Shutterstock
Baljit Bhogal, Building Services and Sustainability Consultant, Margaret McDevitt, Sustainability Engineer and Geoff Brock, Director of Sustainability, all at IPS-Integrated Project Services Ltd.
Speed and patient delivery of important medications that enhance and lengthen human life play a vital role in global healthcare. However, this speed and the industry’s rapid growth also contributes significant environmental impacts whether through GreenHouse Gas (GHG) emissions, water use, effluent waste, transportation, or end of life product waste. The pharmaceutical industry faces the challenge of harmonising its essential mission of saving lives with minimising the environmental impact of its products and processes, which also ultimately impacts human health.
Among the pharmaceutical sector, there is a wide range of maturity in corporate sustainability commitments, from those who have already met and exceeded short term goals with additional carbon neutral or net-zero goals within the next 2 to 27 years, vs those who have just started tracking usage to those who have yet to make investments. Fortunately, many within the pharmaceutical and biotech sector have joined the Race to Zero campaign, following its introduction in 2015 (COP21) in Paris by limiting global warming below 2°C and pursuing efforts to limit it to 1.5°C.
This to has been a slow journey from introduction of CSR (Corporate Social Responsibility) policies which were qualitative, self-regulated to recent ESG policies (Environmental Social Governance) which are quantitative, externally validated through industry frameworks such as CDP and EcoVadis, with data 3rd party verified. This reporting can be directly related to business valuation and is becoming increasingly requested by clients and customers.
The majority of pharmaceutical and biotech manufacturers have shared their decarbonisation plans and race to zero and committed to the Paris agreement, whether that being “Zero or Net Zero” in 2025, 2030, 2040, 2045 or 2050. The industry is in exciting times where the need for speed for both patient delivery and eliminating GHG emissions is happening almost in all our projects. At Integrated Project Services (IPS) we are helping our clients on this exciting transformational journey.
The primary metric that rises to the top is GHG emissions, which is both a proxy for other indicators and also has direct climate impacts.
The Scopes of GHG emissions are differentiated between three categories: Scope 1, Scope 2 and Scope 3.
Scope 1 being direct emissions from company vehicles and manufacturing facilities, such emissions would include emissions from heating and refrigerants and fuels used in transport in company vehicles. Scope 2 emissions are indirect emissions related to purchased energy, electricity, steam heating and cooling. Scope 3 emissions are indirect emissions and often represent the majority of an organisation's overall GHG emissions also known as value chain emissions. Scope 3 emissions include all sources not within an organisation’s Scope 1 and 2 boundary. Scope 3 emissions for one organisation are the scope 1 and 2 emissions of another organisation making this the most difficult emissions to control.
Almost majority of IPS’s EMEA new green build projects designed and executed in 2022-23 have been fully decarbonised eliminating Scope 1 emissions from new manufacturing facilities. Our projects are seeing low and zero carbon technologies being used such as; Air Source Heat Pumps (ASHP), Carbon Dioxide (CO2) heat pumps using natural refrigerants, eliminating the requirement for steam to be generated by natural gas. At first there is hesitation to change, whereas some clients will embrace this change and have become industry leaders committed to reducing GHG emissions and race to zero showcasing their facilities for others to follow.
Renewables such as wind, solar, hydro and nuclear are securing almost 50% of the electricity demand, as gas prices increase more emphasis will be on renewables reducing gas and coal from electricity generation. With industry on the race to zero energy providers have certificates from energy regulators stating electricity supplied is green or GHG emission free. This eliminates scope 2 emissions from directly purchased electricity or steam and cooling, where energy providers can provide verification of the utilities being GHG emission free.
Scope 3 emissions represent the largest scope of emissions which there is limiting control, for reporting companies, this includes both upstream and downstream supply chain emissions, which can be difficult to resolve especially if certain suppliers are single sourced such as API (Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient) suppliers.
Manufacturing organisations have started to involve upstream and downstream supply chains and onboarding them to declaring their GHG emissions, should they wish to continue working with suppliers. This can be either getting them to commit to similar GHG reduction commitments and declaring their emissions using Science Based Target initiative (SBTi) or CDP.
Procurement can actively support reduction of GHG emissions by requesting Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs) for materials during construction and materials involved within manufacturing. An EPD is generated based on information obtained through the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) which is produced in accordance with EN15804 (The European Standard for the generation of EPD for construction products) and ISO 14025 and other related international standards.
LCAs take into account embodied carbon through the various life cycles from cradle-to-gate as well as cradle-to-grave. EPDs provide quantified data on products and their environmental impact which allows transparency for the products and their impact on the environment.
Energy data and function-specific benchmarking has traditionally been limited for the pharmaceutical sector, which makes it difficult for new facilities to benchmark against similar facilities. Each process is unique to the product making this extremely difficult to capture as the energy will be dependent on the types of technologies used within the manufacturing process.
Energy modelling using dynamic software simulation plays an important role in determining the energy usage of a facility throughout the design process. If the proper monitoring automation and software are employed, a digital twin can be created that can be used to predict the energy consumption of a building and adapt. More granular metering can also be used for benchmarking similar space functions.
Many pharmaceutical clients have their own in-house sustainable design guidelines, which are generally prescriptive to minimum standards, or may also urge aspirational strategies including formal LEED certification (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) by the US Green Building Council or BREEAM (Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Methodology) by the BRE Global. Both certification methodologies offer a holistic sustainable approach, offering a third party validated certification. It should be noted that claims such as “LEED-” or “BREEAM-equivalent” or “-certifiable” hold very little meaning outside of formal certifications. In what is frequently cited as an avoidance of administrative fees, misses the truth in that the vast majority of investment required for formal certification is in the hard costs of the actual strategies, then the soft costs to design, model, document and validate the results, leaving the actual certification fees a small fraction of a percentage of total capital costs. Formal certifications provide assurance in the actual investment and implementation. As demands for transparency are ever increasing within a growing sea of greenwashing, formal verification of both the delivery of new facilities and the operational footprint is increasingly necessary.
Conclusion
In conclusion, sustainability in the pharmaceutical industry is not merely a choice but a necessity for the well-being of the planet and its inhabitants. Despite progress made to the Race to Zero, challenges still persist in achieving comprehensive sustainability in the pharmaceutical industry including Scope 3 emissions being the largest contributor in GHG emissions.
The industry has its regulatory hurdles, stringent quality requirements, and the complexity of drug development often impedes the adoption of greener practices, along with balancing cost-effectiveness with sustainable approaches remains a challenge, as significant research and development investments are required to transition to more environmentally friendly processes. However, these challenges also present opportunities for innovation and positive change.
Integrating sustainability considerations early in the drug development process is vital to ensure the principles of green chemistry can be included within research and development.
The pace at which technology is moving with artificial intelligence is quicker than the environmental race, the use of AI in manufacturing can assist in optimising production processes, reducing waste, and predicting potential environmental impacts.
As EPDs will become mandatory this will hopefully drive innovation and green chemistry, such as more biodegradable drug formulations, reducing the ecological footprint of medical products.
Financial investors are reviewing ESG ratings and reports for Pharmaceutical and BioTech companies, this will hopefully focus on future proofing our industry towards a more sustainable future and provide a cure for the earth.