated Revenue Information: The Company views the following disaggregated disclosures as useful to understanding the composition of revenue recognized during the respective reporting periods: Three months ended June 30, Six months ended June 30, Net sales (millions) 2025 2024 2025 2024 Abrasives $ 338 $ 324 $ 655 $ 652 Automotive Aftermarket 291 304 581 610 Electrical Markets 349 319 674 624 Industrial Adhesives and Tapes 568 531 1,111 1,049 Industrial Specialties Division 294 291 582 581 Personal Safety 882 857 1,732 1,714 Roofing Granules 135 133 267 261 Total Safety and Industrial Business segment 2,857 2,759 5,602 5,491 Advanced Materials 227 244 445 507 Automotive and Aerospace 474 481 949 987 Commercial Branding and Transportation 689 672 1,305 1,282 Electronics 740 746 1,421 1,471 Total Transportation and Electronics Business segment 2,130 2,143 4,120 4,247 Consumer Safety and Well-Being 280 280 554 546 Home and Auto Care 306 302 605 607 Home Improvement 374 369 700 699 Packaging and Expression 310 312 535 551 Total Consumer Business segment 1,270 1,263 2,394 2,403 Corporate and Other 87 90 182 130 Total company $ 6,344 $ 6,255 $ 12,298 $ 12,271 Three months ended June 30, Six months ended June 30, Net sales by geographic area (millions) 2025 2024 2025 2024 Americas $ 3,482 $ 3,480 $ 6,689 $ 6,630 Asia Pacific 1,782 1,721 3,504 3,489 Europe, Middle East and Africa 1,080 1,054 2,105 2,152 Worldwide $ 6,344 $ 6,255 $ 12,298 $ 12,271 Three months ended June 30, Six months ended June 30, Net sales by particular country (billions) 2025 2024 2025 2024 United States $ 2.8 $ 2.8 $ 5.4 $ 5.3 China/Hong Kong 0.8 0.7 1.5 1.4 Note 4. Divestitures Refer to Note 4 to the Consolidated Financial Statements in 3M's 2024 Annual Report on Form 10-K for more information on relevant pre-2025 divestitures. In June 2025, 3M completed the sale of its fused silica business, formerly part of the Transportation and Electronics business, for immaterial proceeds slightly below the business's book value. 8 Table of Contents Note 5. Goodwill and Intangible Assets Goodwill: The change in the carrying amount of goodwill by business segment was as follows: (Millions) Safety and Industrial Transportation and Electronics Consumer Corporate and Other Total company Balance as of December 31, 2024 4,469 1,496 258 58 6,281 Translation and other 104 35 13 — 152 Balance as of June 30, 2025 $ 4,573 $ 1,531 $ 271 $ 58 $ 6,433 The amounts in the “Translation and other” row in the above table primarily relate to changes in foreign currency exchange rates. As of June 30, 2025, the Company's accumulated goodwill impairment loss is $ 0.3 billion. Acquired Intangible Assets: The carrying amount and accumulated amortization of acquired finite-lived intangible assets, in addition to the balance of non-amortizable intangible assets follow: (Millions) June 30, 2025 December 31, 2024 Customer related $ 1,354 $ 1,319 Patents 208 207 Other technology-based 379 371 Definite-lived tradenames 482 487 Other 47 47 Total gross carrying amount 2,470 2,431 Accumulated amortization — customer related ( 999 ) ( 935 ) Accumulated amortization — patents ( 208 ) ( 207 ) Accumulated amortization — other technology-based ( 343 ) ( 328 ) Accumulated amortization — definite-lived tradenames ( 307 ) ( 300 ) Accumulated amortization — other ( 30 ) ( 30 ) Total accumulated amortization ( 1,887 ) ( 1,800 ) Total finite-lived intangible assets — net 583 631 Indefinite lived intangible assets (primarily tradenames) 579 579 Total intangible assets — net $ 1,162 $ 1,210 Certain tradenames acquired by 3M are not amortized because they have been in existence for over 60 years, have a history of leading-market share positions, have been and are intended to be continuously renewed, and the associated products of which are expected to generate cash flows for 3M for an indefinite period of time. Amortization expense follows: Three months ended June 30, Six months ended June 30, (Millions) 2025 2024 2025 2024 Amortization expense $ 26 $ 27 $ 52 $ 54 Expected amortization expense for acquired amortizable intangible assets recorded as of June 30, 2025 follows: (Millions) Remainder of 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 After 2030 Amortization expense $ 52 $ 105 $ 85 $ 59 $ 57 $ 57 $ 168 3M expenses the costs incurred to renew or extend the term of intangible assets. 9 Table of Contents Note 6. Restructuring Actions 2023 to 2025 Structural Reorganization Actions: In 2023, 3M announced it would undertake structural reorganization actions to reduce the size of the corporate center of the Company, simplify supply chain, streamline 3M’s geographic footprint, reduce layers of management, further align business go-to-market models to customers, and reduce manufacturing roles to align with production volumes. This aggregate initiative, beginning in the first quarter of 2023 and continuing through 2025, is expected (as updated to exclude discontinued operations) to impact approximately 8,000 positions worldwide. During 2024, management approved and committed to undertake additional actions under this initiative impacting approximately 1,100 positions and other actions resulting in a pre-tax charge of $ 187 million, the relevant portion of which relating to the second quarter and first six months are indicated in the table below. In the first six months of 2025, management approved and committed to undertake additional actions resulting in a pre-tax charge as indicated in the table below. Since its beginning in 2023 through committed second quarter 2025 actions, this initiative impacted approximately 6,900 positions worldwide. Remaining activities related to the restructuring actions approved and committed through June 30, 2025 under this initiative are expected to be largely completed in 2025. Remaining actions 3M may commit to under this initiative are not expected to be material. The related restructuring charges for periods presented were recorded in the income statement as follows: Three months ended June 30, Six months ended June 30, (Millions) 2025 2024 2025 2024 Cost of sales $ — $ 2 $ 1 $ 4 Selling, general and administrative expenses 8 32 20 123 Research, development and related expenses — 1 — 11 Total operating income impact $ 8 $ 35 $ 21 $ 138 The business segment operating income impact of these restructuring charges is summarized as follows: Three months ended June 30, 2025 2024 (Millions) Employee related Employee related Asset-related and other Total Safety and Industrial $ 4 $ 13 $ 5 $ 18 Transportation and Electronics 3 7 4 11 Consumer 1 4 2 6 Total operating expense $ 8 $ 24 $ 11 $ 35 Six months ended June 30, 2025 2024 (Millions) Employee Related Employee Related Asset-Related and Other Total Safety and Industrial $ 10 $ 39 $ 25 $ 64 Transportation and Electronics 7 16 18 34 Consumer 4 9 11 20 Corporate and Other — 6 14 20 Total operating expense $ 21 $ 70 $ 68 $ 138 Restructuring actions, including cash and non-cash impacts, follow: (Millions) Employee-related Accrued restructuring action balance as of December 31, 2024 $ 80 Incremental expense incurred in the first quarter of 2025 13 Incremental expense incurred in the second quarter of 2025 8 Adjustments ( 11 ) Cash payments ( 48 ) Accrued restructuring action balance as of June 30, 2025 $ 42 10 Table of Contents 2023 to 2025 PFAS Exit Restructuring Actions: 3M announced in 2022 that it will exit all PFAS manufacturing by the end of 2025 and began related workforce actions in 2023. In the first six months of 2024, management approved and committed to undertake actions resulting in an immaterial pre-tax charge. During the first six months of 2025, such actions resulted in a pre-tax charge as indicated in the table below. These charges were reflected within the Transportation and Electronics business segment and primarily impacted cost of sales and selling, general and administrative expenses. This initiative, beginning in 2023 through committed 2025 actions, impacted approximately 1,200 positions worldwide. (Millions) Employee-related Accrued restructuring action balance as of December 31, 2024 $ 86 Incremental expense incurred in the first quarter of 2025 5 Incremental expense incurred in the second quarter of 2025 4 Cash payments ( 22 ) Accrued restructuring action balance as of June 30, 2025 $ 73 Note 7. Supplemental Income Statement Information Other expense (income), net consists of the following: Three months ended June 30, Six months ended June 30, (Millions) 2025 2024 2025 2024 Interest expense 2 $ 237 $ 322 $ 492 $ 663 Interest income ( 50 ) ( 143 ) ( 129 ) ( 253 ) Pension and postretirement net periodic benefit cost (benefit) 3 23 796 51 785 Solventum ownership - change in value 4 7 ( 1,113 ) ( 336 ) ( 1,113 ) Total $ 217 $ ( 138 ) $ 78 $ 82 2 Interest expense related to outstanding debt is as follows below. Interest expense in the table above also includes imputed interest associated with the obligations resulting from the PWS Settlement, New Jersey Settlement, and CAE Settlement (all discussed in Note 17). Three months ended June 30, Six months ended June 30, (Millions) 2025 2024 2025 2024 Interest expense related to outstanding debt $ 116 $ 120 $ 226 $ 257 3 Pension and postretirement net periodic benefit income described in the table above includes all components of defined benefit plan net periodic benefit cost (benefit) except service cost, which is reported in various operating expense lines. Refer to Note 13 for additional details on the components of pension and postretirement net periodic benefit cost (benefit). 4 Solventum ownership - change in value relates to the change in value of 3M's retained ownership interest in common stock of Solventum Corporation, an independent public company. Solventum separated from 3M in April 2024 (discussed in Note 2). As of June 30, 2025, the balance of unrealized gain on this investment was $ 1.9 billion. 11 Table of Contents Note 8. Supplemental Equity and Comprehensive Income Information Cash dividends declared and paid totaled $ 0.73 per share for each of the first and second quarters of 2025 and $ 1.51 and $ 0.70 per share for the first and second quarters of 2024, respectively, or $ 1.46 and $ 2.21 per share for the first six months of 2025 and 2024, respectively. The table below presents the consolidated changes in equity for three and six months ended June 30, 2025 and 2024: 3M Company Shareholders Non-controlling interest (Millions) Total Common stock and additional paid-in capital Retained earnings Treasury stock Accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) Balance at March 31, 2025 $ 4,523 $ 7,310 $ 37,432 $ ( 34,747 ) $ ( 5,531 ) $ 59 Net income 725 723 2 Other comprehensive income (loss), net of tax 305 305 — Solventum spin-off ( 3 ) ( 14 ) 11 Dividends declared ( 390 ) ( 390 ) Purchase of non-controlling interest — — — Stock-based compensation 44 44 Reacquired stock ( 946 ) ( 946 ) Issuances pursuant to stock option and benefit plans 93 ( 58 ) 151 Balance at June 30, 2025 $ 4,351 $ 7,354 $ 37,693 $ ( 35,542 ) $ ( 5,215 ) $ 61 Balance at March 31, 2024 $ 4,933 $ 6,982 $ 37,472 $ ( 32,762 ) $ ( 6,826 ) $ 67 Net income 1,151 1,145 6 Other comprehensive income (loss), net of tax 674 675 ( 1 ) Solventum spin-off ( 2,169 ) ( 2,753 ) 584 Dividends declared ( 386 ) ( 386 ) Stock-based compensation 173 173 Reacquired stock ( 400 ) ( 400 ) Issuances pursuant to stock option and benefit plans 12 ( 3 ) 15 Balance at June 30, 2024 $ 3,988 $ 7,155 $ 35,475 $ ( 33,147 ) $ ( 5,567 ) $ 72 Balance at December 31, 2024 $ 3,894 $ 7,238 $ 36,797 $ ( 34,462 ) $ ( 5,731 ) $ 52 Net income 1,847 1,839 8 Other comprehensive income (loss), net of tax 505 505 Solventum spin-off ( 3 ) ( 14 ) 11 Dividends declared ( 786 ) ( 786 ) Purchase of non-controlling interest 1 — 1 Stock-based compensation 116 116 Reacquired stock ( 2,221 ) ( 2,221 ) Issuances pursuant to stock option and benefit plans 998 ( 143 ) 1,141 Balance at June 30, 2025 $ 4,351 $ 7,354 $ 37,693 $ ( 35,542 ) $ ( 5,215 ) $ 61 Balance at December 31, 2023 $ 4,868 $ 6,965 $ 37,479 $ ( 32,859 ) $ ( 6,778 ) $ 61 Net income 2,084 2,073 11 Other comprehensive income (loss), net of tax 627 627 — Solventum spin-off ( 2,169 ) ( 2,753 ) 584 Dividends declared ( 1,221 ) ( 1,221 ) Stock-based compensation 190 190 Reacquired stock ( 421 ) ( 421 ) Issuances pursuant to stock option and benefit plans 30 ( 103 ) 133 Balance at June 30, 2024 $ 3,988 $ 7,155 $ 35,475 $ ( 33,147 ) $ ( 5,567 ) $ 72 12 Table of Contents The table below presents the changes in accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) attributable to 3M (AOCI), including the reclassifications out of AOCI by component for the three and six months ended June 30, 2025 and 2024: (Millions) Cumulative translation adjustment Defined benefit pension and postretirement plans adjustment Cash flow hedging instruments, unrealized gain (loss) Total accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) Balance at March 31, 2025, net of tax: $ ( 2,782 ) $ ( 2,705 ) $ ( 44 ) $ ( 5,531 ) Other comprehensive income (loss), before tax: Amounts before reclassifications 287 ( 7 ) ( 91 ) 189 Amounts reclassified out — 71 ( 14 ) 57 Total other comprehensive income (loss), before tax 287 64 ( 105 ) 246 Tax effect 5 52 ( 15 ) 22 59 Total other comprehensive income (loss), net of tax 339 49 ( 83 ) 305 Solventum spin-off — 11 — 11 Balance at June 30, 2025, net of tax: $ ( 2,443 ) $ ( 2,645 ) $ ( 127 ) $ ( 5,215 ) Balance at March 31, 2024, net of tax: $ ( 2,715 ) $ ( 4,083 ) $ ( 28 ) $ ( 6,826 ) Other comprehensive income (loss), before tax: Amounts before reclassifications ( 148 ) 218 23 93 Amounts reclassified out 11 876 ( 30 ) 857 Total other comprehensive income (loss), before tax ( 137 ) 1,094 ( 7 ) 950 Tax effect 2 ( 7 ) ( 268 ) — ( 275 ) Total other comprehensive income (loss), net of tax ( 144 ) 826 ( 7 ) 675 Solventum spin-off 64 520 — 584 Balance at June 30, 2024, net of tax: $ ( 2,795 ) $ ( 2,737 ) $ ( 35 ) $ ( 5,567 ) Balance at December 31, 2024, net of tax: $ ( 2,953 ) $ ( 2,763 ) $ ( 15 ) $ ( 5,731 ) Other comprehensive income (loss), before tax: Amounts before reclassifications 436 ( 7 ) ( 105 ) 324 Amounts reclassified out — 147 ( 37 ) 110 Total other comprehensive income (loss), before tax 436 140 ( 142 ) 434 Tax effect 5 74 ( 33 ) 30 71 Total other comprehensive income (loss), net of tax 510 107 ( 112 ) 505 Solventum spin-off — 11 — 11 Balance at June 30, 2025, net of tax: $ ( 2,443 ) $ ( 2,645 ) $ ( 127 ) $ ( 5,215 ) Balance at December 31, 2023, net of tax: $ ( 2,506 ) $ ( 4,218 ) $ ( 54 ) $ ( 6,778 ) Other comprehensive income (loss), before tax: Amounts before reclassifications ( 401 ) 285 84 ( 32 ) Amounts reclassified out 68 972 ( 57 ) 983 Total other comprehensive income (loss), before tax ( 333 ) 1,257 27 951 Tax effect 5 ( 20 ) ( 296 ) ( 8 ) ( 324 ) Total other comprehensive income (loss), net of tax ( 353 ) 961 19 627 Solventum spin-off 64 520 — 584 Balance at June 30, 2024, net of tax: $ ( 2,795 ) $ ( 2,737 ) $ ( 35 ) $ ( 5,567 ) 5 Includes tax expense (benefit) reclassified out of AOCI related to the following: Three months ended June 30, Six months ended June 30, (Millions) 2025 2024 2025 2024 Cumulative translation adjustment $ — $ — $ — $ — Defined benefit pension and postretirement plans adjustment ( 17 ) ( 216 ) ( 35 ) ( 229 ) Cash flow hedging instruments, realized gain/loss 4 7 9 13 Income taxes are not provided for foreign translation relating to permanent investments in international subsidiaries, but tax effects within cumulative translation do include impacts from items such as net investment hedge transactions. The Company uses the portfolio approach for releasing income tax effects from accumulated other comprehensive income. 13 Table of Contents Additional details on the amounts reclassified from accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) into consolidated income (loss) include: • Cumulative translation adjustment: amounts were reclassified into selling, general and administrative expense. In 2024, this was associated with country exits as part of streamlining 3M’s geographic footprint (see Note 6). • Defined benefit pension and postretirement plan adjustments: amounts were reclassified into other (expense) income, net (see Note 13). • Cash flow hedging instruments, realized gain (loss): amounts from foreign currency forward/option contacts were reclassified into cost of sales, while amounts from interest rate contracts were reclassified into interest expense (see Note 15). • The tax effects, if applicable, associated with these reclassifications were reflected in provision for income taxes. Note 9. Income Taxes The effective tax rates were as follows: Three months ended June 30, Six months ended June 30, (Percent of pre-tax income) 2025 2024 2025 2024 Effective tax rate 26.6 % 14.4 % 22.1 % 18.1 % The primary factors that increased the Company's effective tax rate for the three and six months ending June 30, 2025, when compared to 2024, were the tax effect of the change in value of 3M's retained ownership interest in Solventum and application of Pillar Two Model Rules published by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). These were partially offset by the 2024 charge related to the Company's change in assertion on earnings no longer considered permanently reinvested. Net deferred tax assets (net of valuation allowance and deferred tax liabilities) are included as components of other assets and other liabilities within the Consolidated Balance Sheet. This net balance was the following: (Billions) June 30, 2025 December 31, 2024 Net deferred tax assets $ 3.7 $ 3.8 Note 10. Earnings Per Share The computations for basic and diluted earnings per share follow: Three months ended June 30, Six months ended June 30, (Amounts in millions, except per share amounts) 2025 2024 2025 2024 Numerator: Net income from continuing operations attributable to 3M $ 723 $ 1,204 $ 1,839 $ 1,909 Net income (loss) from discontinued operations, net of taxes — ( 59 ) — 164 Net income attributable to 3M $ 723 $ 1,145 $ 1,839 $ 2,073 Denominator: Weighted average 3M common shares outstanding – basic 537.4 553.8 540.6 554.4 Dilution associated with stock-based compensation plans 3.2 1.0 3.6 0.9 Weighted average 3M common shares outstanding – diluted 540.6 554.8 544.2 555.3 Earnings per share attributable to 3M common shareholders: Earnings per share from continuing operations — basic $ 1.35 $ 2.17 $ 3.40 $ 3.44 Earnings (loss) per share from discontinued operations — basic — ( 0.10 ) — 0.30 Earnings per share — basic $ 1.35 $ 2.07 $ 3.40 $ 3.74 Earnings per share from continuing operations — diluted $ 1.34 $ 2.17 $ 3.38 $ 3.44 Earnings (loss) per share from discontinued operations — diluted — ( 0.10 ) — 0.29 Earnings per share — diluted $ 1.34 $ 2.07 $ 3.38 $ 3.73 14 Table of Contents The difference in the weighted average 3M shares outstanding for calculating basic and diluted earnings per share attributable to 3M common shareholders is the result of the dilution associated with the Company’s stock-based compensation plans. Certain awards outstanding below under these stock-based compensation plans were not included in the computation of diluted earnings per share attributable to 3M common shareholders because they would have had an anti-dilutive effect. Three months ended June 30, Six months ended June 30, (Millions) 2025 2024 2025 2024 Average number of antidilutive shares 17.9 33.1 16.2 32.9 Note 11. Marketable Securities The Company invests in certificates of deposit/time deposits, commercial paper, and other securities. The following is a summary of amounts recorded on the Consolidated Balance Sheet for marketable securities (current and non-current). (Millions) June 30, 2025 December 31, 2024 Asset backed securities $ 26 $ 24 Foreign corporate debt 3 31 U.S. government securities 117 138 Corporate debt securities 237 819 Commercial paper 57 658 Certificates of deposit/time deposits 33 185 U.S. treasury securities 25 269 U.S. municipal securities 4 4 Current marketable securities 502 2,128 U.S. municipal securities 16 16 Non-current marketable securities 16 16 Total marketable securities $ 518 $ 2,144 At June 30, 2025 and December 31, 2024, gross unrealized, gross realized, and net realized gains and/or losses (pre-tax) were not material. The balances at June 30, 2025 for marketable securities by contractual maturity are shown below. Actual maturities may differ from contractual maturities because the issuers of the securities may have the right to prepay obligations without prepayment penalties. (Millions) Due in one year or less $ 468 Due after one year through five years 50 Total marketable securities $ 518 Note 12. Long-Term Debt and Short-Term Borrowings 2024 issuances, maturities, and extinguishments of short- and long-term debt are described in Note 14 to the Consolidated Financial Statements in 3M's 2024 Annual Report on Form 10-K. The Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows include the results of continuing and discontinued operations and, therefore, information regarding similar debt-related activity for 2024 includes activity associated with Solventum through its April 2024 Separation. The Company had no commercial paper outstanding at June 30, 2025 and December 31, 2024. In the first and second quarter of 2025, 3M repaid $ 750 million and $ 500 million, respectively, in aggregate principal amount of fixed rate unsecured notes that matured. In the first quarter of 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 %. 15 Table of Contents 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 June 30, 2025. The maturities of long-term debt for the periods subsequent to June 30, 2025 are as follows (in millions): Remainder of 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 After 2030 Total $ 669 $ 1,619 $ 848 $ 765 $ 1,792 $ 1,725 $ 5,728 $ 13,146 Note 13. Pension and Postretirement Benefit Plans 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. The other components of net periodic benefit cost are reflected in other expense (income), net. Effective April 1, 2024, approximately $ 2.7 billion of 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. Components of net periodic benefit cost and other supplemental information for the three and six months ended June 30, 2025 and 2024 follow: Qualified and non-qualified pension benefits Postretirement benefits United States International Three months ended June 30, Net periodic benefit cost (benefit) (millions) 2025 2024 2025 2024 2025 2024 Operating expense Service cost $ 25 $ 29 $ 13 $ 14 $ 5 $ 5 Non-operating expense Interest cost 109 141 46 49 19 21 Expected return on plan assets ( 142 ) ( 196 ) ( 66 ) ( 80 ) ( 14 ) ( 15 ) Amortization of transition asset — — — 1 — — Amortization of prior service benefit — ( 4 ) — — ( 3 ) ( 6 ) Amortization of net actuarial loss 69 83 2 3 3 4 Settlements, curtailments, special termination benefits and other — 795 — — — — Total non-operating expense (benefit) 36 819 ( 18 ) ( 27 ) 5 4 Total net periodic benefit cost (benefit) $ 61 $ 848 $ ( 5 ) $ ( 13 ) $ 10 $ 9 Six months ended June 30, 2025 2024 2025 2024 2025 2024 Operating expense Service cost $ 51 $ 66 $ 24 $ 35 $ 9 $ 12 Non-operating expense Interest cost 217 301 92 103 38 43 Expected return on plan assets ( 284 ) ( 433 ) ( 131 ) ( 167 ) ( 28 ) ( 34 ) Amortization of transition asset — — — 2 — — Amortization of prior service benefit — ( 8 ) 1 1 ( 4 ) ( 12 ) Amortization of net actuarial loss 138 178 4 6 8 10 Settlements, curtailments, special termination benefits and other — 795 — — — — Total non-operating expense (benefit) 71 833 ( 34 ) ( 55 ) 14 7 Total net periodic benefit cost (benefit) 122 899 ( 10 ) ( 20 ) 23 19 Service cost - continuing operations $ 51 $ 59 $ 24 $ 30 $ 9 $ 11 Service cost - discontinued operations — 7 — 5 — 1 Total service cost 51 66 24 35 9 12 Non-operating expense (benefit) - continuing operations 71 833 ( 34 ) ( 55 ) 14 7 Non-operating expense (benefit) - discontinued operations — — — — — — Total non-operating expense (benefit) 71 833 ( 34 ) ( 55 ) 14 7 Total net periodic benefit cost (benefit) - continuing operations 122 892 ( 10 ) ( 25 ) 23 18 Total net periodic benefit cost (benefit) - discontinued operations — 7 — 5 — 1 Total net periodic benefit cost (benefit) $ 122 $ 899 $ ( 10 ) $ ( 20 ) $ 23 $ 19 16 Table of Contents For the six months ended June 30, 2025 contributions totaling $ 55 million were made to the Company’s U.S. and international pension plans and $ 6 million to its postretirement plans. Future contributions will depend on market conditions, interest rates and other factors. 3M’s annual measurement date for pension and postretirement assets and liabilities is December 31 each year, which is also the date used for the related annual measurement assumptions. 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. There were also several small international pension plans remeasured for purposes of transferring Solventum employees to new pension plans. Additionally in 2024, primarily in the second quarter, 3M recorded a non-cash pension settlement charge of approximately $ 0.8 billion 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. Refer to Note 15 to the Consolidated Financial Statements in 3M's 2024 Annual Report on Form 10-K for additional information regarding these remeasurements. 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 June 30, 2025 and December 31, 2024 were approximately $ 0.3 billion. These amounts are included within accounts payable on 3M's consolidated balance sheet. Note 15. Derivatives The Company uses i nterest rate swaps, cross-currency swaps, and forward and option contracts to manage risks generally associated with foreign exchange rate and interest rate fluctuations. Note 17 to the Consolidated Financial Statements in 3M's 2024 Annual Report on Form 10-K explains the types of derivatives and financial instruments used by 3M, how and why 3M uses such instruments, and how such instruments are accounted for. It also contains information regarding previously initiated contracts or instruments. 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 described in Note 14 to the Consolidated Financial Statements in 3M's 2024 Annual Report on Form 10-K. Refer to the section below titled Location on Statement of Income and Impact of Cash Flow and Fair Value Derivative Instruments and Derivatives Not Designated as Hedging Instruments for details on the location within the consolidated statements of income for amounts of gains and losses related to derivative instruments designated as cash flow or fair value hedges (along with similar information relative to the hedged items) and derivatives not designated as hedging instruments. Additional information relative to cash flow hedges, fair value hedges, net investment hedges and derivatives not designated as hedging instruments is included below as applicable. Cash Flow Hedges: As of June 30, 2025, the Company had a balance of $ 127 million associated with the after-tax net unrealized loss associated with cash flow hedging instruments recorded in accumulated other comprehensive income (loss). This includes a remaining balance of $ 77 million (after-tax loss) related to forward starting interest rate swap and treasury rate lock contracts terminated in 2019 concurrent with associated debt issuances, which is being amortized over the respective lives of the underlying notes. Based on exchange rates as of June 30, 2025, of the total after-tax net unrealized balance as of June 30, 2025, 3M expects to reclassify approximately $ 29 million after-tax net unrealized loss over the next 12 months (with the impact offset by earnings/losses from underlying hedged items). The amount of pretax gain (loss) recognized in other comprehensive income (loss) related to derivative instruments designated as cash flow hedges is provided in the following table. Pretax gain (loss) recognized in other comprehensive income (loss) on derivative Three months ended June 30, Six months ended June 30, (Millions) 2025 2024 2025 2024 Foreign currency forward/option contracts $ ( 91 ) $ 23 $ ( 105 ) $ 84 17 Table of Contents Fair Value Hedges: 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 the hedged (and formerly hedged) liabilities Location on the consolidated balance sheet (millions) June 30, 2025 December 31, 2024 June 30, 2025 December 31, 2024 Long-term debt $ 949 $ 924 $ ( 54 ) $ ( 79 ) Net Investment Hedges: At June 30, 2025, 3M has a principal amount of long-term debt instruments designated in net investment hedges totaling 1.8 billion euros, in addition to the gross notional amount of foreign exchange forward/option contracts and cross-currency swaps designated in net investment hedges included in the totals within the "Location, Fair Value, and Gross Notional Amounts of Derivative Instruments" table further below. In the first quarter of 2025, 3M expanded its net investment hedge activity by entering into cross-currency swaps with a gross notional value at inception of $ 1.1 billion ($ 550 million with tenor to 2030 and $ 550 million with tenor to 2035) designated in hedges of portions of its net investment in international subsidiaries. The amount of gain (loss) excluded from effectiveness testing recognized in income relative to instruments designated in net investment hedge relationships is not material. 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) Three months ended June 30, Six months ended June 30, (Millions) 2025 2024 2025 2024 Foreign currency denominated debt $ ( 157 ) $ 13 $ ( 229 ) $ 56 Foreign currency forward/option contracts and cross-currency swaps ( 114 ) 2 ( 157 ) 5 Total $ ( 271 ) $ 15 $ ( 386 ) $ 61 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 (as referenced in the Cash Flow Hedges section above). In addition, 3M enters into foreign currency contracts that are not designated in hedging relationships to offset, in part, the impacts of changes in 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 Three months ended June 30, Six months ended June 30, Cost of sales Other expense (income), net Cost of sales Other expense (income), net (Millions) 2025 2024 2025 2024 2025 2024 2025 2024 Total consolidated financial statement line item amount $ 3,646 $ 3,571 $ 217 $ ( 138 ) $ 7,124 $ 7,056 $ 78 $ 82 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 * ( 16 ) ( 32 ) — — ( 41 ) ( 61 ) — — Interest rate contracts: Amount of (gain) or loss reclassified from accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) into income — — 2 2 — — 4 4 (Gain) or loss on fair value hedging relationships: Interest rate contracts: Hedged items — — 11 2 — — 25 ( 9 ) Derivatives designated as hedging instruments — — ( 11 ) ( 2 ) — — ( 25 ) 9 Information regarding derivatives not designated as hedging instruments: (Gain) or loss on derivatives not designated as hedging instruments: Foreign currency forward/option contracts ( 33 ) 2 ( 71 ) 4 ( 49 ) 7 ( 99 ) 6 * For periods prior to the April 1, 2024 separation of Solventum, these include certain insignificant amounts attributable to discontinued operations. 18 Table of Contents 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 June 30, 2025 December 31, 2024 June 30, 2025 December 31, 2024 June 30, 2025 December 31, 2024 Derivatives designated as hedging instruments Foreign currency forward/option contracts $ 1,565 $ 1,382 Other current assets $ 11 $ 61 Other current liabilities $ 43 $ 6 Foreign currency forward/option contracts and cross-currency swaps 6,446 4,746 Other assets 111 78 Other liabilities 281 65 Interest rate contracts 800 800 Other assets — — Other liabilities 56 81 Total derivatives designated as hedging instruments 122 139 380 152 Derivatives not designated as hedging instruments Foreign currency forward/option contracts 2,805 2,217 Other current assets 17 3 Other current liabilities 15 13 Foreign currency forward/option contracts 3 — Other assets — — Other liabilities — — Total derivatives not designated as hedging instruments 17 3 15 13 Total derivative instruments $ 139 $ 142 $ 395 $ 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 June 30, 2025 December 31, 2024 June 30, 2025 December 31, 2024 June 30, 2025 December 31, 2024 Derivatives subject to master netting agreements 139 142 134 64 5 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 June 30, 2025 December 31, 2024 June 30, 2025 December 31, 2024 June 30, 2025 December 31, 2024 Derivatives subject to master netting agreements 395 165 134 64 261 101 Currency Effects: 3M estimates that year-on-year foreign currency transaction effects, including hedging impacts, approximately impacted pre-tax income as follows: Three months ended June 30, Six months ended June 30, (Millions) 2025 2024 2025 2024 Year-on-year foreign currency transaction effects on pre-tax income $ ( 30 ) $ 2 $ ( 25 ) $ ( 19 ) These estimates include transaction gains and losses, including derivative instruments designed to reduce foreign currency exchange rate risks. 19 Table of Contents Note 16. Fair Value Measurements 3M follows ASC 820, Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures, with respect to assets and liabilities that are measured at fair value on a recurring basis and nonrecurring basis. Refer to Note 18 to the Consolidated Financial Statements in 3M's 2024 Annual Report on Form 10-K for a qualitative discussion of the assets and liabilities that are measured at fair value on a recurring and nonrecurring basis, a description of the valuation methodologies used by 3M, and categorization within the valuation framework of ASC 820. The following table provides information by level for material assets and liabilities that are measured at fair value on a recurring basis at June 30, 2025 and December 31, 2024. Fair value at Fair value measurements using inputs considered as Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 (Millions) June 30, 2025 December 31, 2024 June 30, 2025 December 31, 2024 June 30, 2025 December 31, 2024 June 30, 2025 December 31, 2024 Description Assets: Available-for-sale marketable securities: Asset backed securities $ 26 $ 24 $ — $ — $ 26 $ 24 $ — $ — Foreign corporate debt 3 31 — — 3 31 — — U.S. government securities 117 138 117 138 — — — — Corporate debt securities 237 819 — — 237 819 — — Commercial paper 57 658 — — 57 658 — — Certificates of deposit/time deposits 33 185 — — 33 185 — — U.S. treasury securities 25 269 25 269 — — — — U.S. municipal securities 20 20 — — — — 20 20 Solventum common stock 2,607 2,270 2,607 2,270 — — — — Derivative instruments — assets: Foreign currency forward/option contracts and cross-currency swaps 139 142 — — 139 142 — — Liabilities: Derivative instruments — liabilities: Foreign currency forward/option contracts and cross-currency swaps 339 84 — — 339 84 — — Interest rate contracts 56 81 — — 56 81 — — 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). Assets and Liabilities that are Measured at Fair Value on a Nonrecurring Basis: 3M had no material measurements at fair value on a nonrecurring basis of applicable assets or liabilities for the second quarter and first six months of 2025 and 2024. 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 and Solventum common stock are recorded at fair values as indicated in the preceding disclosures, in addition to certain investments and derivative instruments. 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: June 30, 2025 December 31, 2024 (Millions) Carrying value Fair value Carrying value Fair value Long-term debt, excluding current portion $ 12,477 $ 11,350 $ 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. 20 Table of Contents 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; 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. The outcomes of legal proceedings and regulatory matters are often difficult to predict. 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. 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. 21 Table of Contents 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 June 30, 2025, the Company is a named defendant, with multiple co-defendants, in numerous lawsuits in various courts that purport to represent approximately 3,500 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. 22 Table of Contents 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 on certain issues in the action. 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. The bench trial is scheduled to resume in August 2025 and a completion date has not been set. 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. 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 increased its accruals in the first six months of 2025 for respirator mask/asbestos liabilities by $ 17 million, and made payments for legal defense costs and settlements of $ 66 million related to the respirator mask/asbestos litigation. As of June 30, 2025, the Company had an accrual for respirator mask/asbestos liabilities (excluding Aearo accruals) of $ 474 million. 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. 23 Table of Contents 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 June 30, 2025, the Company, through its Aearo subsidiary, had accruals of $ 53 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 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. 24 Table of Contents 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 is progressing toward the exit of all PFAS manufacturing by the end of 2025. Until that time, the Company continues to manufacture a variety of shorter-chain-length PFAS compounds. These compounds are used as input materials to a variety of products, including engineered fluorinated fluids, fluoropolymers and fluoroelastomers, as well as surfactants, additives, and coatings. Through its ongoing life cycle management and its raw material composition identification processes associated with the Company’s policies covering the use of all persistent and bio-accumulative materials, the Company continues to review, control or eliminate the presence of certain PFAS in purchased materials, as intended substances in products, or as byproducts in some of 3M’s current manufacturing processes, products, and waste streams. As noted, 3M is progressing toward the exit of all PFAS manufacturing by the end of 2025. The Company continues to discuss its PFAS manufacturing exit, and related issues involving the disposition of manufacturing assets, with customers, government authorities, and other stakeholders, and the Company remains focused on completing the exit in a timely and orderly fashion. As also noted, 3M is working to discontinue the use of PFAS across its product portfolio by the end of 2025 and has made progress in eliminating the use of PFAS across its product portfolio in a variety of applications. 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 third-party products 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, such as 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, may, are expected to or, in some cases, will, depending on applications, continue beyond 2025. In other cases, sales of products manufactured before the end of 2025, 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 may not or are not expected to be completed, or, depending on circumstances, will not be completed, by the end of 2025. With respect to PFAS-containing products manufactured by third parties, the Company intends to continue to evaluate beyond the end of 2025 the adoption of third-party products that do not contain PFAS to the extent such products are available and such adoption is feasible. PFAS Regulatory and Legislative Activity Regulatory and legislative activities concerning PFAS are accelerating in the United States, Europe and elsewhere, and before certain international bodies. These activities include gathering of 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, used in current 3M products or generated as byproducts or degradation products from certain 3M 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. 25 Table of Contents Europe In the European Union, where 3M has PFAS manufacturing facilities in Germany and Belgium, 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. With respect to the applicability of the amendment of the EU POPs Regulation to include PFOA, which has been applicable since 2021, Dyneon, a 3M subsidiary that operates the Gendorf facility in Germany, proactively consulted with the relevant German competent authority regarding improvements necessary to meet applicable limits for a recycling process for a critical emulsifier for which small amounts of PFOA are present as an unintended contaminant after recycling. In consultation with German regulatory authorities, to achieve the applicable limits for the use of the emulsifier until the exit of PFAS manufacturing, Dyneon uses a method containing a mix of recycled and virgin emulsifier. 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 prior to the previously-announced exit of PFAS manufacturing by the end of 2025, future compliance costs, possible litigation and/or enforcement actions. 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 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 authorities 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 authorities have indicated that they are 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. Dyneon also continues to engage with the authorities about potential remedial actions, which may be required in the future to address soil and groundwater. In January 2025, the competent German authority issued a draft order that, if issued as drafted, would require Dyneon to undertake certain technical planning and testing activities and submit those results to the competent authority to allow it to determine whether such data provides a sufficient basis to thereafter plan for a hydraulic barrier at a location to be determined near the Gendorf site. In March 2025, Dyneon responded to the draft order saying, in part, that the draft order’s terms are unsuited to addressing concerns arising out of the historical use of PFAS in the region and instead offering to engage with the competent authority to discuss potential solutions to the concerns raised. Also in March 2025, Dyneon received from the competent authority a draft order that would, if issued as drafted, require Dyneon to undertake a comprehensive remedial investigation of PFOA in soil and groundwater in areas outside the Gendorf facility. In June 2025, Dyneon responded to the draft order and offered to undertake on a voluntary basis certain elements of the investigatory work described in the draft order. Dyneon continues to engage with the competent authorities about potential remedial actions related to the Gendorf facility that may be required in the future. 26 Table of Contents 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 appealed by a Belgian non-profit organization. 3M Belgium cannot predict the outcome of such appeal and is therefore unable to assess whether the current Zwijndrecht wastewater treatment system, or currently conceived additional treatment technology, ultimately will be determined to meet permit limits imposed with respect to 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 currently required DSIs. 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 that sets 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. 27 Table of Contents On June 23, 2025, the Flemish Minister of the Environment announced the intent to withdraw the temporary action framework and announced a review focused upon harmonizing the objectives of protecting human health and the environment with the social cost of management of PFAS in the environment and remedial activities. This includes proposed modifications to the Flemish Soil Decree, as well as interpretations and other guidance from competent regulatory authorities. 3M Belgium is unable to predict the outcome of this 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 June 30, 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. At an introductory hearing in the case, the court established a briefing schedule with all submissions to be completed by January 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 have been engaged in mediation regarding the dispute as the litigation proceeds. 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. Canada . In December 2023, a putative class action was filed against 3M Canada, 3M Company, and other defendants in the British Columbia Supreme Court on behalf of Canadian individuals alleging personal injuries from exposure to Aqueous Film Forming Foam ("AFFF") imported into Canada for firefighting and other applications. The lawsuit seeks compensatory damages, punitive damages, disgorgement of profits, and the recovery of health care costs incurred by provincial and territorial governments. 28 Table of Contents In June 2024, the province of British Columbia, Canada, filed a putative class action in the British Columbia Supreme Court against 3M Canada, 3M Company, and other defendants. The lawsuit purports to be brought on behalf of all provincial and territorial governments in Canada, including all municipalities and other local governments responsible for drinking water systems. The province alleges that the defendants manufactured, marketed, distributed and sold PFAS-containing products, including AFFF, knowing that they would contaminate the environment and threaten human health. The lawsuit asserts claims for public nuisance, private nuisance, negligent design, failure to warn, conspiracy, and breaches of the Competition Act. The lawsuit seeks compensatory damages for the costs incurred in: (1) the investigation, remediation, treatment, assessment, and restoration of lands, waters, sediments, and other natural resources contaminated by PFAS; and (2) the investigation, testing, monitoring, treatment, and remediation of PFAS contamination of drinking water, wastewater, storm water discharges, and biosolids. It also seeks punitive damages and disgorgement of profits. In July 2024, a putative class action was filed against 3M Canada, 3M Company, and other defendants in the Quebec Superior Court on behalf of public water suppliers and private well owners in Quebec located near sites where defendants allegedly manufactured, used, transported, processed, distributed or sold PFAS. The lawsuit seeks compensatory damages for the testing and treatment of drinking water as well as punitive damages. In August 2024, a putative class action was filed against 3M Canada, 3M Company, and other defendants in the Manitoba Court of King’s Bench on behalf of Indian bands in Canada. The lawsuit seeks compensatory and punitive damages and abatement costs for the alleged PFAS contamination of Indian Reserve lands, waters, and other natural resources as well as drinking water. In August and September 2024, putative class actions were filed against 3M Canada, 3M Company, and other defendants in the Ontario Superior Court and British Columbia Supreme Court on behalf of all private well owners in Canada whose well water contains PFAS. The lawsuits seek compensatory damages for the investigation, sampling, testing, assessment, treatment, remediation, and monitoring of well water as well as punitive damages. In July 2025, the Canadian Department of National Defence filed a third-party contribution and indemnification action against 3M Canada, 3M Company, and other defendants in connection with a pending individual action filed in the Ontario Superior Court alleging property contamination from AFFF firefighting training at the Canadian Forces Detachment Mountain View. In September 2024, a putative nationwide consumer class action was filed against 3M Canada, 3M Company, and other defendants in the British Columbia Supreme Court on behalf of all persons who purchased carpeting treated with PFAS-containing products before January 1, 2020. The lawsuit seeks compensatory and punitive damages, disgorgement of profits, and the replacement of PFAS treated carpeting with non-PFAS treated carpeting. In September 2024, the Canadian Minister of Transport filed, and in December 2024 amended, a third-party contribution and indemnification action against 3M Canada, 3M Company, and other defendants 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 outside Vancouver. Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA) PFAS Section 71 Reporting . Canada’s Minister of the Environment announced in July 2024 a mandatory survey on the manufacture, import, and use of 312 PFAS due on January 29, 2025. 3M timely submitted its response to the survey on May 8, 2025. Australia . In October 2024, 3M Australia received notice that the New South Wales Environmental Protection Agency has made a preliminary determination that 3M Australia is responsible for investigating and cleaning up PFAS contamination at a site that 3M Australia formerly leased. In May 2025, the Agency issued a Clean Up Notice related to the site. 3M is continuing to confer with the Agency and is preparing a work plan for a site investigation. 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, 3M Australia has not been served with any such summons. 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 quarter are below. 29 Table of Contents 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 PFBS. EPA has until July 21, 2025, to file motions related to further proceedings in the case. 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. Motions to govern future proceedings are due on August 18, 2025. 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 to report certain data to EPA regarding each PFAS produced, 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. EPA has delayed the submission period for this reporting rule twice and reports for most companies (including 3M) are now due October 13, 2026. 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. I n 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. Public comments on the EPA’s draft are due 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 on the merits 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. 30 Table of Contents Some 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 and Minnesota have both enacted laws that include broad PFAS prohibition and reporting obligations. In April 2025, New Mexico enacted a law restricting intentionally added PFAS in certain categories of consumer products beginning January 1, 2027, and in all products starting in 2032. The law also requires manufacturers of any products containing intentionally added PFAS to submit certain information to the New Mexico Environment Department and gives that Department authority to require product testing for PFAS. In June 2025, Vermont enacted a statute restricting the manufacture, sale, offer for sale, distribution for sale, and distribution for use of certain consumer products that contain PFAS. Most of the restrictions on consumer products take effect January 1, 2026, with later deadlines for certain product categories. Certain states, including Colorado, California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nevada, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, 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. 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 manufacturing 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, which opted out of an earlier class settlement, 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 U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“JPML”) issued a conditional transfer order of this case to the AFFF federal Multi-District Litigation ("MDL") in December 2024. Plaintiff’s motion to remand the case to state court was denied without prejudice to refile following the Fourth Circuit's decision in 3M's appeal of the orders remanding cases brought by the Maryland and South Carolina Attorneys General, as discussed below. In February 2023, the City of Muscle Shoals, 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 City draws its drinking water. The JPML issued a conditional transfer order of this case to the AFFF MDL in December 2024. Plaintiff’s motion to remand the case to state court was denied without prejudice to refile following the Fourth Circuit's decision in 3M's appeal of the orders remanding cases brought by the Maryland and South Carolina Attorneys General, as discussed below. In April 2025, Colbert County and the City of Muscle Shoals filed a joint motion to remand the two above-referenced cases to state court. 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. 31 Table of Contents 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. 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 two lawsuits alleging contamination of the state’s drinking water supplies and other natural resources from PFAS-containing products. One lawsuit was transferred to the AFFF MDL. The other lawsuit is proceeding with discovery in state court following a March 2025 ruling by the federal court of appeals denying 3M’s appeal of the order remanding the case to state court. Vermont. In June 2019, the Vermont Attorney General filed two lawsuits alleging contamination of the state’s drinking water supplies and other natural resources from PFAS-containing products. One lawsuit was transferred to the AFFF MDL. The other lawsuit is proceeding in state court, pending a ruling by the federal court of appeals on 3M's appeal of the order remanding the case to state court. The federal court of appeals held a hearing on 3M's appeal in February 2025. The state court has set a November 7, 2025, trial-ready date for the matter. 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, the Seventh Circuit 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. The remaining claims in the case are proceeding with discovery. Maine. In March 2023, the Maine Attorney General filed two lawsuits alleging contamination of the state's drinking water supplies and other natural resources from PFAS-containing products. One lawsuit was transferred to the AFFF MDL. The other lawsuit is proceeding in state court, pending a ruling by the federal court of appeals on 3M's appeal of the order remanding the case to state court. The federal court of appeals set a hearing on 3M's appeal for October 2025. The state court dismissed the state's strict liability and trespass claims but denied the remainder of 3M's motion to dismiss in December 2024. The case is proceeding with discovery on the remaining claims. Maryland. In May 2023, the Maryland Attorney General filed two lawsuits alleging contamination of the state's drinking water supplies and other natural resources from PFAS-containing products. One lawsuit was transferred to the AFFF MDL. In July 2023, 3M removed the other case to federal court. The State filed a motion to remand, which was granted in February 2024. 3M filed a notice of appeal from the remand order in March 2024. This appeal was consolidated with 3M’s appeal of a remand order in the South Carolina Attorney General case, as described below. In March 2025, the federal court of appeals vacated the remand orders and returned the cases to the district courts for further proceedings. In May 2025, the federal court of appeals denied the state's petition for rehearing en banc. 32 Table of Contents South Carolina. In August and October 2023, the South Carolina Attorney General filed two lawsuits alleging contamination of the state's drinking water supplies and other natural resources from PFAS-containing products. One lawsuit was transferred to the AFFF MDL. In November 2023, 3M removed the other case directly to the AFFF MDL in federal court. The State filed a motion to remand, which was granted in February 2024. 3M filed a notice of appeal from the remand order in March 2024. This appeal was consolidated with 3M’s appeal of a remand order in the Maryland Attorney General case, as described above. In March 2025, the federal court of appeals vacated the remand order and returned the cases to the district courts for further proceedings. In May 2025, the federal court of appeals denied the state's petition for rehearing en banc. Connecticut. In January 2024, the Connecticut Attorney General filed two lawsuits alleging contamination of the state's drinking water supplies and other natural resources from PFAS-containing products. One lawsuit was transferred to the AFFF MDL. Following 3M's removal of the other lawsuit to federal court, the federal court remanded that other lawsuit to state court. 3M filed a notice of appeal from the remand order in December 2024 and a motion to dismiss in January 2025. Texas. In May 2023, the Texas Attorney General filed a lawsuit alleging contamination of the state’s drinking water supplies and other natural resources from PFAS-containing products. That lawsuit was transferred to the AFFF MDL. In December 2024, the Texas Attorney General filed a second complaint against 3M, DuPont and Chemours in Texas state court alleging violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act in connection with the advertising, marketing, and sale of PFAS-containing consumer products. In January 2025, 3M removed the case to federal court, and the state has sought remand of the matter to state court. In February 2025, 3M filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. 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 June 30, 2025, more than 7,800 lawsuits alleging injuries or damages from PFAS contamination or exposure allegedly caused by AFFF use are pending against 3M (along with other defendants) in various state and federal courts, along with purported unfiled personal injury claims. As further described below, a vast majority of these pending cases are in a federal MDL court in South Carolina. Additional AFFF cases continue to be filed in or transferred to 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 six 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. On June 22, 2023, 3M entered into a class-action settlement to resolve a wide range of drinking water claims by public water suppliers 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. Approximately 20 of these cases were brought by PWS class members with respect to which the parties are in the process of implementing the dismissal of released claims in accordance with the court's final approval order. The remaining cases are brought by PWS 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 which class members that do not have a positive test result for the presence of PFAS in their drinking water (as defined by the PWS Settlement) as of the date of the PWS Settlement and those that receive such a test result by the end of 2025. 33 Table of Contents 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, 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 advance of the first bellwether personal injury trial scheduled to begin on October 20, 2025. In November 2024, the Court issued an order directing the parties to work together to develop a process to select approximately 15 sites allegedly contaminated with PFAS from AFFF use for the purpose of conducting focused product identification discovery. The parties agreed to a case management order adopted by the Court in January 2025 and submitted 12 proposed sites to the Court in March 2025, which the Court approved in April 2025. The parties are now conducting six months of product-identification discovery regarding those sites and will report back to the Court. 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 four 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 a case in Illinois state court brought by an oil refinery worker alleging harm caused by PFAS and other chemicals. In that case (Bannister), 3M filed a motion to dismiss in April 2025, which resulted in the plaintiff being granted leave to amend her complaint. The matter currently is scheduled 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 these cases 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 PFOA and PFOS 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, is defending several court cases brought by municipal water utilities. The plaintiffs in one of these cases (Shelby/Talladega Counties) are water utilities alleging that carpet manufacturers in Georgia improperly discharged PFAS into the surface water and groundwater, contaminating drinking water supplies of cities located downstream along the Coosa River in Alabama. The case has a trial date in February 2026. 3M removed this case to federal court and a motion to remand remains pending. The city of Albertville, Alabama filed suit 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. Oral argument on the motion was held in April 2025 and the motion remains pending. The city of Mobile alleges 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. 34 Table of Contents The Town of Pine Hill, Alabama filed suit alleging that PFAS discharges from paper mills currently owned by International Paper have contaminated its water supply. 3M removed the case to federal court. In March 2025, the district court ordered the case remanded. 3M has filed a notice of appeal. 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 a motion to remand remains pending. 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. 3M’s transfer motion and Plaintiff’s motion to remand is pending. All other deadlines are stayed until the remand is decided. 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 on July 16, 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 is proceeding through discovery. In Georgia, 3M, together with other defendants, is also 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. Briefing on dispositive motions is underway and no trial date has been set. Another case currently pending in federal court in Georgia was brought by individuals asserting PFAS contamination by 3M and other defendants and 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. 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 receiving biosolids from the same municipal water treatment plant. Motions to dismiss have been denied, and these claims are in active discovery. In January 2025, private plaintiffs filed lawsuit against 3M and other defendants in Gordon County, Georgia alleging similar PFAS contamination on their property. All of these cases remain pending. In July 2024, the City of Lyerly 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 have been briefed and argued and remain pending. Discovery in the case is proceeding. In December 2024, Dalton Utilities, located in Dalton, Georgia, filed a suit against 3M and other defendants seeking clean-up costs under CERCLA for alleged PFAS contamination related to the Dalton Land Application System, which is a 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 ongoing. 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 has been fully briefed. 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 a motion to dismiss, which has been fully briefed. 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's responsive pleading deadline is August 8, 2025. 35 Table of Contents 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 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. 3M's responsive pleading deadline is August 11, 2025. 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's responsive pleading deadline is July 24, 2025. 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's responsive pleading deadline is July 20, 2025. 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. 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 has not been served yet. 3M and Middlesex Water Company are defending 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 have agreed to settle these cases for an immaterial amount, subject to court approval. 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. 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 and personal injuries from contamination from PFAS compounds used and disposed of at the textile plant. The complaint seeks remedies including damages, punitive damages, and medical monitoring. The case has been removed to federal court. In August of 2024, a companion personal injury case was filed in South Carolina. 3M removed this case to federal court. Discovery is proceeding in both cases. 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. In May and June 2025, nine additional water providers that opted out of the PWS Settlement filed complaints against only 3M in South Carolina federal court outside the AFFF MDL, alleging PFAS contamination from a variety of industrial sources. In June 2025, 3M identified the cases as related to the AFFF MDL. 3M has not yet responded to the complaints. 36 Table of Contents 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. 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. The case is now proceeding in discovery and class certification. In April 2025, the class action was consolidated with another class action brought by the same plaintiffs against different defendants. 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 has not yet responded to that complaint. 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. The lawsuit seeks to recover for alleged property damage. In March 2023, plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint limiting the scope of their claims to allegations pertaining to one paper mill and three defendants that allegedly supplied PFAS-containing products to that mill, including 3M. In October 2023, the court denied 3M's motion to dismiss the case. Plaintiffs filed a fourth amended complaint in September 2024, which removed all personal injury and medical monitoring claims, dismissed certain plaintiffs, and added property damage claims for certain new plaintiffs asserting only property damage claims. The case is now proceeding in discovery. 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 proceeding through discovery. 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 and filed a motion to transfer the case to the AFFF MDL in March 2025. The case was stayed pending a ruling by the JPML on 3M's motion for transfer, which was denied in June 2025. 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. The earliest of these suits, filed in November 2023, has been removed to federal court and is currently stayed. The remaining two cases were filed in September 2024 and 3M has removed these cases to federal court. 3M filed a motion to transfer all three cases to the AFFF MDL. In April 2025, the JPML denied transfer of the earliest of the cases (Noland) to the AFFF MDL and granted the transfer of the other two cases to the AFFF MDL. In May 2025, the Noland case was remanded to state court. 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. The court has set a trial date in May 2027. 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, and 3M filed a motion to dismiss in June 2025. 37 Table of Contents 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 motion is 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, where plaintiff has moved to remand the case to state court. The plaintiff's motion to remand remains pending. 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 June 2025, 3M was served in a third similar case currently pending in Virginia state court. 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. 3M filed a motion to dismiss in November 2024. Oral argument on 3M's motion was heard in April 2025. 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. 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 June 2025, 3M filed its preliminary objections. In June 2025, 3M and several other entities were named as defendants in a case filed in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas by a firefighter alleging that his cancer was caused by exposure to PFAS from turnout gear. 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. 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. 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. Other PFAS-related Matters Decatur, Alabama Grand Jury Matter. The Company operates 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. 38 Table of Contents 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 currently being upgraded and optimized. ADEM has not acted on the request to modify the 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 has not acted on the pending application. 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. 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 submitted an application to add the additional PFAS to its NPDES permit. The Company is currently installing a new wastewater treatment system to address PFAS. 39 Table of Contents 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 issue 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 implement the measures in 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. 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 actions to reduce legacy sources of PFAS or require additional capital or operational expenditures in order to meet such 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, municipalities could seek additional funding from 3M. MPCA and 3M disagree that certain projects MPCA has proposed 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. 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. 40 Table of Contents 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. 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 and is currently under agency review. Depending on the results of that investigation, the WDNR may require 3M to conduct remediation at the site. 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. 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 the first six months of 2025, primarily as a result of the New Jersey Settlement and interest accretion on the PWS Settlement, the Company increased its accrual for PFAS-related other environmental liabilities by approximately $ 0.4 billion and made related payments of $ 1.8 billion. As of June 30, 2025, the Company had recorded liabilities of $ 7.4 billion for “other environmental liabilities.” These amounts are reflected in the consolidated balance sheet within other current liabilities ($ 0.7 billion) and other liabilities ($ 6.7 billion). 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 June 30, 2025, the Company had recorded liabilities of $ 38 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. 41 Table of Contents 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. The current claimant participation level under the settlement agreement (including claims dismissed with prejudice) exceeds 99 %; however, existing or new litigation may continue in the United States and internationally relating to the products that are the subject of the settlement. For example, the Company is aware of a writ of summons that was filed in Australia on behalf of purported users of the Company's earplug products. 42 Table of Contents During the first six months of 2025, the Company increased its existing accrual for CAE by approximately $ 87 million primarily for interest accretion on the CAE Settlement and made related payments of approximately $ 1.4 billion. As of June 30, 2025, the Company had an accrued liability of $ 2.4 billion related to CAE. This amount is reflected within contingent liability claims and other ($ 0.4 billion within other current liabilities and $ 2.0 billion within other liabilities) on 3M’s consolidated balance sheet. 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 the second quarter of 2025, the Company recorded $ 59 million in insurance recovery benefits related to respirator mask/asbestos, CAE, and PFAS-related matters. The Company's aggregate recovery benefits for these matters during the first six months of 2025 was $ 85 million. 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. Stock-Based Compensation The Company’s annual stock option, restricted stock unit, and performance share grant is typically made in the first quarter 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 option and restricted unit 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. Three months ended June 30, Six months ended June 30, (Millions) 2025 2024 2025 2024 Cost of sales $ 8 $ 19 $ 19 $ 24 Selling, general and administrative expenses 29 107 88 125 Research, development and related expenses 7 28 22 31 Stock-based compensation expenses 44 154 129 180 Income tax benefits ( 9 ) ( 33 ) ( 9 ) ( 14 ) Stock-based compensation expenses (benefits), net of tax $ 35 $ 121 $ 120 $ 166 43 Table of Contents Note 19. Business Segments 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 Information Three months ended June 30, Six months ended June 30, Net sales (millions) 2025 2024 2025 2024 Safety and Industrial $ 2,857 $ 2,759 $ 5,602 $ 5,491 Transportation and Electronics 2,130 2,143 4,120 4,247 Consumer 1,270 1,263 2,394 2,403 Total reportable business segment net sales 6,257 6,165 12,116 12,141 Corporate and Other 87 90 182 130 Total company $ 6,344 $ 6,255 $ 12,298 $ 12,271 Significant segment expenses and operating performance (millions) Safety and Industrial Cost of sales $ 1,537 $ 1,462 $ 3,007 $ 2,949 Selling, general and administrative expenses 472 559 926 1,031 Research, development and related expenses 127 126 252 242 Safety and Industrial operating income 721 612 1,417 1,269 Transportation and Electronics Cost of sales 1,277 1,255 2,520 2,500 Selling, general, administrative expenses 270 342 546 615 Research, development and related expenses 121 118 240 223 Transportation and Electronics operating income 462 428 814 909 Consumer Cost of sales 748 749 1,417 1,429 Selling, general and administrative expenses 223 261 427 475 Research, development and related expenses 31 34 63 64 Consumer operating income 268 219 487 435 Total reportable business segment operating income 1,451 1,259 2,718 2,613 Corporate and Other Corporate special items: Net costs for significant litigation ( 330 ) ( 8 ) ( 401 ) ( 71 ) Divestiture costs — ( 14 ) — ( 20 ) Loss on business divestitures ( 3 ) — ( 3 ) — Total corporate special items ( 333 ) ( 22 ) ( 404 ) ( 91 ) Other corporate (expense) income - net 22 35 72 ( 101 ) Total Corporate and Other ( 311 ) 13 ( 332 ) ( 192 ) Total company operating income 1,140 1,272 2,386 2,421 Other expense/(income), net 217 ( 138 ) 78 82 Income from continuing operations before income taxes $ 923 $ 1,410 $ 2,308 $ 2,339 44 Table of Contents Depreciation and amortization Three months ended June 30, Six months ended June 30, (Millions) 2025 2024 2025 2024 Safety and Industrial $ 141 $ 137 $ 280 $ 272 Transportation and Electronics 111 113 219 220 Consumer 36 39 75 77 Corporate and Other 2 13 6 23 Total continuing operations $ 290 $ 302 $ 580 $ 592 Capital expenditures Three months ended June 30, Six months ended June 30, (Millions) 2025 2024 2025 2024 Safety and Industrial $ 77 $ 81 $ 155 $ 157 Transportation and Electronics 64 129 153 275 Consumer 16 20 27 44 Corporate and Other 51 39 109 91 Total continuing operations $ 208 $ 269 $ 444 $ 567 Assets (Millions) June 30, 2025 December 31, 2024 Business segment assets: Inventories Safety and Industrial $ 1,726 $ 1,509 Transportation and Electronics 1,341 1,269 Consumer 804 719 Total business segment assets 3,871 3,497 All other current assets 9,556 12,387 Total non-current assets 24,562 23,984 Total assets $ 37,989 $ 39,868 Beginning in the first quarter of 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 operating 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 special items includes, for the periods presented: ◦ net costs for significant litigation impacting operating income (loss) associated with PFAS-related other environmental and Combat Arms Earplugs matters. ◦ 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. • Other corporate (expense) income-net 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. ◦ costs previously allocated to Solventum prior to the Separation that were not eligible to be part of discontinued operations. 45 Table of Contents