From energy-hungry freezers and cold-chain logistics to aging laboratory infrastructure and single-use plastics, sustainability in life sciences is rarely straightforward.
Here, Corey Meek and Ann Brine of Promega discuss the practical challenges, unexpected opportunities, and collaborative efforts shaping the future of greener laboratories.
Why has sustainability been such a difficult challenge for the life sciences industry?
Corey Meek: The challenge is largely structural rather than cultural. The scientific community genuinely cares about sustainability – we hear it consistently from customers and researchers, and it's very much at the forefront of their minds.
The difficulty is that many of the controls that ensure high-quality science also carry environmental costs. Laboratories rely on strict standards around sterility, temperature control, reproducibility, and contamination prevention. Those safeguards exist for good reason, and they can't simply be removed in the name of sustainability.
That's the real challenge: finding solutions that meet the demanding performance standards researchers depend on without compromising sustainability goals.
Is there an appetite for sustainability in the lab?
Ann Brine: I've noticed that there's a strong generational element to the conversation. Many younger scientists have grown up with sustainability embedded in their education and everyday lives. In the UK, children have been hearing messages about reducing, reusing, and recycling from an early age, and that mindset is now influencing the next generation of researchers.
Particularly in academia, there's a growing community of scientists actively championing greener laboratory practices. At the same time, more established researchers may be accustomed to traditional ways of working, which can make change gradual. What's striking, though, is how quickly perceptions can shift. For example, we used to give away polystyrene floats at events because they were popular and inexpensive. Recently, someone pointed out that most laboratories now use alternatives such as magnetic stir bars, making the floats feel outdated and environmentally unfriendly. It was a reminder that practices once considered perfectly acceptable can become obsolete surprisingly quickly as sustainability expectations evolve.
What are the biggest sustainability challenges facing diagnostic and laboratory environments?
CM: First, there's cold chain storage. Ultra-low-temperature freezers are extremely energy intensive, and maintaining products throughout the cold chain adds further environmental costs. Transporting materials often requires dry ice, insulated packaging, and heavier shipments, all of which contribute to the overall footprint.
The second challenge is single-use plastics and laboratory consumables. While other industries have made progress in recycling and recovering materials, those approaches are much harder to apply in laboratory settings. Concerns around contamination, sterility, and performance mean that many materials cannot simply be reused or recycled through conventional pathways.
The third issue is energy consumption. Laboratories are inherently energy-intensive environments because of their strict environmental controls and equipment requirements. Decarbonizing these spaces requires a high-level organizational strategy rather than changes made by individual scientists alone. In many cases, the biggest sustainability decisions sit beyond the control of the people working at the bench.
AB: Infrastructure is another important part of the challenge. It's easy to point to examples from the pharmaceutical and biotechnology sectors where organizations operate from modern, purpose-built facilities designed with efficiency in mind. But that's not the reality for much of the UK's diagnostic and research landscape.
I was at a top UK university recently, where some of the facilities are more than 60 years old. Researchers are trying to carry out cutting-edge science using modern equipment in spaces that were never designed for today's demands.
These environments can have significant limitations, from space constraints to outdated heating, ventilation, and cooling systems. Researchers still have to meet stringent laboratory standards, but they often do so in facilities that make sustainability improvements far more difficult to achieve.
How do you balance environmental responsibility with the need to maintain scientific rigor and reliability?
CM: Sustainability can't be pursued in isolation; it has to be integrated alongside quality, reliability, and scientific performance. Achieving that balance often requires collaboration across different teams and disciplines, which can make progress slower, but it's essential if sustainable solutions are going to be widely adopted.
AB: One thing that struck me when I joined Promega from outside the life sciences sector was the sheer complexity of the infrastructure required to support scientific research. I'd never even heard of a −80 °C freezer before. When I first visited our logistics facility, I was amazed by the range of storage conditions required for different products.
That's why efforts to move products to ambient storage conditions are so important. They can reduce transportation demands and improve resilience across the supply chain. However, many life science products have finite shelf lives and highly specific storage requirements, so there are limits to how far those changes can go. Ultimately, maintaining scientific quality and reliability must remain the priority, even as we work to reduce environmental impact.
How significant is the impact of logistics on a lab's carbon footprint?
CM: I think the impact is much bigger than many people realize. Researchers see a product arrive at the laboratory, but they don't always see the infrastructure and transportation required to get it there.
For cold chain products, air freight is often the only viable option. Unlike many consumer goods, these materials typically can't be transported by sea or standard ground shipping because of their storage requirements. Air transport is inherently more carbon intensive, and that's before you consider the packaging needed to maintain temperature control.
Historically, cold chain shipments have relied on dry ice and expanded polystyrene (EPS) foam coolers. Those shipments aren't just heavier – they're also much bulkier. You're transporting not only the product itself, but also the cooling materials and large insulated containers required to keep it stable throughout its journey. All of that increases the environmental footprint of each shipment.
Scientists need confidence that a product shipped at ambient temperature will perform exactly as expected. That means generating data, validating stability, and demonstrating that quality has not been compromised. Besides, repeating an experiment or replacing a shipment will inherently increase the environmental impact of the project, so quality and sustainability go hand-in-hand.
AB: Logistics is a side of the industry many scientists don't necessarily see. Researchers can order a product online and often receive it within 24 to 48 hours, but behind the scenes there's a highly complex global supply chain making that possible. Whether you're transporting chocolate or RNA, the logistics are intricate, and current economic and geopolitical uncertainties continue to create challenges.
How vulnerable are laboratory supply chains to those types of external pressures?
AB: The global picture is extremely important. Before I joined Promega, I didn't know how dry ice was manufactured, or how dependent its availability is on other industries. In the UK, particularly as oil and gas prices have risen, dry ice availability has at times created real pressure across the supply chain.
That may not be something universities or hospitals think about in the same way, because they are not necessarily using dry ice at the same scale as suppliers or large pharmaceutical companies. But for organizations supporting global research and diagnostics, it can be a major issue.
CM: I agree. Sustainability is a global movement, and while Europe has historically led in many areas, we are now seeing expectations grow across Asia-Pacific, Latin America, and other regions. That's encouraging, but it also adds complexity because sustainability has so many different dimensions and involves so many different stakeholders.
As soon as you think you have one area under control, another challenge appears. You are never truly finished with sustainability; there is always another opportunity to improve, whether that relates to energy, emissions, water, waste, or supply chain resilience.
How can laboratories encourage suppliers to prioritize sustainability?
CM: Procurement has a significant influence. We're increasingly seeing sustainability incorporated into supplier scorecards, ranking platforms, contract requirements, and purchasing decisions. Those expectations send a clear signal to suppliers about what matters to their customers.
Organizations are asking more questions about areas such as EcoVadis ratings, science-based targets, packaging reductions, and the availability of greener products. Those requests don't just reach sustainability teams – they create a ripple effect across the entire organization and help shape business priorities.
That's why procurement is such a powerful lever. When laboratories and healthcare organizations actively prioritize suppliers with strong sustainability commitments, they create incentives for the industry to invest in greener products, processes, and practices.
AB: Procurement can also influence sustainability through closer collaboration with suppliers. At Promega, for example, we offer an on-site inventory management system called Helix for high-volume customers. Through this approach, customers maintain access to the products they need while reducing the frequency of individual orders and deliveries.
The system works by forecasting usage patterns and ensuring appropriate stock levels are available through strategically managed inventories. That requires close coordination between procurement teams, scientists, customer service teams, and logistics specialists to balance product availability with operational efficiency.
By working closely with suppliers to improve inventory management and purchasing practices, laboratories can help reduce unnecessary shipments, minimize waste, and create a more efficient supply chain overall.
How can different parts of the life sciences ecosystem work together to achieve meaningful progress?
CM: Sustainability is fundamentally a collaborative challenge. As a supplier, Promega can develop greener products and more sustainable solutions, but those innovations only succeed if customers are willing to work with us to evaluate and adopt them. In life sciences, reproducibility and performance are non-negotiable, so any new approach must be carefully tested and validated. That process depends on collaboration between suppliers and end users.
The same principle applies across the industry. Whether we're exploring alternative packaging materials, new shipping models, or more sustainable laboratory products, identifying viable solutions requires shared effort and a willingness to experiment, learn, and improve together. The reality is that no single group can drive change on its own. Addressing these challenges will require all of us working toward the same goal.
AB: In the UK, there are already encouraging examples of that collaborative approach. Organizations such as BIVDA and One Nucleus have established sustainability working groups that bring together people from across the sector to share ideas and identify opportunities for improvement.
There is a lot of activity taking place through those networks, and they play an important role in raising awareness and helping organizations learn from one another. But ultimately, I think much of the momentum will come from the people using the products every day. When scientists, procurement teams, and institutions make sustainability a priority, suppliers and manufacturers respond.
Can you share any practical examples of how small changes can make a meaningful difference to laboratory sustainability?
CM: One example we're particularly excited about is a pilot program exploring an alternative to EPS foam for cold-chain shipments. We're currently testing a straw-based packaging material within our distribution program in Switzerland, with plans to expand the initiative more broadly if the results continue to be positive.
EPS foam has traditionally been challenging to recycle or recover, whereas this alternative can be composted through curbside collection programs and is also recyclable. It's a relatively small change in one part of the supply chain, but it has the potential to make a significant impact when applied at scale.
AB: Sustainability is very much a shared responsibility. For example, the insulated boxes we ship can be returned to us for reuse, and we even pay the return postage. Those boxes can often be reused 10 to 15 times before they need to be retired. It's a good reminder that sustainability doesn't stop with the supplier.
That's why collaboration across the entire supply chain is so important. Meaningful progress depends not only on manufacturers developing more sustainable products and packaging, but also on laboratories and researchers embracing the practices that make those solutions effective.
Are there established frameworks or standards that can help laboratories and organizations approach sustainability more effectively?
CM: At the laboratory level, programs such as My Green Lab and LEAF provide structured guidance on where to focus efforts and how to identify the areas that will have the greatest impact. For laboratories that are relatively new to sustainability initiatives, these frameworks can be particularly valuable because they help establish priorities and create a consistent approach to improvement.
At the organizational level, there is also increasing standardization around how companies measure and report environmental performance. The Science Based Targets initiative, for example, provides a framework for organizations that want to align their climate goals with internationally recognized best practices.
We're also seeing growing use of assessment and disclosure platforms. EcoVadis is widely used to evaluate supplier performance across areas such as environmental responsibility, ethics, labor practices, and sustainable procurement. Similarly, frameworks such as CDP are helping customers gain greater visibility into the environmental performance of their suppliers.
Why is measuring and reporting sustainability progress so important?
CM: Measurement is essential because you can't improve what you don't measure. Before organizations can make meaningful progress, they first need to understand where their impacts are occurring and which areas matter most.
Take greenhouse gas emissions as an example. If you don't have a clear picture of your emissions across both direct operations and your wider value chain, it's difficult to know where to focus resources, how to prioritize actions, or how to engage different parts of the organization in reducing emissions. Measurement provides the foundation for effective decision-making.
Transparency is equally important. No industry is immune from accusations of greenwashing, and credibility depends on being able to demonstrate measurable progress rather than simply making claims. That's why independent frameworks, third-party validation, and standardized reporting are so valuable. They provide accountability and help organizations communicate their progress in a way that stakeholders can trust.
Ultimately, sustainability requires the same evidence-based approach that underpins good science.
Newsletters
Receive the latest pathologist news, personalities, education, and career development – weekly to your inbox.
