Many labs have embraced sustainability goals, but turning those ambitions into operational decisions remains a challenge. In this Q&A, Noreen Hong and Erica Hirsch share where lifecycle thinking often breaks down and how labs can move beyond one-off fixes to more strategic approaches. They draw on their experience working with laboratory organizations to outline practical ways to evaluate impact, engage suppliers, and embed sustainability into everyday decisions.
Many labs understand the what of sustainability, but struggle with the how. Where do you see labs making the biggest missteps when trying to operationalize a lifecycle approach, and what does “good” actually look like in practice?
Noreen Hong (NH): When operationalizing a lifecycle approach to environmental sustainability, one misstep labs take is treating sustainability as a checklist rather than a strategy. For example, a lab may consider swapping in a more energy-efficient ultra-low-temperature freezer or introducing a new recycling process and feel like that may be enough. While these are critical steps to improve sustainability, a true lifecycle approach needs to go beyond a single “one-and-done” decision and look at the bigger picture. This approach can mean looking at where products come from, how sustainability is woven into their design and functionality in the lab, and how much waste they produce. In practice, sustainability considerations should be integrated into every lab decision, including purchasing, operation, education, and future planning.
Erica Hirsch (EH): Labs can also often over-index on sustainability goals related to the equipment used in day-to-day operations. Water and energy consumption are two major considerations for labs looking to improve sustainability, but so are the consumables at the heart of research, such as chemicals and lab plastics. Because these products can’t be reused and require specific disposal methods due to hazardous materials, there will always be some environmental impact from their use. But labs can look at how certain chemicals and plastics are manufactured, packaged, shipped, and disposed of to identify opportunities to improve sustainability. A true lifecycle approach will understand a product’s environmental impact before it reaches the lab and where it goes after it’s used.
What metrics or indicators do you believe are most underutilized when labs try to assess the true environmental impact of their operations?
EH: Most labs already have a good understanding of metrics such as energy use and water consumption, but a few additional metrics can help labs get a more complete picture of their environmental impact. One metric to consider is packaging waste, which can be measured by volume and by destination. Labs should consider how much of what they receive in shipments ends up in a landfill or a recycling bin. This understanding can help determine whether bulk shipping or reusable packaging options fit their operations, especially for consumables such as lab plastics and chemicals.
Lab Quality Management Certificate
The Lab Quality Management certificate is more than training—it’s a professional advantage.
Gain critical skills and IACET-approved CEUs that make a measurable difference.
Transportation emissions tied to procurement should also be taken into account, because where consumables are sourced and how far they travel can increase the environmental impact of a product, even if the product itself has a small impact. Local sourcing and consolidated shipping can help meaningfully reduce that footprint.
Finally, labs can consider the volume and recoverability of chemical waste. For instance, some labs end up disposing of solvents that could be recovered through distillation and reused, such as acetone. Tracking what’s being discarded and whether it’s recoverable can open both environmental and cost-saving opportunities.
NH: In addition, labs can look at a couple of other metrics related to product design and operation. The first is the Global Warming Potential, or GWP, of the refrigerants used in lab equipment, especially in biological research, where cells and samples must be kept under secure conditions and at a controlled temperature. Freezers, centrifuges, and incubators often rely on chemical refrigerants known as F-gases that can significantly impact the environment. Next-generation refrigerants offer less hazardous, lower-GWP alternatives to F-gases and should be considered alongside energy efficiency and performance for labs looking to improve overall sustainability. Another metric to consider is HVAC load. The heat output of lab equipment directly drives how hard a lab’s HVAC system has to work. Newer refrigerated incubators, for example, are designed to help reduce HVAC usage across the whole facility. These metrics shouldn’t replace metrics like energy usage and waste generation, but can be added to provide another layer of insight into a lab’s environmental impact.
Interested in lab design?
How can labs better evaluate the full lifecycle impact of products that they are considering purchasing?
NH: One of the best places for labs to start better evaluating the full lifecycle impact of their products is to expand the questions they ask at the point of purchase. For most labs, evaluation criteria center on performance and price. These are two critical considerations, but taking a sustainability lens can help with understanding the full cost of a product from production through disposal.
For equipment, that can include looking at the total operational energy consumption. Labs should ask suppliers for energy consumption data and look for third-party certifications such as U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ENERGY STAR® or the My Green Lab ACT™ Ecolabel, which provide validated, standardized benchmarks for environmental impact, and include indicators such as energy and water consumption per day. For cold storage and other equipment, labs should ask about refrigerant type and GWP to help identify suppliers that integrate sustainability considerations into product design at the outset. Additionally, labs can ask questions about packaging. Understanding whether packaging is recyclable or reusable can help determine the right choice for each lab’s needs.
Finally, labs should look to learn more about service to extend a product’s life, along with end-of-life solutions. Suppliers that offer extended warranties, regular maintenance, and end-of-life disposal and recycling can help ensure labs get the most out of their purchases and reduce the need to produce new equipment. Labs that engage suppliers early in discussions around environmental impact will be better positioned to adopt more sustainable options.
How are funding bodies, regulators, or large institutional buyers reshaping expectations around sustainability—and how quickly will labs be forced to adapt?
NH: Expectations around sustainability can feel like a moving target for labs as regulatory bodies implement new requirements. For example, the EPA and the European Union have recently introduced guidelines to reduce emissions of F-gases. Some laboratory equipment has historically relied on fluorinated refrigerants, and now labs will need to take these new regulations into account when procuring equipment. To adapt to changing sustainability demands, labs should look beyond current regulations. Selecting new equipment that incorporates more sustainable features that exceed current requirements and working with suppliers to plan for future changes can help labs transition smoothly as sustainability goals shift.
EH: As regulations and demands shift, not every lab will need to make the same changes or follow the same timelines. But, in general, labs should take steps to future-proof where possible, both in equipment procurement and operations. This strategic planning can involve shifting supply chains and having open lines of communication with suppliers to proactively identify future challenges and collaborate on solutions. Labs that build sustainability into their operations and supplier relationships will be better suited to respond to regulatory changes sooner.
What’s the first step lab managers/leaders can take to shift to a more holistic approach to sustainability?
NH: One of the first steps labs should take is to audit their current operations from a sustainability lens. Labs need to have a clear understanding of the full environmental impact of their operations, from energy and water consumption to transportation emissions and chemical usage. This understanding can help lab managers identify where current sustainability strategies are working or failing and where to introduce new initiatives. For example, a sustainability audit may reveal that a lab has a strong recycling system in place, but could update its benchtop centrifuges to use lower-GWP refrigerants. Having a clear view can help sustainability goals feel more manageable, especially for labs aiming to take a more holistic approach. Labs could also explore the My Green Lab® Certification, which offers support for labs through clear assessment tools, verified reporting, and guidance.
EH: In addition to their own sustainability, lab managers could start to assess the sustainability strategy of the suppliers they work with. Looking at key initiatives, such as offering take-back and recycling programs or operating zero-waste facilities, can help lab leaders understand how their procurement decisions affect their overall sustainability metrics. It’s also important to ensure sustainability goals are shared commitments across lab staff. Continuous education and opportunities for feedback and improvements can help build a shared responsibility throughout a lab.
