Pharmaceutical Sustainability: How the Industry Is Rising to Its Environmental Responsibility

Paradoxically, while the pharmaceutical industry helps people to remain healthy, at the same time, its operations have a serious impact on the environment. Energy-hungry factories, packaging waste, water and soil contamination and biodiversity damage are just a few of the impacts it can have on the environment, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

That being said, the obvious solution to address and mitigate these issues lies in the implementation of mindful practices by both pharma companies and governments.

Short stats on the impact of the pharma industry on the environment:

The value of the world healthcare market in 2024 was estimated to be US$11.04 trillion, with experts expecting this figure to hit US$17.53 trillion by 2032, showing a CAGR of 5.98% throughout the forecast period.

Meanwhile, predictions regarding the size of the prescription drugs market see its value reaching US$2.7 trillion by 2033.

• A study published in 2025 showed that between 1995 and 2019, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the pharmaceutical industry rose by 77%.

• In addition, it has been estimated that the per-capita footprint of high-income countries was nine to ten times greater than that of lower-middle-income countries.

• Data from 2023 shows that nearly 397 million tCO2-e (tons of CO2 equivalent) were released by the pharmaceutical sector, and Scope 3 emissions (supply chain, upstream activities) are about 5.4 times higher than direct operations.

Understanding the environmental impact of pharmaceutical production

Greenhouse gas emissions

Did you know that according to the World Health Organization, the health sector is responsible for around 5% of global greenhouse gas emissions, and pharmaceuticals are one of its key contributors?

In addition, experts at Health Care Without Harm and their partners consider that the sector's carbon footprint could potentially increase by 200% by 2050[1] , if no mitigation measures are implemented.

But GHG and other emissions represent only a few pieces of the puzzle.

Water consumption and chemical waste

To manufacture medicines, you need a lot of water, since it is used for synthesis reactions, the purification of various substances, and equipment cleaning.

Moreover, the drug industry is heavily reliant on solvents and chemicals, which are extremely hazardous to the soil and water bodies. Disposing of such waste is not only very challenging but also very costly.

After building up in rivers and lakes, these chemicals have a serious impact on wildlife.

Solvents alone are thought to be responsible for 80-90% of waste streams from pharmaceutical manufacture, according to a recent paper published in the Journal of Medicinal Chemistry.

Pharmaceutical residues can flow through wastewater treatment systems and concentrate in aquatic habitats, causing danger to animal and human health, according to a paper published by the Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI).

Understanding where impacts arise: the Scopes framework

The Greenhouse Gas Protocol's Scopes framework is an effective tool to find emissions throughout the value chain. This was developed by the GHG Protocol – an initiative managed by the World Resources Institute and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development.

Check out this diagram showing an overview of GHG Protocol scopes and emissions across the value chain:

The GHG Protocol divides GHG emissions into three scopes:

Scope 1 emissions

Emissions are produced directly from sources owned or managed by the reporting organization (from heat production, power, physical or chemical processing, waste, and others).

Scope 2 emissions

The emissions are caused by the power (or heating/cooling) that a company buys and uses but doesn't burn directly with a power plant doing this on its behalf. But since the company is consuming that power, those emissions are still attributed to it.

Scope 3 emissions

Other indirect emissions that represent the result of the activities of the company in question, but which take place at sources it does not own or manage – a supplier manufacturing raw materials for the company (upstream), shipping trucks (downstream), or customers using or disposing of the product.

For most pharmaceutical companies, Scope 3 usually accounts for around 80% of their total emissions footprint, and there are several reasons for that:

• The chemistry involved in making active pharmaceutical ingredients is energy-intensive

• Supply chains are long and global

• Packaging (glass vials, cold-chain boxes, etc.)

• Refrigerated transport (carbon-heavy)

Experts at McKinsey evaluated around 40 pharmaceutical companies and discovered that around 75% of emissions across the value chain represent Scope 3 emissions.

How to ensure sustainable pharmaceutical development

1. Life-cycle thinking

The decisions that are made early in the research and development phases shape every sustainability option that comes later.

Once manufacturing starts, many of those choices are locked in.

The International Society for Pharmaceutical Engineering calls this approach ‘sustainability by design’. It rests on two practical tools:

1. Life Cycle Assessment – tracks the environmental footprint of a product from raw materials all the way to disposal

2. Eco-design principles – push teams to ask environmental questions early, while there is still the opportunity to change things.

2. Green chemistry

How a drug is made, namely how chemistry is used, what solvents are selected, how the product is purified, all have a huge effect on the amount of waste generated and power used. The tools chemists use to address this include:

• Process Mass Intensity – the usual way the industry estimates waste level. It answers the question: how many kilograms of material do you need to produce one kilogram of drug?

• Solvent selection guides – practical reference tools that help experts to choose less hazardous solvents without sacrificing results.

• Fewer steps, better yields – making a product using fewer steps is one of the most direct ways to reduce environmental impact

• Solvent recovery and reuse – the most efficient processes are those created to capture and reuse solvents from the starting point.

3. Measurable governance

Sustainability can't just reside in the numbers and letters in annual reports or corporate pledges. For it to mean something, it has to be tied to actual product decisions and monitored just like quality and safety are.

It is therefore vital to include sustainability criteria in concrete choices:

• How is a product formulated?

• What packaging is used?

• Does it require cold-chain storage?

Case study: Roche – a pharma company that puts real structure behind sustainability.

Working with a consultancy, Roche built a Product Stewardship Performance (PSP) tool to allow product teams to examine and improve environmental performance at each step of a product's life. In addition, Roche asks its suppliers to disclose product carbon footprints and cut solvent emissions.

Innovative strategies for reducing pharma’s environmental footprint

Pharma's environmental footprint is somewhat difficult to reduce. Energy-intensive utilities and complex multi-step synthesis are deeply embedded in how drugs are made. The strategies below can address three of the highest-leverage areas.

1. Facility design

The ISPE recommends that biopharmaceutical companies take a science-driven approach to sustainability, meaning don't guess what ‘green’ looks like, measure it.

Basically, companies need to be aware where energy is actually being lost, and thus they must systematically evaluate building design, construction materials, equipment, and utility systems (such as air handling and water supply)

In practice, leading companies are:

• Upgrading to energy-efficient HVAC systems and recovering waste heat

• Shifting from high-emission steam to renewable energy sources

• Reassessing single-use vs. reusable equipment – switching to reusable components when it is safe and practical to do so

All these changes have to work within GMP (Good Manufacturing Practice) constraints, where product safety and personnel safety come first.

2. Upstream decarbonization

A 2023 Unitaid assessment of 10 key health products (such as HIV medications and mosquito nets) found that their supply chains collectively emitted 3.5 megatons of CO₂ per year – concentrated in manufacturing, transport, and disposal.

However, the same report does show some optimism: 40% of those emissions could be cut without increasing production costs, with energy efficiency, renewables, and end-of-life recycling being the primary levers.

3. Tackling antibiotic pollution

When antibiotic residues enter waterways, even at low concentrations, they put just enough pressure on bacteria to drive resistance. The surviving bacteria pass that resistance on, and this can spread back to humans through water, food, and soil.

Without effective antibiotics, routine surgeries and cancer treatments become dangerous. The WHO lists antimicrobial resistance (AMR) among its top global health threats.

In September 2024, the World Health Organization published its first-ever guidance on antibiotic manufacturing pollution, giving industry players a shared framework for implementing pollution controls.

Challenges and barriers to pharmaceutical sustainability

Wanting to go green and being able to do so are two different things. Here are some of the challenges pharma companies face when it comes to sustainability.

The cost of getting started

In order to adopt sustainable practices, a company needs a huge upfront investment in new equipment, redesigning carbon-heavy processes, building the systems that keep track and report on all of it, and more.

For large multinational companies that have dedicated ESG teams, this is achievable, but for smaller companies, it seems impossible.

This brings us to the point where the industry's most resource-constrained companies (usually those producing the most affordable medicines) are the least equipped to make any changes.

A fragmented regulatory landscape

Sustainability rules differ by country, and until recently, there was no agreed-upon way to measure a pharmaceutical product's carbon footprint, which in turn made it almost impossible to compare companies or track real progress.

But it appears that things are changing.

In late November 2025, the British Standards Institution (BSI) published PAS 2090:2025, which is the first global standard that provides a harmonized framework to estimate and report GHG emissions across a pharmaceutical product's lifecycle.

The Scope 3 problem

As mentioned previously, Scope 3 refers to emissions that occur outside a company's direct control.

And since these typically account for the majority of a pharma company's total footprint, firms face the issue that such emissions are the hardest to measure and even harder to influence.

A company can green its own factory while its suppliers remain completely untouched.

The risk of ‘greenwashing’

Since sustainability is a factor that can impact a company’s reputation, the pressure to appear green can outpace the pressure to be green on the ground.

Regulatory pressure is growing due to vague statements, selectively disclosed estimates, and marketing-driven promises.

Future trends in the sustainable pharmaceutical industry

Sustainability used to mean polishing a press release, but now regulators are making the rules more stringent, investors are asking more difficult questions, and patients are paying more attention.

Companies are responding with real changes: how things are made, how energy gets used, and what happens to waste.

Trend #1: The push toward net zero

More and more pharma companies are setting legally committed targets to cut their carbon emissions to zero, often following globally recognized frameworks such as the Science Based Targets initiative.

AstraZeneca, for instance, has its Ambition Zero Carbon strategy, which targets a 98% reduction in direct emissions by 2026, and the company has already cut total energy use by 20% since 2015.

Trend #2: Greener chemistry and cleaner manufacturing

Traditional small-molecule drugs require multiple chemical steps that generate significant waste.

Biologists use living cells (bacteria, yeast, or mammalian lines) to produce complex molecules in fewer steps, greatly reducing chemical waste and environmental impact. Better cell engineering further lowers the footprint per dose.

AI accelerates this: AlphaFold (Google DeepMind) predicts protein structures in minutes – a task that once took years. It has been used by over 3 million researchers in 190 countries and has helped to earn Demis Hassabis and John Jumper the 2024 Nobel Prize in Chemistry (shared with David Baker).

Trend #3: Circular economy thinking

The industry is slowly moving away from the ‘make it, use it, throw it away’ model.

In practice, this means:

• Recovering and reusing solvents (instead of disposing of them)

• Designing recyclable packaging

• Cutting the volume of pharmaceutical residues that end up in water systems

Trend #4: AI as a sustainability tool

AI is now being applied to optimize manufacturing conditions and reduce resource consumption.

In factories, AI is being used for energy management, predictive maintenance, and supply chain optimization.

AI is also being used to accelerate clinical trials – a claim backed by Dr Khair ElZarrad, Director of the Office of Medical Policy within the FDA’s Centre for Drug Evaluation and Research, in his Q&A session with the FDA. Thus, AI helps to reduce unnecessary resource use earlier in the development process.

Navigating the transition: where expert knowledge makes the difference

The trends covered in this article share one common challenge: they require decisions that go well beyond standard business knowledge. The gap between published data and what actually drives outcomes in this sector can be significant.

That's where RightAngle becomes useful. Rather than relying solely on reports, at RightAngle we connect clients directly with practitioners who have worked inside these problems – process chemists, regulatory specialists, sustainability leads, supply chain professionals.

Remember that access to the right expertise, quickly, is less of a luxury and more of a practical requirement.