Excipient packaging as a lever for reducing Scope 3 emissions in pharma

In this industry, significant progress has already been made towards reducing Scope 1 emissions, the direct GHG emissions that a company produces from sources it owns or controls, and Scope 2 emissions which result from the indirect generation of purchased electricity, heat, or steam. But despite these improvements, Scope 3 emissions — which span a company’s upstream and downstream activities, including raw material production, distribution, product use, and end-of-life disposal — now account for an estimated 80-90% of the sector’s total climate impact.²

The breadth and indirect nature of Scope 3 emissions make it difficult to measure and manage, often requiring cross-industry collaboration and innovative solutions. However, in many cases, improving sustainability often starts with the details. Small, targeted changes can have the greatest impact — such as more efficient packaging solutions for excipients. To explore how practical innovations like this can help pharmaceutical companies tackle Scope 3 emissions today, we spoke with our in-house expert, Prathiba Devadas, Sustainability Engineer, Global Process R&D, Roquette’s Health & Pharma Solutions Business Unit. Keep reading to learn more about the challenges, opportunities, and real-world excipient packaging solutions that are already making a measurable difference.

1. Why are Scope 3 emissions one of the most difficult to address?
Scope 3 emissions in biotech and pharma are significantly higher than Scope 1 and 2 combined — 5.4 times greater for public companies and 6.5 times greater for private companies.³ The sheer magnitude of these emissions makes them difficult to address, which demands an immense effort across the entire supply chain. For instance, to tackle the biggest contributor of Scope 3 emissions across the biotech and pharma industries — purchased goods and services (79%) — companies need to engage with potentially hundreds of suppliers.² This means that meaningful reductions depend not only on internal action but also on strong collaboration with suppliers, logistics providers, and distributors — and on their own commitment to credible climate action.

Measuring Scope 3 emissions is another challenge. The standards for reporting Scope 3 are still complex, and many companies have incomplete disclosures. This variability makes it difficult to compare performance with benchmark progress.

2. What opportunities do pharmaceutical companies have when trying to reduce Scope 3 emissions?
While there are many obstacles standing in the way of reducing Scope 3 emissions, there is also an exciting opportunity for the industry to work together in a joint effort to curb climate change. Specifically, pharma companies can accelerate decarbonization across complex global supply chains, particularly in the production of active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs), excipients, packaging, and outsourced manufacturing. By setting clear emissions expectations for suppliers, co-investing in low-carbon technologies, and embedding responsible and ethical sourcing criteria into procurement and contracting decisions, companies can deliver emissions reductions well beyond their own operations.

Additionally, the sector can leverage its strong R&D capabilities to redesign products, formulations, and delivery systems in ways that reduce lifecycle emissions without compromising patient outcomes. Innovations in continuous manufacturing, greener solvents, and more efficient cold-chain requirements all present opportunities to reduce emissions while improving efficiency and resilience. By collaborating across the value chain, pharma companies can also develop shared standards, improve data transparency and create best practices for calculating Scope 3 emissions. This could reduce duplication of efforts and help establish credible, scalable pathways for decarbonization across the wider industry.

3. How can packaging design act as a practical lever for emissions reduction?
When it comes to reducing Scope 3 emissions, often it’s the small changes that can have the most meaningful impact. For instance, upstream changes like rethinking how pharmaceutical excipients are packaged, transported, and handled can deliver measurable emissions savings. Packaging plays a critical role in optimizing supply chains by improving transport efficiency and reducing waste across the board from expired or damaged medications to good products that might otherwise be lost due to overproduction, handling, or storage inefficiencies. The following case studies illustrate how we’ve made small packaging changes to help reduce our own carbon footprint — while also supporting customers in lowering their Scope 3 emissions.

Case study 1: METHOCEL™ bag-in-a-box packaging
We replaced our traditional fiber drum packaging with a new bag-in-a-box solution and assessed its environmental impact through a comparative life cycle assessment (LCA) study. The cradle-to-gate analysis measured all GHG emissions associated with the packaging required to deliver 1 kg of METHOCEL™. The result? Our bag-in-a-box packaging delivered a 25% smaller carbon footprint per kilogram of product compared to fiber drums, while enabling over 50% more product per pallet and container without compromising stability or shelf life.

By increasing the amount of product shipped per container, bag-in-a-box packaging reduces outbound transport emissions, offering significant environmental advantages for customers. What’s more, this packaging generally offers better waste treatment potential than fiber drums due to easier separation of materials, higher compatibility with standard recycling systems, and lower contamination risk. In contrast, fiber drums, while recyclable, may pose challenges in sorting and are less efficient in mixed-material recovery unless properly separated. This difference may provide long-term environmental benefits for customers through improved recyclability and waste handling.

Case study 2: POLYOX™ Extended Stability (ES) packaging
Our new extended stability (ES) bag-in-a-box packaging for POLYOX™ polyethylene oxide (PEO) excipients is smaller and lighter than fiber drums, enabling more efficient product loading per pallet. This results in a 26% increase in the net weight of POLYOX™ shipped per pallet — meaning more product per ocean container or truckload, and less “shipment of air.” Thanks to the longer shelf life and improved packaging efficiency, more POLYOX™ can be shipped via ocean freight instead of airfreight around the world. Ocean transport emit⁴ approximately 50 times less CO₂ per kilometer than airfreight, significantly reducing the environmental footprint of each kilogram transported. Additionally, the lighter packaging design lowers landfill or incineration waste by more than 85% compared to traditional POLYOX™ packaging, contributing to more sustainable end-of-life outcomes.

4. Why is partnering with suppliers that share a commitment to meeting environmental, social, and governance (ESG) principles — going beyond just emissions reduction — becoming increasingly important?
While reducing emissions is crucial, truly effective Scope 3 strategies must go beyond environmental considerations to encompass social and governance aspects as well. This holistic approach recognizes that sustainability is not just about carbon footprints, but about creating a resilient and responsible business model that considers all stakeholders. By working with a supplier that is dedicated to ESG principles, pharmaceutical companies can trust that potential environmental or social risks in the supply chain are anticipated and can get closer to meeting their own sustainability goals.

Packaging is a key example of where ESG alignment is critical. In addition to reducing emissions and material waste, companies must consider regulatory compliance, such as the European Union Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation, which sets strict standards for recyclability, material use, and waste reduction. Upcoming restrictions on PFAs (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances), starting in August 2026, also highlight the need for proactive collaboration with suppliers who can ensure compliant, safe, and sustainable packaging solutions.

At Roquette, this is central to how we operate. Our strong commitment to ESG principles extends across the entire product lifecycle — including packaging — ensuring that all solutions meet current and emerging regulatory requirements. We plan to reduce 25% of our Scope 1, Scope 2, and Scope 3 emissions by 2030 (compared to 2021), according to our trajectory validated by Science Based Targets Initiative (SBTi). Beyond our climate targets, our INVENT for the future platform aims to deliver solutions that not only add value to consumers, but also to society and the planet. At the heart of this platform is our eco-design training program that has been launched with our R&D and innovation teams. Primarily focused on conducting lifecycle assessments of all our products by 2030, packaging included, the program will enable the development of new solutions aimed at reducing environmental footprint, helping our customers meet their own sustainability targets.

Get in touch to learn how Roquette’s Health & Pharma Solutions can help you achieve your sustainability goals with innovative, eco-designed solutions.

1. Lenzen, Manfred, et al. "The environmental footprint of health care: a global assessment." The Lancet Planetary Health 4.7 (2020): e271-e279.
2. Edie news. Scope 3 and ESG: Tackling hidden emissions in the pharmaceutical industry. Available at: https://www.edie.net/scope-3-and-esg-tackling-hidden-emissions-in-the-pharmaceutical-industry/
3. The Carbon Impact of Biotech & Pharma, My Green Lab, 2024. Available at: https://mygreenlab.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/2024_carbon_impact_of_biotech_and_pharma_report.pdf
4. European Chemical Transport Association, "European Chemical Industry Counsil: Guidelines for Measuring and Managing CO2 emission from Freight Transport Options," 2011.