At a recent ISPE event Hexagon attended, reducing emissions was still a major topic, both on-stage and in conversations. And what we found most interesting was that it wasn’t discussed as a top-down corporate objective but as a manufacturing one, integrated into broader discussions about industrial operations and investment. 

The Wicked Problem of Emission Reduction 

That doesn’t mean that the industry is any stranger to wide-ranging emission reduction targets. 

In a 2022 report, the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA) found that nearly all large manufacturers had long-term emission reduction strategies and 60% had short-term targets. In addition, 70% of companies reported they involved their suppliers in reducing their total emissions – an imperative, considering that 80% of the carbon emissions of large pharma manufacturers happen in the so-called “Scope 3” that include the upstream supply chain as well as distribution. 

However, the early years of the decade showed that the challenge lay in operationalising these targets. 

Pharmaceutical manufacturing is built on energy. Cleanrooms, sterilisation, climate control and synthesis all depend on stable, high-intensity power. Fuel combustion in boilers and generators provides much of the heat, steam and electricity that underpin these processes. Switching to electric systems or heat pumps is theoretically possible, but it would often mean costly retrofits and significant changes to plant infrastructure -not to mention a more dependable flow of green electricity than many grids currently supply. 

In parallel, many of the raw materials involved, especially chemicals and solvents used in synthesis, are petroleum-based and associated with multi-step, energy-intensive processes. 

All this means that setting targets is easy, but making manufacturing processes less energy-intensive is complex, particularly when aiming for revenue growth. 

Pharmaceutical manufacturing is built on energy. Cleanrooms, sterilisation, climate control and synthesis all depend on stable, high-intensity power.

Carbon as Cost Centre 

But this decade is also one that realigns incentives. 

Since the start of the war in Ukraine, the continent’s industrial base has been burdened by the highest energy prices globally. Simultaneously, stronger regulations enforcing the “polluter pays” principle are creating a more compelling business case for immediate emissions reduction. 

Recent policy developments, such as the European Union’s hotly-debated Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM), reflect a shift toward embedding carbon pricing into trade. 

There are signs, too, that Europe is adjusting the expectations placed on private industry. The revised Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive, for example, requires companies in pharma and cosmetics to shoulder the cost of removing micropollutants in water systems. 

It points to a model in which environmental responsibilities are shared more explicitly with capable sectors – and pharmaceutical manufacturing, with its relatively strong economic performance and considerable energy use, is seen as one of those sectors. 

Managing Emissions by Managing Assets 

This context may not (yet) make the case for being an environmental pioneer, but the case for being an above-average environmental performer is increasingly strong – especially when emissions reductions can align with cost savings. 

Energy management remains a clear and immediate opportunity. Around-the-clock manufacturing, combined with tight air handling and environmental controls, means that even marginal gains in energy efficiency can have outsized effects. Enterprise Asset Management (EAM) systems have become instrumental in capturing these gains. 

Platforms like HxGN EAM allow operators to monitor energy performance, track emissions and manage equipment lifecycles in ways that support compliance while also surfacing opportunities. Whether through smarter maintenance, heat recovery or schedule optimisation, the goal is the same: to use less, waste less and extend asset value. 

A recent Forrester survey, commissioned by Hexagon, supports this shift. When asked about the benefits of adopting emerging technologies, such as AI, real-time monitoring, digital twins or cloud-based EAM platforms, European pharma executives cited a reduced carbon footprint as the most likely outcome. 39% described the potential impact in this area as “transformational,” with another 34% calling it “large.” 

When asked about the benefits of adopting emerging technologies, such as AI, real-time monitoring, digital twins or cloud-based EAM platforms, European pharma executives cited a reduced carbon footprint as the most likely outcome.

The Economic Potential in Scope 1 

All of this, of course, addresses only part of the picture. With scope 3 emissions making up the lion’s share of pharma’s carbon burden, it will take a wide array of measures to be truly net zero: supply chain transparency, lower-carbon inputs, greener packaging, transportation and distribution and, above all, coordinated procurement practices that reward emissions performance. 

Still, cutting what’s within the factory walls remains essential. It is also easier, more directly profitable and it’s where data is clearest and returns on effort can be measured. 

And in an era when others are quietly rethinking their climate ambitions, pharma may yet gain by bucking the trend: spending less on energy, wasting less and emitting less – all at once.

About the author

Robert Rydell
Senior Account Manager Nordics
Hexagon
Email: Robert.rydell@hexagon.com
Phone: +46733275770

visit hexagon