Unlocking growth through sustainable medicines manufacturing
UCL position paper connects pharmaceutical sustainability with UK industrial policy
UCL's Policy Impact Unit published a position paper in late 2024 arguing that sustainable medicines manufacturing could support UK economic growth while reducing environmental impact. The paper was prepared by Policy Advisers Anca Tacu and Dr Luís Miguel Lacerda. It forms part of UCL's broader work on life sciences policy and was developed with researchers from VaxHub Sustainable, VaxHub Global, and the Future Targeted Healthcare Manufacturing Hub.
The paper, titled Unlocking Growth: The Promise Held by Sustainable Medicines Manufacturing, presents sustainability not as a constraint but as a strategic opportunity. According to UCL, the launch of the government's Industrial Strategy Green Paper created a window to align industrial policy with lower-emission medicines production. The authors argue that cleaner processes, improved infrastructure, and better waste management can drive innovation while cutting emissions.
This matters because pharmaceutical manufacturing is energy-intensive and relies on complex global supply chains. Consequently, any shift toward circular production models could reduce both carbon footprints and supply vulnerabilities. For businesses in the pharmaceutical sector or those supplying it, these recommendations signal where policy incentives and regulatory expectations may be heading.
Five policy recommendations aimed at infrastructure and regulation
UCL sets out several concrete policy proposals. First, the paper calls for dedicated infrastructure to accelerate new medicines development and sustainable manufacturing at scale. It suggests using the original ambitions of the Vaccines Manufacturing and Innovation Centre as a blueprint for future investment.
Second, UCL recommends retrofitting and modernising existing facilities rather than relying solely on new builds. This approach could reduce capital costs and embodied carbon. Third, the paper proposes that regulatory authorities incentivise innovation by embedding sustainability as a design criterion in manufacturing approval processes.
Fourth, UCL advocates for industry-wide advanced recycling facilities to process waste and recover feedstock. Finally, the paper stresses that policy should support the broader medicines manufacturing ecosystem, not just individual sites or products. These recommendations reflect a systems-level view of how sustainability and industrial capacity interact.
Notably, the paper builds on earlier UCL research into carbon emissions, Scope 3 supply chain impacts, circular economy approaches to single-use plastics, and waste reduction through process intensification. Therefore, the position paper translates existing research priorities into policy language designed for government and industry stakeholders.
Pharmaceutical production carries significant environmental and supply chain risks
Medicines manufacturing involves high energy use, complex chemical processes, and reliance on multi-tier global supply chains. As a result, the sector contributes substantially to industrial emissions. Moreover, disruptions during the pandemic exposed vulnerabilities in pharmaceutical supply networks, particularly for active ingredients and single-use consumables.
UCL's paper addresses both issues. By framing sustainable manufacturing as a resilience measure, the authors connect environmental goals with national preparedness. For example, reducing dependence on distant suppliers through localised production or circular material flows could shorten supply chains and lower carbon intensity simultaneously.
For UK businesses, this dual framing has commercial implications. Companies that manufacture pharmaceutical ingredients, packaging, or equipment may face new sustainability requirements in tender specifications or regulatory approvals. Similarly, businesses in the NHS supply chain could see procurement criteria shift toward lower-emission products and circular material use.
Furthermore, the emphasis on retrofitting and modernisation suggests that existing facilities could be upgraded rather than replaced. This approach may create opportunities for engineering firms, cleantech providers, and consultancies that specialise in industrial decarbonisation or process efficiency.
UCL engaged with the Office for Life Sciences in early 2025
According to a January 2025 newsletter, UCL met with the Office for Life Sciences to discuss its recommendations. The unit indicated it was preparing further engagement on the UK's life sciences sector strategy. This suggests the paper is being positioned as input into ongoing policy development rather than as a standalone academic exercise.
The timing aligns with the government's Industrial Strategy Green Paper, which was published in 2024. UCL describes this as a unique opportunity to embed sustainability in industrial planning. If the recommendations influence final policy, they could shape investment priorities, regulatory frameworks, and funding mechanisms for pharmaceutical manufacturing.
For businesses, this means potential changes in how government support is allocated. Grants, tax incentives, or regulatory approvals may increasingly favour projects that demonstrate lower emissions, circular material use, or supply chain resilience. Companies that plan capital investments or R&D programmes should consider how sustainability criteria might affect eligibility or competitiveness.
Additionally, the focus on infrastructure implies that government-backed facilities or shared-use manufacturing centres could emerge. This would parallel the VMIC model, which was originally conceived as a shared resource for vaccine production. Businesses involved in pharmaceutical contract manufacturing or shared facilities should monitor how this concept develops.
What UK businesses in the pharmaceutical sector should know
Here are the key points from UCL's position paper:
- UCL argues that sustainable medicines manufacturing can support UK economic growth, national resilience, and lower environmental impact simultaneously.
- The paper recommends dedicated infrastructure for sustainable manufacturing, using the Vaccines Manufacturing and Innovation Centre model as a reference.
- Retrofitting existing facilities is prioritised over new builds to reduce costs and embodied carbon.
- Regulatory authorities are encouraged to make sustainability a design criterion in manufacturing approvals.
- Industry-wide advanced recycling facilities are proposed to recover waste and create circular feedstock loops.
- UCL met with the Office for Life Sciences in early 2025 to discuss the recommendations and future engagement on life sciences strategy.
- The paper builds on earlier research into Scope 3 emissions, single-use plastics, and process intensification in pharmaceutical production.
How this connects to wider industrial and environmental policy shifts
This paper sits at the intersection of three policy areas: industrial strategy, public health infrastructure, and environmental regulation. Each of these areas is evolving, and the UCL recommendations attempt to align them. For businesses, understanding these connections is important because regulatory and commercial pressures will likely come from multiple directions at once.
On the industrial side, the government has signalled interest in reshoring critical manufacturing and building domestic capacity in life sciences. Sustainable production methods could become a criterion for public investment or procurement contracts. On the environmental side, stricter emissions reporting and extended producer responsibility rules are already affecting how manufacturers handle waste and materials. Pharmaceutical companies will not be exempt from these trends.
For SMEs in the supply chain, the implications are practical. If large pharmaceutical manufacturers adopt circular production models or tighten supplier sustainability requirements, smaller businesses will need to demonstrate compliance. This could involve carbon reporting, waste tracking, or material certification. Similarly, if government tenders begin to specify sustainable manufacturing criteria, businesses that cannot meet those standards may be excluded from opportunities.
UCL's emphasis on regulatory incentives also suggests that early adopters of sustainable manufacturing practices may gain competitive advantages. If sustainability becomes embedded in approval processes, companies that design for lower emissions or waste reduction from the outset will move faster through regulatory pathways. Conversely, businesses that treat sustainability as an afterthought may face delays or additional costs.
Another consideration is the focus on shared infrastructure and ecosystem-level support. If government funding is directed toward collaborative facilities rather than individual company projects, businesses may need to engage with consortia or industry bodies to access support. This would favour companies that can work within collaborative frameworks and align their projects with broader sector goals.
Practical steps for businesses in pharmaceutical manufacturing and supply chains
For businesses operating in or supplying the pharmaceutical sector, several actions are worth considering. First, review current energy use, waste streams, and supply chain emissions. Understanding your baseline is essential if sustainability criteria begin to appear in contracts or regulations. Second, monitor how the government's Industrial Strategy develops, particularly any life sciences investment programmes or regulatory reforms.
Third, assess whether retrofitting or process improvements could reduce emissions or waste in your operations. UCL's emphasis on retrofitting suggests that incremental improvements may be valued as highly as large capital projects. Fourth, consider how circular material flows might apply to your business. For example, can packaging be recovered and reused? Can waste streams be converted into feedstock for other processes?
Fifth, engage with industry bodies or sector groups working on sustainable manufacturing. If government policy moves toward ecosystem-level support, being part of these conversations early could provide access to funding or regulatory guidance. Finally, track any updates from UCL's Policy Impact Unit or the Office for Life Sciences. These organisations are likely to shape the next phase of policy development.
Businesses should also consider how sustainability fits into their competitive positioning. If your customers include NHS trusts, public sector buyers, or large pharmaceutical companies, they may soon ask for evidence of environmental performance. Having credible data and improvement plans ready will matter. Similarly, if you compete for government contracts or grants, demonstrating alignment with sustainability goals could strengthen applications.
For companies involved in infrastructure, engineering, or cleantech, UCL's recommendations point to potential demand for services. Retrofitting facilities, installing recycling systems, and designing lower-emission processes will require specialist expertise. Businesses that can deliver these services should consider how to position themselves for opportunities that may emerge from policy changes.
Where to find more information on pharmaceutical sustainability and UK life sciences policy
For further detail on UCL's position paper and related research, visit UCL's Policy Impact Unit website. The paper itself and supporting materials are available there. For updates on the UK's Industrial Strategy and life sciences policy, see the Department for Business and Trade and the Office for Life Sciences.
Businesses seeking guidance on carbon reporting and environmental compliance in manufacturing can access resources from SBS compliance services. For companies working on supply chain sustainability or procurement criteria, our sustainable procurement support provides practical frameworks and tools. Additionally, the UK Life Sciences Vision outlines government priorities that may inform future funding and regulatory direction.