Healthcare generates one of the most stubborn waste streams in the global economy. While packaging and manufacturing dominate the circularity conversation, hospitals and biopharma facilities have largely been left out, even as the volume of regulated medical waste continues to climb.
This week, I sat down with Malcolm Bell, CEO of Envetec Sustainable Technologies, to ask why healthcare goes under the radar, what a credible recycling model actually looks like for biopharma, and what separates the organizations getting ahead of this from the ones who'll be caught flat-footed.
1. Most circularity conversations focus on packaging and manufacturing. Why has healthcare been so overlooked, and why is it now becoming impossible to ignore?
Healthcare has been overlooked because most circularity conversations start with the easiest target. Packaging is the low-hanging fruit. It is easier to address and discuss. Healthcare is not. It brings you straight into questions of safety, regulation, and operational complexity.
But it can no longer be ignored because of the sheer volume of single-use plastics used in hospitals, biopharma production, and home injection and monitoring devices. When you seriously examine what is classified as biohazardous and regulated medical waste, you see that this is not a fringe issue. It is a major operational and environmental challenge that has been hidden in plain sight for years.
2. Healthcare is dominated by single-use, highly regulated materials. What makes circularity in healthcare fundamentally harder than in other industries, and where do most “well-intentioned” solutions fall short?
If the ambition is to achieve circularity, you are immediately faced with regulatory issues if recycled material comes into contact with a patient sample, reagent, or drug. This is a great example of ‘Perfect is the enemy of good,’ as these materials can be used in many non-regulated products in healthcare manufacturing.
However, because these waste materials must also be decontaminated before they can enter the recycling ecosystem, it is far easier to continue with the ‘out of sight, out of mind’ approach and send this waste for autoclaving, incineration, and landfill.
There are very few well-intentioned solutions, as most people steer clear of this waste stream because it is deemed problematic.
3. What does a credible, scalable circular model for healthcare waste actually look like in practice, and what has to change across the system to make it work?
As just discussed, circularity is not achievable in many cases, but recycling back into the healthcare industry is. In my view, biopharma production is one of the clearest places to begin because it relies heavily on single-use plastics, including bioreactors, tubing, and clarification filters. The waste stream is consistent, has a polymer content of 90% or higher, and contains a very low percentage of non-polymer material.
If the goal is landfill avoidance and repurposing or recycling of this waste, the intervention must be implemented before autoclaving and incineration, with safe treatment and materials recovery built into the system from the outset.
4. Healthcare organizations are under intense regulatory pressure, as well as cost and operational constraints. How do you move this conversation from “compliance and risk” to something that actually creates business value for healthcare companies?
You move it by recognizing that this is not only a compliance issue but also a public health and reputational issue, especially when the waste stream leaves the facility.
The more control an organization has over how biohazardous or regulated medical waste is handled, the more it reduces risk beyond the site itself. That is where the business value becomes tangible, with less exposure, less reputational risk, and far greater control over a difficult waste stream.
5. We’re at an inflection point across sustainability with more scrutiny on real impact and ROI. Looking ahead 5–10 years, what will separate leaders from laggards in sustainable healthcare, and what are most organizations still underestimating today?
I do not think this will remain optional for long. In ten years, I am not sure “laggards” will even be the right term. For some organizations, the pressure could become severe.
Many organizations still underestimate the backlash they may face if they continue relying on outdated treatment methods such as autoclaving and incineration. You cannot keep presenting yourself as improving health while ignoring the broader health and environmental consequences of how biohazardous and regulated medical waste is handled. That contradiction will become much harder to defend.
