Race to Zero is a renowned campaign, meant to incentivize non-state actors, such as institutions, private companies, and investors to completely negate the amount of greenhouse gases produced by human activity. The initiative’s motto constitutes five P’s: Pledge, plan, proceed, publish, and persuade.
Life cycle assessment (LCA) and total emissions (i.e., Scopes 1-3) are equally significant elements of the greenhouse gas burden calculation. Combination of these metrics therefore provides meaningful results with applicable interpretation. © Green Elephant Biotech.
Sustainability is no longer a side project in biotech, as the concept has become a fundamental driver of innovation. Whether developing advanced therapies, scaling cell culture workflows, or selecting the labware that supports daily research, understanding the environmental footprint of each choice becomes increasingly more important.
Recent findings from My Green Lab, the leading organization advancing sustainability in science, reinforce this shift. Net Zero commitments are now embraced by a majority of companies, including 52% of the top 25 biotech firms by revenue, yet, overall carbon intensity continues to rise (1).
According to the report, meaningful emissions measurement relies on pairing Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and Scope 3 emissions reporting, two tools that help laboratories evaluate the full impact of everything they purchase and use, from culture media to microplates.
For institutions seeking to lower their environmental impact without compromising scientific output, LCA and Scope 3 reporting offer both structure and direction — a practical starting point on the path toward Net Zero. Want to know why these tools matter and how labs can reduce their often-overlooked emissions? Below, we summarized the key facts for you.
LCA was initiated in the 1970s to address environmental concerns
LCA is a standardized framework (a.k.a., ISO 14040/44) for evaluating the environmental impacts of a product throughout its entire life span — from raw material extraction to end-of-life disposal. It can inform everything from product development to supplier selection and even long-term strategic planning. Drawing its roots back to the 1970s, it was Coca-Cola that conducted one of the first internal LCAs to evaluate the conglomerate’s environmental impact.
For researchers and facility managers, LCA offers a way to understand the full footprint of their operations, capturing energy consumption, Carbon Dioxide (CO₂) emissions, water use, and waste generation. By comparing the life cycles of different lab consumables or workflows, the process enables data-driven choices that weigh scientific performance alongside sustainability (2, 3).
For laboratories seeking to reduce their environmental impact without sacrificing output, LCA has become an essential decision-making tool. The framework does come with limitations though: short assessment horizons, gaps in available data, and even shifting political contexts can influence how results are interpreted.
Because LCA relies on present-day information, projecting future scenarios remains inherently challenging. Nevertheless, the method continues to evolve, incorporating variable situations, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, to make assessments more robust, adaptable, and meaningful for those who rely on them (4).
Scope 3 emissions are most crucial, but also most frequently overlooked
To evaluate a laboratory’s carbon footprint, we would need to start with identifying, which parts of the workflow generate most emissions? The Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Protocol divides these emissions into three scopes, each capturing a different layer of operations.
For example, Scope 1 covers the direct emissions an organisation produces through assets it owns or controls, such as lab vehicles, gas boilers, or on-site generators. Scope 2 refers to indirect emissions from purchased energy — the electricity or steam that keeps fume hoods running and the storage units cooling.
Scope 3, the broadest category, encompasses all other indirect emissions across the value chain, from the manufacturing and delivery of lab consumables to business travel, outsourced services, and waste disposal. In practice, this means everything from producing pipette tips to refrigerating CGT shipments falls under Scope 3 (5).
Consequently, any emissions occurring outside the lab that shape decisions inside of it contribute to the largely hidden Scope 3 footprint. By considering this category when selecting suppliers and designing workflows, biotech companies can meaningfully reduce these indirect emissions without compromising research or production efficiency.
Updating laboratory practices is part of being a scientist
If laboratories want to make meaningful progress toward reducing their carbon footprint, they must begin by measuring what truly matters. This requires looking beyond the energy meter and examining the hidden, embedded impact of the products purchased, used, and discarded every day.
High-volume consumables, such as microplates, pipette tips, culture vessels, often account for a surprisingly large portion of Scope 3 emissions but rarely receive focused attention in institutional sustainability plans. Emerging Green Lab initiatives, often led by motivated researchers, consistently highlight these overlooked stress points.
A practical foundation suggests to evaluate high-volume consumables by requesting their LCA or full footprint data, enabling clearer problem definition and more informed decision-making. At the same time, introducing plant-based materials such as polylactic acid (PLA) where appropriate, offers a seamless upgrade that fits into existing scientific workflows.
By incorporating Scope 3 considerations into procurement processes and daily operations, academic institutions and biotech companies can establish a new benchmark for environmental leadership. A pleasant benefit — and one frequently demonstrated in practice — is the reduction in annual costs due to lower material and resource consumption (6).
As commitment to LCA and Scope 3 emissions data grows, many laboratories are eager to make sustainable practices a part of their daily operations. However, real-world progress is often slowed by entrenched workflows built around familiar consumables.
Without reliable footprint information, even well-intentioned teams struggle to distinguish impactful choices from incremental ones. At Green Elephant Biotech, we believe that the path forward begins with clarity.
Our plant-based labware – namely, the CellScrew® system for adherent cell scaling and 96-well microPLAtes, are accompanied by fully documented LCAs that quantify their carbon footprint from raw material sourcing to end-of-life. These data assists us in demonstrating that PLA alternatives can reduce product-related emissions by up to 50%.
By making these assessments openly accessible, we enable researchers, procurement teams, and sustainability officers to evaluate alternatives confidently and with the global climate solution in mind.
Would like to become part of the change today?
In our upcoming newspiece with Dr. Joel Eichmann, we will be exploring further strategies meant to facilitate the attainment of the Net Zero goals.
Visit our CellScrew® and 96-well PLAtes pages to explore our LCAs and application notes today!
References:
- The Carbon Impact of Biotech & Pharma: Industry Leadership Amid Global Headwinds. (2025). My Green Lab and Intercontinental Exchange. Available www.mygreenlab.org (Accessed 05 December 2025).
- ISO 14040:2006. (2006). The International Organization for Standardization. Available https://www.iso.org/standard/37456.html (Accessed 04 December 2025).
- ISO 14044:2006. (2006). The International Organization for Standardization. Available https://www.iso.org/standard/38498.html#amendment (Accessed 04 December 2025).
- Sevigné-Itoiz, E, Mwabonje, O, Panoutsou, C, Woods, J, Life cycle assessment (LCA): informing the development of a sustainable circular bioeconomy? (2021), Philos Trans A Math Phys Eng Sci, pp. 1-14. doi: 10.1098/rsta.2020.0352.
- The Greenhouse Gas Protocol: A Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard (Revised Edition). (2025). World Resources Institute & World Business Council for Sustainable Development. Available https://ghgprotocol.org/sites/default/files/standards/ghg-protocol-revised.pdf (Accessed 04 December 2025).
- Freese, T, Enzinga, N, Heinemann, M, Lerch, MM, Feringa, BL, The relevance of sustainable laboratory practices (2024), RSC Sustainability, pp: 1300-36. doi: 10.1039/d4su00056k.
