Improving Quality in the U.S. Lubricants Market: Industry Perspectives and a Framework for Discussion
The U.S. lubricants industry, a multi-billion-dollar sector essential to consumer, commercial automotive, and industrial equipment, continues to grapple with long-standing challenges related to off-spec and low-quality products. Substandard or nonconforming lubricants—an issue documented periodically in market oversight programs—can arise from factors such as ambiguous labeling, under-treated formulations, the use of non-approved additives or base oils, or improper blending, and can pose risks to equipment performance, warranty protection, and user safety. Bulk products remain particularly vulnerable to variability or unintentional discrepancies that can occur during manufacturing, transport, or storage. Meanwhile, products labeled as “synthetic” or “synthetic blend” may differ substantially in base-stock composition, and in the absence of a legal definition, such terms have evolved primarily as marketing descriptors rather than consistently applied technical classifications.
These issues are not merely theoretical—they are reflected in current market sentiment. Recent findings from the JobbersWorld 2025 Lubricant Quality Survey reveal that 68% of respondents consider low-quality oils in the marketplace a critical concern, underscoring the persistent relevance of these challenges. The survey—which drew participation primarily from lubricant distributors (about 68%) and independent manufacturers (roughly 19%)—also provides insight into perceptions of competitive fairness. When asked to assess the levelness of the playing field with respect to product quality and compliance, nearly one in four respondents selected the lowest point on the scale, and another third rated conditions only slightly higher. Roughly 27% chose the midpoint, 17% viewed the environment as somewhat fair, and just 1% felt the market was fully level. Collectively, these findings reflect respondents’ perceptions that current oversight and enforcement mechanisms may not always ensure a consistently level competitive environment for companies that invest in meeting established quality expectations—and that, in their view, this may have implications for end users, who could unknowingly purchase products that do not meet performance needs or align with stated claims.
Against this backdrop, the perspectives and proposals outlined here aim to stimulate constructive dialogue and encourage fresh thinking about how the industry might strengthen product integrity and foster a more transparent, competitive marketplace. What follows is not a definitive prescription, but rather a framework intended to help guide discussion and support collaborative exploration of potential pathways forward.
JobbersWorld survey respondents cited several factors that, in their view, may contribute to perceived inconsistencies in product quality, including varying regulatory oversight, uneven enforcement, and strong market pressure for lower-cost products. Respondents also raised questions about additive treat levels, base-stock selection, and labeling practices. In addition, some noted concerns about how OEM performance claims are communicated, especially in unlicensed or cost-sensitive segments. Manufacturers operating under margin pressure may face challenges prioritizing documentation or higher-treat formulations, while oversight resources for unlicensed products vary significantly across regions. In many categories, the absence of standardized definitions further complicates consistent quality expectations.
These dynamics contribute to a marketplace in which products that appear similar on the label may differ in formulation approach, performance intent, or documentation practices, depending on the category and applicable standards. As several survey respondents noted, companies that invest in meeting established quality expectations may face competitive challenges when operating alongside products that—while legally marketed—may be formulated to different cost or performance objectives. Because many lubricant categories lack uniform definitions or centralized oversight, this can create the perception of uneven competitive conditions among some stakeholders.
To help support continued dialogue on quality assurance and marketplace transparency, the following concepts are offered as a framework for discussion rather than as recommendations for coordinated action. These ideas are intended to illustrate potential avenues the industry could explore—within appropriate, lawful, and open standards-setting environments—should stakeholders determine that additional tools or clarity would be beneficial. The goal is to encourage informed conversation around options that might, over time, help strengthen confidence in lubricant quality and support fair competition.
This flagship proposal draws inspiration from ingredient-branding models in other industries. Under such a program, additive manufacturers could license their brand names for display on compliant lubricant packaging—similar to how advanced components are featured prominently on consumer goods in other sectors.
This approach would:
- Provide buyers with an immediate, trusted signal of product quality
- Differentiate compliant lubricants formulated to deliver higher performance—when verified through recognized standards—in a crowded market
- Deter misleading claims by offering a verifiable marker of additive integrity
Any such program would be entirely voluntary, with no obligation for participation, and designed to comply with all applicable antitrust laws to ensure fair competition.
When additive technologies offer measurable performance advantages—such as stronger treat effectiveness, improved durability, or robust OEM support—transparent identification of those technologies can help blenders communicate these strengths more clearly. Ingredient-branding concepts have been used in a number of other industries to highlight the presence of well-recognized components. Examples include computers marketed with “Intel Inside,” outdoor gear featuring Gore-Tex® technology, footwear incorporating Vibram® outsoles, home appliances built with Bosch® components, and consumer electronics equipped with Dolby® audio systems. These illustrations show how component visibility, when properly structured, can help convey value and enhance consumer confidence—while still maintaining the prominence of the primary brand.
To preserve the integrity of branded identifiers, additive manufacturers could optionally participate in selective, collaborative field-verification efforts designed to confirm that licensed additive packages are being used as intended. Such participation would not constitute policing, nor imply responsibility for customer compliance. Rather, it would mirror practices in other industries where component suppliers engage in voluntary, collaborative validation programs to support accurate representation of their branded technologies and help ensure consistent end-use performance.
Independent blenders and mid-tier marketers, who may not have invested heavily in large-scale brand-building, could find such a system particularly advantageous for differentiation, while larger companies could participate selectively or opt out entirely.
To further amplify the impact of additive branding, companies could incorporate benefit-driven, consumer-oriented language that reinforces the practical advantages of their technology. Such messaging can strengthen brand equity by linking supplier identity to clear performance benefits, while also fostering greater marketplace trust and differentiation. This approach may also help elevate overall lubricant quality, as additive manufacturers would have stronger incentives to protect the integrity of their branded identifiers through rigorous validation and monitoring practices. A more proactive stance could help raise standards across formulations, benefiting compliant blenders and end users alike.
Given the gradual decline in U.S. automotive lubricant demand—driven by trends such as electrification, extended drain intervals, and improved engine efficiency—it may also be prudent to consider shifting the strategic focus of additive branding toward industrial lubricants, where demand remains steady in sectors such as manufacturing and energy.
As a conceptual framework for discussion, two possible approaches are outlined below. These pathways are presented solely as examples of how an ingredient-branding concept might be structured if the industry—through lawful, open, and recognized standards-setting forums—ever chose to explore such ideas further. They are not recommendations for coordinated action, nor do they reflect any consensus among market participants.
A voluntary, industry-driven concept that could be explored within established technical organizations.
Potential features could include:
- Tiered certification levels (Premium, Standard, Basic)
- Third-party audits
- Flexible participation
- Scaled fees to accommodate smaller blenders
A more structured, centrally administered concept that would require oversight through an established standards body, were such a model ever developed.
Possible elements could include:
- Seals tied to scannable QR codes
- A centralized verification database
- Clear compliance monitoring
- Enforceable penalties for misuse
This model is purely illustrative and would require careful legal, technical, and competitive neutrality considerations before any discussion in a recognized forum.
QR codes could integrate with blockchain³ and Digital Product Passports (DPPs)⁴ to enable end-to-end traceability of base stocks, additive packages, and blending locations. Blockchain provides an immutable ledger of supply-chain events, while DPPs offer structured, machine-readable data on product origin, composition, and compliance—accessible via a single scan⁵.
Similar systems are already in use within the energy sector, where Material Digital Passports (MDPs) securely track provenance, authenticity, and lifecycle data⁶. These models provide a compelling blueprint for how digital identity could support verification in lubricants.
CABP could serve as a flexible starting point, with ASQS features introduced gradually as industry participation expands.
While API’s Aftermarket Audit Program (AMAP) provides valuable oversight for licensed engine oils, the majority of products tested fall within the licensed category¹, according to API’s published analysis. Unlicensed or improperly labeled products—which can present equal or greater risk—receive far less systematic scrutiny². Respondent feedback in the JobbersWorld quality survey reinforces this point, noting concerns about the limited visibility into unlicensed categories and the need for broader, more consistent monitoring.
Yet the challenge extends well beyond engine oils. JobbersWorld’s recent quality survey reveals quality concerns in hydraulic fluids, gear oils, transmission fluids, tractor hydraulic fluids, and other commonly used industrial products.
Potential enhancements include:
- Increased sampling in high-risk sectors
- IoT-enabled monitoring of bulk deliveries
- Hybrid testing programs developed with ILMA
- Expanded sampling for non-licensed categories
- Whistleblower protections to encourage confidential reporting
Whistleblower models are well established in other sectors. Programs administered by the SEC, FDA, OSHA, and aviation’s ASRS demonstrate how confidential reporting safeguards participants while improving overall system integrity.
Synthetic labeling remains one of the least regulated areas of the lubricant market. Notably, there are no laws in the U.S. (or almost anywhere but Germany) defining what constitutes a “synthetic” lubricant. Instead, the term has evolved as a marketing convention, loosely based on the use of API Group III/IV/V base stocks.
This ambiguity can result in:
- Synthetic blends with minimal or even no API Group II+/III/IV/V content
- Questions in the marketplace about whether some products labeled as “full synthetic” may incorporate Group II+/III mixtures, even though many industry definitions associate “synthetic” with Group III/IV/V; some stakeholders contend that the use of Group II+ can be acceptable because its properties lie between Group II and III and may perform comparably in certain applications.
- Products to appear equivalent despite differing costs and base-stock quality
This lack of clarity contributes to blind buying, where suppliers that invest in higher-quality formulations—consistent with industry norms that generally associate “synthetic” terminology with products predominantly based on Group III/IV/V base stocks—must compete against offerings that use similar labeling but may incorporate lower-cost materials, whether in blends or in some products marketed as full synthetic. These differing interpretations create uneven competitive dynamics and can disadvantage manufacturers that align their formulations more closely with established performance expectations.
Other industries have faced comparable challenges and responded with clearer definitions.
For example:
- Olive oil regulations define “extra virgin,” “virgin,” and “olive oil” with chemical and sensory criteria
- Honey purity standards govern allowable additives and authenticity
- Wine appellation systems (AOC, DOC, AVA) use origin and production standards to maintain integrity
Lubricants could benefit from similarly defined terminology and transparent disclosure of base-stock composition.
Consistent enforcement is essential for meaningful quality improvement. State Weights & Measures programs vary widely by state, with differences in capability, scope, and resources. This uneven oversight can inadvertently allow noncompliant products to persist or migrate between jurisdictions.
A coordinated national approach—potentially linked to federal frameworks—could help harmonize enforcement, standardize penalties, and close recurring loopholes. Penalties must be substantial enough to eliminate economic incentives for noncompliance.
Without reasonably consistent enforcement, even strong standards may be less effective, allowing potential inconsistencies in product quality and labeling to persist.
While API licensing helps buyers identify compliant PCMO and HDEO, many other lubricant categories lack comparable systems. OEM claims are often self-declared and may be misunderstood without supporting documentation.
Education is essential to help end users distinguish between verified formulations and misleading claims.
Other industries illustrate the impact of consumer education:
- UL and CPSC campaigns countered counterfeit electrical goods
- Energy Star® helped consumers understand efficiency claims
- USDA Organic and Non-GMO Project labels gained traction through sustained outreach
Certification works best when paired with education that empowers buyers to make informed decisions.
Some resistance is expected. Certain blenders may have concerns about potential supplier lock-in or added costs. Additive manufacturers may be cautious about oversight expectations associated with ingredient-branding programs. Price-sensitive end users may resist higher-quality products if the cost differential is significant. Uneven enforcement and ongoing demand for “cheap oil” remain systemic challenges. In addition, additive branding may have limited visibility among many consumers or service providers, and its value may differ between bulk and packaged products or between end users and lubricant marketers—areas where stakeholder feedback is particularly encouraged.
Considering the costs and commercial sensitivities involved, it is understandable that additive manufacturers may view their primary role as supplying additive packages and providing guidance on appropriate treat rates to help blenders meet targeted performance standards. Once those additives are purchased, formulation decisions and quality-control practices fall within the lubricant manufacturer’s responsibilities. As is common in many industries when commercial or competitive sensitivities are involved, some additive suppliers may also be cautious about publicly supporting new oversight or transparency initiatives if there is a risk that customers could misinterpret that support or see it as critical of existing practices, potentially influencing purchasing decisions. These concerns highlight the need for any quality-improvement framework to be structured in a way that respects commercial boundaries and avoids putting any single stakeholder at a disadvantage.
Several practical strategies can help reduce friction and encourage broad participation:
- Industry-wide oversight rather than supplier-specific requirements
- Tiered and flexible participation models to accommodate different business sizes
- Independent, anonymized auditing to protect customer relationships
- Framing transparency as customer value—not policing
- Increasing awareness and preference from OEMs, fleets, and distributors for verified, transparent formulations
- Safe-harbor provisions to protect participants involved in collaborative initiatives
These measures support transparency while respecting competitive dynamics.
Several sectors offer compelling models for raising standards:
- Food: USDA Organic and FSMA demonstrate how audits and enforcement maintain quality
- Pharmaceuticals: Serialization provides a blueprint for traceability
- Electronics: Ingredient branding influences consumer behavior
- Energy & Commodities: Blockchain-backed digital passports offer secure, end-to-end visibility
Each of these systems shows how technology, transparency, and consistent standards reduce fraud and strengthen market trust.
Addressing quality issues in the U.S. lubricants market requires coordinated action across the industry. Expanded audits, meaningful penalties, transparent labeling, and targeted education offer a practical framework for elevating product integrity.
Although the industry has taken meaningful steps over the years—through licensing programs, OEM specifications, voluntary initiatives, and education—the persistence of off-spec, mislabeled, and ambiguously marketed products indicates that more work remains. Many parts of the marketplace still lack the transparency and verification necessary for fair competition.
The framework presented here is intended as a constructive strawman—a starting point for discussion, not a definitive prescription. Its purpose is to encourage fresh thinking and collaborative exploration of practical ways to strengthen product integrity and marketplace fairness.
The industry has made meaningful progress, but JobbersWorld’s survey results—together with publicly available data from API and others—make clear that significant gaps remain between current practices and the level of transparency and verification the marketplace increasingly expects—and that lubricant buyers reasonably deserve.
¹ American Petroleum Institute (API), Aftermarket Audit Program (AMAP) Presentation (2024), reporting on analysis of over 1,000 annual engine oil samples, where 46% showed non-conformance to licensing requirements, including issues with additives, viscosity, NOACK volatility, and documentation.
² American Petroleum Institute (API), Aftermarket Audit Program (AMAP) Presentation (2024), breakdown of sample origins showing approximately 92% licensed, remainder unlicensed or improperly labeled.
³ MSR Vantage, How Blockchain is Transforming the Lubricants Industry (September 25, 2023).
⁴ Climatiq, Digital Product Passports: What You Need to Know to Be Ready for Regulatory Compliance in 2025 (April 8, 2025).
⁵ One Click LCA, Digital Product Passport: What’s a DPP? (2025).
⁶ Arianee, The Potentials of Material Digital Passports in the Oil & Gas Industry (2025).
This article is provided exclusively for informational and discussion purposes. It reflects broad industry observations, publicly available information, and the author’s professional opinions at the time of publication. No statements in this article are intended, or should be interpreted, as alleging or implying wrongdoing, noncompliance, misconduct, deceptive practices, or quality deficiencies by any specific company, brand, marketer, distributor, blender, supplier, additive manufacturer, or individual. All references to “industry practices,” “market dynamics,” “quality concerns,” or similar terms describe systemic, well-documented, long-standing phenomena and are not directed toward or attributable to any identifiable market participant.
This article does not constitute legal, regulatory, technical, business, or investment advice; does not present factual assertions regarding the formulation, performance, or compliance of any specific lubricant or additive product; and does not encourage, endorse, or facilitate coordinated conduct among competitors. Any discussion of potential reforms, transparency measures, or industry-led initiatives is conceptual only and must occur—if pursued—in transparent, inclusive, and lawful standards-setting environments.
References to organizations such as API, ASTM, SAE, ILMA, ACC, STLE, and related bodies are illustrative examples of established forums where lawful and open technical dialogue typically occurs. Mentions of branded technologies or trademarks (e.g., Intel Inside®, Gore-Tex®, Vibram®, Bosch®, Dolby®) are used solely for comparative or educational illustration under recognized fair-use principles and imply no endorsement, affiliation, partnership, sponsorship, or evaluation of any product or company.
The views expressed are those of the author alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of PQIA, Petroleum Trends International, Inc., or any affiliated organization. Petroleum Trends International, Inc. and JobbersWorld make no representations or warranties regarding the accuracy or completeness of the information presented and expressly disclaim liability for any reliance placed on this content.
Readers are encouraged to consult qualified professionals, conduct their own independent research, and form their own judgments. By reading this article, the reader acknowledges that it is intended as a conceptual framework to foster open, good-faith industry discussion, not as a factual statement about any specific entity or as a basis for commercial decision-making.
By Thomas F. Glenn, President, Petroleum Trends International, Inc. (Publishers of JobbersWorld)
President, Petroleum Quality Institute of America (PQIA)
December 1, 2025