Sustainability is not a new topic, however it is becoming an increasing priority for laboratories in the UK that may once have seen it as a long-term aspiration. This is because universities, cosmetic & personal care manufacturers, research centres, healthcare labs and suppliers are all facing growing pressure to reduce environmental impact, driven by legal net zero targets and procurement requirements, as well as rising demand from more environmentally conscious customers and institutions.
The scale of plastic waste in laboratories
One of the most widely quoted studies when looking at laboratory waste came from researchers linked to the University of Exeter, who estimated that institutions involved in biological, medical and agricultural research produce around 5.5 million tonnes of plastic waste globally each year1. Whilst this is just an estimate rather than a full global count, it remains one of the clearest illustrations of just how much plastic flows through laboratory environments.
That volume is not difficult to imagine when you think about what is used in a typical working day. Pipette tips, sample tubes, disposable gloves, culture plates, weigh boats and disposable containers all help labs work quickly and safely, but most are designed for one use only.
The real cost of going reusable
When considering moving to reusable consumables, it is important for laboratories to look beyond the upfront cost.
Reusable systems often require investment in decontamination equipment, washing capacity, chemicals, staff training, updated SOPs, revised risk assessments and additional quality controls. If the right infrastructure is not already in place, the true cost of switching can be much higher than expected.
There are also operational and quality considerations to think through carefully. In some environments, especially clinical and diagnostic settings, improper decontamination could carry a real risk to sample integrity or patient safety. Reusable items also need to be inspected, cleaned consistently and tracked properly throughout their service life as they are not infinitely reusable, and they still need replacing at the right point.
Even environmentally, reusable is not automatically better in every case. The washing, sterilising and handling involved all come with their own energy, water and chemical demands. A reusable item may still be the better choice overall, but it needs to be evaluated properly, not assumed. Peer-reviewed life-cycle studies show that reuse can reduce emissions significantly for some items, but the benefits depend heavily on the item, the washing or sterilisation process, and how the system is managed. For example, glass production can also be energy-intensive and requires extraction work to obtain the raw materials2,3. Therefore the whole supply chain must be considered when calculating the true emission footprint of moving to reusable.
Real Cases
A number of organisations have now published their goals publicly. For example, the NHS has pledged to reach net zero for the emissions it directly controls by 2040, and for the wider emissions it can influence, including those in its supply chain, by 20454,5.
In addition, a case study from the University of Edinburgh’s Roslin Institute, showed what can happen when a lab takes a careful and creative approach. The team replaced some single-use plastics with reusable alternatives and also decontaminated and reused certain plastic items that would normally have been thrown away after one use. The result was a 40% reduction in biohazard waste, along with a projected saving of over £1,000 a year on plastic tubes alone6.
That is a strong example of what is possible. It also shows that reducing waste can save money as well as materials.
So what should labs do first?
With all the different information available, it can feel overwhelming to any lab manager looking to convert to sustainable processes. However, sometimes taking a step back can help.
A simple waste audit can be surprisingly revealing. Some labs may discover that a small number of high-volume consumables are responsible for most of their plastic waste. Others may find that products are being sent for higher-impact disposal when they could be segregated differently. Sometimes the most effective changes are also the simplest, such as replacing selected plastic transfer pipettes with reusable glass alternatives in suitable applications, reducing secondary packaging or tightening stock control to avoid unnecessary waste.
That matters because disposal routes have a big impact too. A recent PLOS article found that for recyclable lab plastics, switching from clinical incineration to recycling can reduce lifetime emissions by around 50% to 74%, even where decontamination is needed first2.
So before making a major purchasing decision, it often makes sense to pause and ask a few practical questions:
- What are our biggest waste streams?
- Which products are being used out of habit rather than true necessity?
- Are there safer or lower-waste alternatives for specific tasks?
- Could better segregation or supplier choices reduce impact without disrupting workflows?
What to look for from manufacturers and suppliers
Simple long-term improvements can often start with a single question at the point of procurement. Sustainability should not rest with laboratories alone. Manufacturers have a major responsibility to reduce the environmental impact of lab consumables through better material choices, lower-waste product design and improved packaging, while suppliers also play an important role in shaping what options are available to labs.
That is why purchasing decisions should look beyond price alone. Labs should put pressure on their supplier to ensure they are working with manufacturers that have credible sustainability commitments, such as support for recognised initiatives like LEAF, clear packaging-reduction efforts, lower-waste product ranges and broader targets linked to net zero or responsible sourcing7. As sustainability becomes a bigger part of procurement, both manufacturers and suppliers will be expected to show meaningful action rather than broad claims.
Final thoughts
Laboratory sustainability is a big topic because it needs to be. Labs are essential environments, but they are also high-resource spaces with a significant environmental footprint. Plastic consumables are a major part of that story, and there is a growing push across the UK to reduce their impact.
At the same time, the answer is not simply to replace every disposable product with a reusable one and hope for the best. The best solutions are usually the ones that balance environmental improvement with practical reality. For some labs, that may mean reusables. For others, it may mean smarter procurement, better segregation, improved supplier choices or a more careful look at waste data.
The key is to start somewhere sensible, build from real evidence and focus on changes that genuinely work in the lab.
References:
1 Urbina, M.A., Reardon, E.E. and Watts, A.J.R. (2015) Labs should cut plastic waste too. Nature, 528, 479. Available at: https://www.nature.com/articles/528479c
2 Ragazzi I, Farley M, Jeffery K, Butnar I (2023) Using life cycle assessments to guide reduction in the carbon footprint of single-use lab consumables. PLOS Sustain Transform 2(9): e0000080. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pstr.0000080
3 Farley M, Nicolet BP (2023) Re-use of laboratory utensils reduces CO2 equivalent footprint and running costs. PLoS ONE 18(4): e0283697. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0283697
4 NHS England. Delivering a Net Zero NHS. Available at: https://www.england.nhs.uk/greenernhs/a-net-zero-nhs/
5 NHS Supply Chain. A Net Zero Supply Chain and Suppliers. Available at: https://www.supplychain.nhs.uk/programmes/sustainability/net-zero-supply-chain-and-suppliers/
6 University of Edinburgh. Lab case study: Love science, hate plastic waste. Available at: https://blogs.ed.ac.uk/sustainability/2021/lab-case-study-love-science-hate-plastic-waste/
7 UCL. LEAF – Laboratory Efficiency Assessment Framework. Available at: https://www.ucl.ac.uk/sustainable/take-action/staff-action/leaf-laboratory-efficiency-assessment-framework