It's hard to keep track of all the lawsuits 3M is dealing with and to judge whether the company can afford to pay the billions of dollars that litigants want.
It's even harder to know whether Maplewood-based 3M can again be the engine of innovation that for decades made it Minnesota's most valuable company.
Companies hit with mass tort cases usually defend one harmful product, like Georgia-Pacific with asbestos or Bayer with glyphosates. But 3M confronts two lines of litigation: over harmful PFAS chemicals in products and the effectiveness of military-grade earplugs.
In both, plaintiff attorneys want to extract the most they can from 3M without hurting the company so much that it can't pay their clients.
Meanwhile, 3M is doing a balancing act of its own. While paying big financial penalties, it's trying to hang on to both investors and the innovative scientists who made it large and profitable.
As my colleague Brooks Johnson wrote last Sunday, that's "one of the most significant set of challenges in the company's 121-year history."
But PFAS, earplugs and the subsequent litigation weren't enough to bring 3M to this difficult moment. It's also paying a price for a decision made in 2001 to change its operating structure. That's when 3M boosted profit margins in part by reducing its research and development spending.
Averaging close to 7% of sales through the 1990s, 3M's spending on R&D since then has rarely gone over 6%. Last year, it was 5.4%.