Sustainable Pharma Packaging Starts with Asking Better Questions

We were delighted to see AstraZeneca and Deloitte nominated for an MCA Award for their work on sustainable pharmaceutical packaging.

Cambridge Design Partnership supported the project through our materials science and manufacturing teams. It is a strong example of what we see with large pharmaceutical clients: sustainable packaging is a product development challenge, not a side issue about greener materials.

The project focused on moving towards fully recyclable blister packaging. Three requirements shaped the work: recyclability, barrier performance and ease of manufacture, all in a regulated market where drug performance and patient safety matter.

That combination shows why pharmaceutical packaging forces us to ask better questions.

A greener material can still be the wrong answer

The narrow question is, “Can we make this pack recyclable?”

The better question is, “What has to be true for a more sustainable pack to work in the real world?”

That moves clients from material preference to product evidence.

A material cannot be judged by its specification alone, or by whether it is recyclable, bio-based, fiber-based or lower carbon. It has to protect the medicine, run on packaging lines, survive transport and storage, meet regulatory expectations, support credible claims and work in the waste and recycling systems where it is sold.

Sustainable pharma packaging is not a material swap. It is a system design challenge.

Supplier data is not product evidence

The narrow question is, “Is this material more sustainable?”

The better question is, “Will this material still protect the medicine after we process it, seal it, pack it and ship it?”

A supplier may present a laminate, film, coating or fiber-based structure with strong barrier data, valid and given in good faith. But it usually describes the material under laboratory test conditions, not after forming, sealing, printing, sterilization, filling, transit and storage.

Once a material enters a commercial process, barrier performance can fall, seals can become inconsistent, moisture protection can become marginal, and machinability can create scrap.

The supplier is describing the material. The development team has to prove the pack.

That moves thinking from material preference to product evidence.

A material cannot be judged by its specification alone, or by whether it is recyclable, bio-based, fiber-based or lower carbon. It has to protect the medicine, run on packaging lines, survive transport and storage, meet regulatory expectations, support credible claims and work in the waste and recycling systems where it is sold.

Sustainable pharma packaging is not a material swap. It is a system design challenge.

The current pack may be over-specified

Patient safety is not negotiable. But that does not mean the current pack should always be copied.

The narrow question is, “Can the new pack match the existing pack?”

The better question is, “What pack performance does this medicine actually need?”

With over 25 years working with leading pharmaceutical companies, you soon learn that packs are often based on specifications set years ago. Some requirements are essential. Others may reflect old material choices, equipment limits, qualification decisions or requirements that have not been reviewed for a long time.

There is also a practical reason legacy formats stay in place. Changing a pharmaceutical pack can create cost, project risk and, in some cases, the need for regulatory approval or updated filings. That risk is real. But it is also why the requirement needs to be clear before change is ruled in or out.

That does not mean organizations should lower standards. It means defining the real requirement: barrier performance, shelf life, safety margins, sterility and sustainability all needs to be considered and understood.

Not every sustainability opportunity is worth pursuing

In many of our projects, the useful starting point is not one problem material. It is the portfolio.

The narrow question is, “Which material should we replace?”

The better question is, “Which change is worth pursuing?”

Which formats create the most material burden? Which markets create the greatest regulatory exposure? Which SKUs use more packaging than the protection need justifies? Which changes affect validation or line performance? Which products should be left alone because the benefit is too small or the risk is too high?

That portfolio view matters because the cost of change is real. Packaging lines are optimized, validated and expensive to alter. Changing equipment, requalifying a process or updating a specification can take months if notyears and require major investment.

A material that cannot run at line speed is not a solution. A pack that improves end-of-life performance but creates stability or validation risk is not a solution.

Recyclable in theory is not enough

The narrow question is, “Is this pack recyclable?”

The better question is, “Will this pack actually be collected, sorted and recycled in the market where it is sold?”

For global brands, a pack may be recyclable in one country, misunderstood in another and incinerated in a third. It may need separation steps patients will not perform, or use coatings, adhesives, inks, labels or mixed components that reduce the value of the recovered stream. It may be too small, contaminated, complex or unfamiliar for the sorting system.

Designing for end-of-life means working backwards from real infrastructure: patient behavior, local collection, sorting, recycler tolerance and the actual route in each market.

If that chain breaks, the intended environmental benefit may never appear.

Waiting for regulation is already too late

The EU Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation is moving packaging towards clearer requirements for recyclability, labeling, waste management and evidence. Healthcare and contact-sensitive packaging has specific treatment because patient protection matters. But that should not be read as permission to wait.

Pharmaceutical packaging changes can take years. If a change affects barrier properties, stability, sterility, line performance or regulatory filings, the timescale expands quickly.

The narrow question is, “What does regulation require next year?”

The better question is, “What packaging choices are we making now that will still be in market when regulation, infrastructure and procurement expectations have moved on?”

Leadership starts with the better question

It’s great to see this our Astra Zeneca and Deloitte collaboration project recognized with a nomination but it is equally important to recognize that the best consultancy projects begin with the client challenge. Real progress starts when companies identify the challenges that need solving and ask the right questions. AstraZeneca has consistently done that on sustainability, creating the impetus for work like this and driving the search for practical solutions.

This work on blister packs is just one element of AstraZeneca’s wider sustainability program. The company has set a goal of 50% waste circularity by 2030 and is already applying circular thinking across the business: from liquid helium reuse to silica waste reduction and its Turbuhaler take-back scheme in Sweden.

That is leadership in pharmaceutical sustainability.

At the heart of CDP’s approach: how to turn sustainability ambition into real products.