Streng­thening sus­taina­bi­li­ty in the phar­maceu­ti­cal sec­tor

Doro­thea Baltruksa, Maren Sowab, Mai­ke Vossa,*

a) Cent­re for Pla­ne­ta­ry Health Poli­cy, Ber­lin
b) Maren Sowa is a rese­arch assistant and doc­to­ral stu­dent at the Chair of Civil Law, Medi­cal and Health Law of Prof. Dr. Jens Prüt­ting. Prüt­ting is the Mana­ging Direc­tor of the Insti­tu­te for Medi­cal Law at Buce­ri­us Law School
* Aut­hors in alpha­be­ti­cal order
We would like to thank Robert Schulz, Anja Leetz and Esther Luh­mann for their kind sup­port.

PDF

Poli­cy Brief 01–2023
DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.7682082

The impact of the cli­ma­te cri­sis on our well-being and health beco­mes more appa­rent with every heat­wa­ve, extre­me wea­ther event and drought. But other envi­ron­men­tal dama­ges cau­sed by human acti­vi­ties also have a direct and indi­rect impact on our health. In par­ti­cu­lar, the dra­ma­tic loss of bio­di­ver­si­ty and the pol­lu­ti­on of water, air and soil have long sur­pas­sed safe levels.1 Health pro­tec­tion does not the­r­e­fo­re only belong in health poli­cy, just as envi­ron­men­tal pro­tec­tion must reach far bey­ond envi­ron­men­tal poli­cy.

On the one hand, the phar­maceu­ti­cal indus­try plays an essen­ti­al role in health care with its important health-pro­tec­ting and health-pro­mo­ting pro­ducts. On the other hand, its che­mi­cal-inten­si­ve pro­duc­tion con­tri­bu­tes signi­fi­cant­ly to envi­ron­men­tal and cli­ma­te pol­lu­ti­on, which in turn dama­ges our health and liveli­hoods. In this poli­cy brief, we take a clo­ser look at the­se pro­blems and show which legal levers can be used to impro­ve the envi­ron­men­tal and cli­ma­te impacts of the sec­tor. We see the fol­lo­wing as par­ti­cu­lar­ly effec­ti­ve levers: an envi­ron­men­tal risk assess­ment for the aut­ho­ri­sa­ti­on of medi­cinal pro­ducts for human use; the man­da­to­ry inclu­si­on of sus­taina­bi­li­ty cri­te­ria in the ten­de­ring pro­cess for medi­cinal pro­ducts; the inclu­si­on of green­house gas emis­si­ons and impacts on bio­di­ver­si­ty in the Ger­man sup­p­ly chain due dili­gence law; trans­pa­rent, publicly acces­si­ble data on the cli­ma­te and envi­ron­men­tal impacts of new and exis­ting medi­ci­nes; the reduc­tion of was­te and impro­per dis­po­sal; the pro­mo­ti­on of gene­ric medi­ci­nes pro­duc­tion in Euro­pe; and trai­ning and fur­ther edu­ca­ti­on for phar­macists in envi­ron­men­tal pro­tec­tion and sus­taina­bi­li­ty.

Envi­ron­men­tal impacts of the phar­maceu­ti­cal sec­tor

About 5 % of Germany’s green­house gas emis­si­ons are gene­ra­ted in the health sec­tor.2 The­re has been no pre­cise recor­ding of the con­tri­bu­ti­ons cau­sed by the phar­maceu­ti­cal sec­tor to date. A refe­rence value can be cal­cu­la­ted through com­pa­ri­son with other count­ries such as Eng­land or Aus­tria, which show that medi­ci­nes and phar­maceu­ti­cal pro­ducts account for 20 % of emis­si­ons in the health sec­tor.3, 4 Glo­bal­ly, the phar­maceu­ti­cal indus­try is thus respon­si­ble for more emis­si­ons than the auto­mo­ti­ve indus­try.5 While an inter­na­tio­nal alli­ance of phar­maceu­ti­cal and bio­tech com­pa­nies agreed in Novem­ber 2022 to redu­ce emis­si­ons in their sup­p­ly chains as part of an “Acti­va­te pro­gram­me”, con­cre­te mea­su­res are, for the time being, focu­sed on swit­ching to rene­wa­ble ener­gy for power sup­p­ly and more envi­ron­men­tal­ly fri­end­ly trans­port rou­tes.6 The con­sul­tancy EcoAct repor­ted in 2021 that 75 % of lis­ted bio­phar­maceu­ti­cal com­pa­nies had redu­ced their Scope 1 and Scope 2 emis­si­ons and 50 % of their Scope 3 emis­si­ons (which account for the majo­ri­ty of emis­si­ons in the sec­tor) in the same year, in line with com­pli­ance with the 1.5 degree limit (see Figu­re 1).7

In addi­ti­on to green­house gas emis­si­ons, phar­maceu­ti­cal resi­dues — espe­ci­al­ly in water — also have an impact on both human health and the envi­ron­ment (often refer­red to as “eco­phar­ma­co­vi­gi­lan­ce”). Accor­ding to an ana­ly­sis by the Fede­ral Envi­ron­ment Agen­cy (UBA), 16 acti­ve sub­s­tances were detec­ted in sur­face, ground and drin­king water in all regi­ons of the world in 2016, abo­ve all the pain­kil­ler diclo­phenac — often in eco­to­xic con­cen­tra­ti­ons.8 A total of 631 acti­ve sub­s­tances were found in the regi­ons inves­ti­ga­ted. The offi­ci­al figu­res only repre­sent part of the actu­al water con­ta­mi­na­ti­on, sin­ce in many parts of the world the­re is insuf­fi­ci­ent mea­su­re­ment data available. Envi­ron­men­tal impacts occur throug­hout the life cycle of a medi­ci­ne, from pro­duc­tion through the sup­p­ly chain to admi­nis­tra­ti­on and dis­po­sal. Human medi­ci­nes regu­lar­ly enter the envi­ron­ment main­ly through excre­ti­on as well as impro­per dis­po­sal. Alt­hough the resul­ting phar­maceu­ti­cal resi­dues in water and soil have not yet been clas­si­fied as hazar­dous to human health, dama­ges to the eco­sys­tems con­cer­ned are con­sidera­ble and, in some cases, have not yet been ade­qua­te­ly inves­ti­ga­ted.9

Exem­pla­ry acti­vi­ties in other count­ries

In Eng­land, the Natio­nal Health Ser­vice (NHS) has deve­lo­ped a road­map for its sup­pli­ers to reach car­bon neu­tra­li­ty, which includes a con­ti­nuous tigh­tening of report­ing and emis­si­on reduc­tion obli­ga­ti­ons for cur­rent and future sup­pli­ers to the NHS.10

Nor­way, Den­mark and Ice­land have inte­gra­ted envi­ron­men­tal cri­te­ria for the first time in the joint ten­de­ring and pro­cu­re­ment of medi­ci­nes, the “Joint Nor­dic Ten­de­ring Pro­ce­du­re”, which ente­red its second ten­der in 2022. Sup­pli­ers that imple­ment cri­te­ria such as envi­ron­men­tal cer­ti­fi­ca­ti­on, a descrip­ti­on of envi­ron­men­tal gui­de­lines and stra­te­gies or envi­ron­men­tal­ly fri­end­ly trans­port are award­ed the con­tract.11 Alt­hough it is pos­si­ble to include envi­ron­men­tal cri­te­ria in ten­ders in Ger­ma­ny, the prin­ci­ple of eco­no­mic effi­ci­en­cy appli­es first and fore­most.i

The Stock­holm regi­on in Swe­den deve­lo­ped a “Wise List” of medi­ci­nes bet­ween 2017 and 2021, which enables phy­si­ci­ans to sel­ect the least envi­ron­men­tal­ly harmful pro­duct from tho­se with equi­va­lent effi­ca­cy.12

Envi­ron­men­tal ana­ly­ses of medi­ci­nes are also man­da­to­ry in the USA. The Food and Drug Admi­nis­tra­ti­on (FDA) takes envi­ron­men­tal impacts into account when appro­ving new medi­ci­nes and can also with­draw appr­oval if new infor­ma­ti­on on envi­ron­men­tal dama­ges emer­ge. Risks to end­an­ge­red spe­ci­es and their habi­tats from was­te­wa­ter gene­ra­ted during pro­duc­tion out­side the USA must also be asses­sed.13

New legis­la­ti­ve initia­ti­ves in Ger­ma­ny and the Euro­pean Uni­on (EU) and the ongo­ing revi­si­on of exis­ting law offer the poten­ti­al to impro­ve the regu­la­ti­on of envi­ron­men­tal impacts from the phar­maceu­ti­cal sec­tor.

i In accordance with the prin­ci­ple of eco­no­mic effi­ci­en­cy ancho­red in the Ger­man Social Code, Book V, the sta­tu­to­ry health insu­rance funds may only cover the cos­ts of ser­vices that are suf­fi­ci­ent, appro­pria­te and eco­no­mic — i.e. the most cost-effec­ti­ve — and do not exceed what is neces­sa­ry.

Green Phar­ma­cy Approach

In order to achie­ve cli­ma­te neu­tra­li­ty and prac­ti­ce con­sis­tent envi­ron­men­tal pro­tec­tion, an all-encom­pas­sing “green phar­ma­cy approach” is nee­ded.14 Among other things, this encom­pas­ses:

  • Con­side­ring envi­ron­men­tal aspects at the rese­arch and deve­lo­p­ment stage of medi­ci­nes, as well as at the pre­scrib­ing and dis­po­sal stages. 
  • Giving pre­fe­rence to new sub­s­tances that are more biode­gra­da­ble and bet­ter absor­bed by the human body, while main­tai­ning the same qua­li­ty and effi­ca­cy, in order to redu­ce per­ma­nence in the envi­ron­ment.15 

Regu­la­ti­ons curr­ent­ly in force in the Ger­man phar­maceu­ti­cal sec­tor

Many play­ers in the sec­tor are alre­a­dy stri­ving for more sus­taina­bi­li­ty and envi­ron­men­tal pro­tec­tions within the phar­maceu­ti­cal sec­tor. Phar­maceu­ti­cal manu­fac­tu­r­ers, who­le­sa­lers, phar­macists and num­e­rous other stake­hol­ders are imple­men­ting sus­taina­bi­li­ty goals in their com­pa­nies, not least through inter­na­tio­nal codes of con­duct and sup­pli­er con­tracts, and are thus alre­a­dy going bey­ond the pre­scri­bed level of com­mit­ment. Howe­ver, in order to effec­tively pro­tect the envi­ron­ment from the con­ti­nuous expo­sure of medi­cinal pro­ducts, vol­un­t­a­ry com­mit­ment alo­ne can­not be reli­ed upon. Rather, legal frame­work con­di­ti­ons are nee­ded to dri­ve inno­va­tions towards more sus­taina­bi­li­ty in the phar­maceu­ti­cal sec­tor. Against this back­drop, it is worth taking a look at the cur­rent legal situa­ti­on in phar­maceu­ti­cal law in order to unco­ver weak­ne­s­ses and iden­ti­fy start­ing points for the legal ancho­ring of sus­taina­bi­li­ty and envi­ron­men­tal pro­tec­tions.

Envi­ron­men­tal pro­tec­tion in phar­maceu­ti­cal aut­ho­ri­sa­ti­on: A toothl­ess tiger

In addi­ti­on to the desi­red effect, phar­ma­co­lo­gi­cal­ly acti­ve sub­s­tances often have an envi­ron­men­tal rele­van­ce.9 The­r­e­fo­re, when app­ly­ing for a medi­cinal phar­maceu­ti­cal aut­ho­ri­sa­ti­on at the Euro­pean Medi­ci­nes Agen­cy or the Fede­ral Insti­tu­te for Drugs and Medi­cal Devices in Ger­ma­ny, docu­ments must be sub­mit­ted on the basis of whe­ther an assess­ment of pos­si­ble envi­ron­men­tal risks has been car­ri­ed out.16 This envi­ron­men­tal risk assess­ment has been man­da­to­ry under phar­maceu­ti­cal law for vete­ri­na­ry medi­cinal pro­ducts sin­ce 1998 and for human medi­cinal pro­ducts sin­ce 2006. Poten­ti­al­ly unde­si­ra­ble effects on the envi­ron­ment are exami­ned.17 If such nega­ti­ve envi­ron­men­tal effects are found, howe­ver, the con­se­quen­ces for vete­ri­na­ry and human medi­ci­nes are dif­fe­rent: while the aut­ho­ri­sa­ti­on of vete­ri­na­ry medi­ci­nes can be refu­sed, unde­si­ra­ble envi­ron­men­tal risks remain lar­ge­ly incon­se­quen­ti­al for the aut­ho­ri­sa­ti­on of human medi­ci­nes.

The­r­e­fo­re, nega­ti­ve effects on the envi­ron­ment are not included in the risk-bene­fit assess­ment to be car­ri­ed out for the aut­ho­ri­sa­ti­on.18 In the case of iden­ti­fied envi­ron­men­tal risks, appli­cants are only requi­red to include infor­ma­ti­on on the avo­id­ance of the­se risks in the aut­ho­ri­sa­ti­on appli­ca­ti­on,19 e.g. through refe­rence in the pro­duct infor­ma­ti­on, but wit­hout any con­se­quen­ces for the mar­ke­ting aut­ho­ri­sa­ti­on of the drug. The ext­ent to which ins­truc­tions for use and dis­po­sal for the pur­po­se of envi­ron­men­tal pro­tec­tion in drug packa­ge leaf­lets are taken into account by con­su­mers has not yet been inves­ti­ga­ted.

As the aut­ho­ri­ty respon­si­ble for the envi­ron­men­tal impact assess­ment of new drug appr­ovals, for years the UBA has been cal­ling for grea­ter regu­la­ti­on and increased trans­pa­ren­cy around the phar­maceu­ti­cal industry’s effects on the envi­ron­ment with a view to hold actors legal­ly accoun­ta­ble for envi­ron­men­tal vio­la­ti­ons. Spe­ci­fi­cal­ly, UBA demands that20

  • the envi­ron­men­tal risk assess­ment is streng­the­ned and com­ple­men­ted by man­da­to­ry risk miti­ga­ti­on mea­su­res; 
  • the envi­ron­men­tal impact of the phar­maceu­ti­cal indus­try is regu­la­ted within a con­sis­tent legal frame­work cove­ring all rele­vant regu­la­ti­ons and poli­ci­es; 
  • uni­form pro­duc­tion stan­dards be intro­du­ced, inclu­ding green­house gas emis­si­on limits that can be che­cked by inde­pen­dent inspec­tors.

Exis­ting medi­cinal pro­ducts wit­hout retro­s­pec­ti­ve envi­ron­men­tal assess­ment

In addi­ti­on to the lack of con­side­ra­ti­on of envi­ron­men­tal impacts for new phar­maceu­ti­cal aut­ho­ri­sa­ti­ons, medi­ci­nes that were aut­ho­ri­sed befo­re the man­da­to­ry envi­ron­men­tal impact assess­ment was car­ri­ed out in 2006 often lack robust data on the envi­ron­men­tal balan­ce (see Figu­re 2). The­se “old medi­ci­nes” do not have to retro­s­pec­tively under­go a post-aut­ho­ri­sa­ti­on envi­ron­men­tal impact assess­ment. The­re is alre­a­dy a sys­tem for recor­ding chan­ges in the bene­fit-risk ratio,21 the so-cal­led phar­ma­co­vi­gi­lan­ce sys­tem. Howe­ver, unde­si­ra­ble envi­ron­men­tal effects are not recor­ded the­re.

The unu­sed poten­ti­al of che­mi­cals legis­la­ti­on

The iden­ti­fied gaps in phar­maceu­ti­cal law regar­ding the regu­la­ti­on of envi­ron­men­tal risks are not cover­ed by other legis­la­ti­on. The REACH Regu­la­ti­onii does sti­pu­la­te that manu­fac­tu­r­ers and importers of che­mi­cals must assess envi­ron­men­tal and health risks them­sel­ves and sub­mit cor­re­spon­ding data to the Euro­pean Che­mi­cals Agen­cy when regis­tering the che­mi­cal sub­s­tance. Howe­ver, the envi­ron­men­tal assess­ment based on the REACH Regu­la­ti­on does not app­ly to phar­maceu­ti­cals. Sub­s­tances con­tai­ned in medi­cinal pro­ducts are expli­cit­ly exempt­ed from the regis­tra­ti­on and assess­ment obli­ga­ti­on.22

ii Regu­la­ti­on (EC) 1907/2006 is the Euro­pean Che­mi­cals Regu­la­ti­on for the Regis­tra­ti­on, Eva­lua­ti­on, Aut­ho­ri­sa­ti­on and Rest­ric­tion of Che­mi­cals. “REACH” stands for Regis­tra­ti­on, Eva­lua­ti­on, Aut­ho­ri­sa­ti­on and Rest­ric­tion of Che­mi­cals. As a bin­ding Euro­pean legal act, it is direct­ly appli­ca­ble in Ger­ma­ny.

The health risk of stra­te­gic depen­dence

Over the last 20 years, the pro­duc­tion of acti­ve phar­maceu­ti­cal ingre­di­ents (APIs) has beco­me incre­asing­ly con­cen­tra­ted in a few regi­ons of the world and among a small num­ber of manu­fac­tu­r­ers.23 In par­ti­cu­lar, off-patent medi­ci­nes, inclu­ding many anti­bio­tics, as well as raw mate­ri­als and inter­me­dia­tes of many drugs are sourced by Euro­pean count­ries main­ly from Chi­na and India. Some of the­se inter­na­tio­nal sup­p­ly chains were dis­rupt­ed by the Covid-19 pan­de­mic. The Euro­pean Com­mis­si­on the­r­e­fo­re refers to a “stra­te­gic depen­dence” for the­se pro­ducts, which are cri­ti­cal for public health and secu­ri­ty of sup­p­ly.24 It is the­r­e­fo­re pur­suing efforts to ensu­re the sup­p­ly of cri­ti­cal medi­ci­nes in the future by diver­si­fy­ing pro­duc­tion sites, inclu­ding rebuil­ding pro­duc­tion within the EU.

In order to crea­te incen­ti­ves for the pro­duc­tion of gene­ric medi­ci­nes, it is also neces­sa­ry to recon­sider the dis­count con­tracts bet­ween Ger­man health insu­ran­ces and phar­maceu­ti­cal com­pa­nies, as the­se some­ti­mes result in very low pri­ces being paid for gene­ric medi­ci­nes. This pri­ce pres­su­re has con­tri­bu­ted to manu­fac­tu­r­ers lowe­ring pro­duc­tion cos­ts as much as pos­si­ble by pro­du­cing out­side the EU.25

In addi­ti­on to secu­ri­ty of sup­p­ly, regu­la­ti­on of sup­p­ly chains in the phar­maceu­ti­cal sec­tor also offers the poten­ti­al to impro­ve com­pli­ance with envi­ron­men­tal and labour stan­dards as well as the pro­tec­tion of natu­ral resour­ces. The Ger­man Act on Cor­po­ra­te Due Dili­gence Obli­ga­ti­ons in Sup­p­ly Chains (Lie­fer­ket­ten­sorg­falts­pflich­ten­ge­setz — LkSG), which came into force in Janu­ary 2023, has the poten­ti­al to impro­ve labour and envi­ron­men­tal stan­dards in phar­maceu­ti­cal pro­duc­tion faci­li­ties and in sup­p­ly chains. It initi­al­ly affects com­pa­nies that gene­ral­ly have at least 3,000 (1,000 from 2024) employees in Ger­ma­ny.

Envi­ron­men­tal impacts are indi­rect­ly cover­ed by the LkSG in that harmful soil chan­ges, water and air pol­lu­ti­on can con­sti­tu­te human rights risks26 if, for exam­p­le, they direct­ly dama­ge the natu­ral basis for food pro­duc­tion or human health.iii Impacts on the cli­ma­te or loss of bio­di­ver­si­ty are not included though. The LkSG may thus be a first step towards envi­ron­men­tal pro­tec­tion in natio­nal and inter­na­tio­nal sup­p­ly chains. Howe­ver, it needs to be impro­ved with regard to its scope. So far, the Act only appli­es to a company’s own ope­ra­ti­ons and direct sup­pli­ers, whe­re­as for indi­rect sup­pli­ers, the com­pa­ny must only con­duct a risk ana­ly­sis in cir­cum­s­tances whe­re the­re has been a suspec­ted or con­firm­ed vio­la­ti­on of envi­ron­men­tal law. Moreo­ver, a vio­la­ti­on of the due dili­gence obli­ga­ti­ons of the LkSG does not auto­ma­ti­cal­ly give rise to any civil lia­bi­li­ty; rather, legal enforce­ment remains with the Fede­ral Office of Eco­no­mics and Export Con­trol (BAFA), which can pena­li­se vio­la­ti­ons as admi­nis­tra­ti­ve offen­ces.

iii The LkSG pro­vi­des direct covera­ge of envi­ron­ment-rela­ted risks – wit­hout con­cre­te refe­rence to human rights risks – with regard to the avo­id­ance of long-lived pol­lut­ants (Stock­holm Con­ven­ti­on), the avo­id­ance of mer­cu­ry emis­si­ons (Mini­ma­ta Con­ven­ti­on) and the con­trol of trans­boun­da­ry move­ments of hazar­dous was­tes (Basel Con­ven­ti­on).

While the LkSG defi­nes its scope of appli­ca­ti­on inde­pendent­ly of the sec­tor through com­pa­nies’ num­ber of employees, the Euro­pean Commission’s cur­rent draft Cor­po­ra­te Sus­taina­bi­li­ty Due Dili­gence Direc­ti­ve also defi­nes so-cal­led “high-impact” sec­tors, which are par­ti­cu­lar­ly pro­ne to vio­la­ti­ons of human rights and envi­ron­men­tal con­cerns (see expl­ana­to­ry memo­ran­dum p. 18 of the draft direc­ti­ve).27 Curr­ent­ly, the phar­maceu­ti­cal sec­tor does not fall under the defi­ned high risk sec­tors. For a broa­der scope of sup­p­ly chain regu­la­ti­on, the phar­maceu­ti­cal sec­tor should be included.

Phar­maci­es as the lever for health and envi­ron­men­tal pro­tec­tion

Dis­pen­sing points such as phar­maci­es have gre­at influence on the ade­qua­te hand­ling and dis­po­sal of medi­ci­nes and can thus redu­ce the rou­tes of ent­ry of phar­maceu­ti­cals into the envi­ron­ment. Phar­macists, as the direct cont­acts of the end users, play an essen­ti­al role here. It is the pro­fes­sio­nal duty of phar­macists to inform and advi­se pati­ents28 inclu­ding on the pro­per sto­rage and dis­po­sal of medi­cinal pro­ducts.29 

This duty to pro­vi­de advice does not, howe­ver, extend to infor­ma­ti­on on the envi­ron­men­tal­ly con­scious hand­ling and dis­po­sal of medi­cinal pro­ducts with envi­ron­men­tal rele­van­ce. Whe­re pos­si­ble, phar­macists could advi­se cus­to­mers on which medi­ci­nes are to be pre­fer­red for envi­ron­men­tal reasons. Limits to phar­macists’ advice are, howe­ver, found in the medi­cal free­dom of the­ra­py, which is not sup­po­sed to be influen­ced by the phar­macist.30 Second­ly, expert advice on the envi­ron­men­tal effects of medi­cinal pro­ducts pre­sup­po­ses pri­or know­ledge, which would have to be ensu­red through edu­ca­ti­on and trai­ning. 

Some medi­cal socie­ties in Ger­ma­ny have alre­a­dy deve­lo­ped gui­de­lines that take into account the envi­ron­men­tal impact of various medi­cal pro­ducts. The­se include, for exam­p­le, the recom­men­da­ti­on for the cli­ma­te-fri­end­ly pre­scrip­ti­on of inha­led medi­ci­nes from the Ger­man Socie­ty for Gene­ral and Fami­ly Medi­ci­ne.31 

Phar­maci­es could also have a decisi­ve influence on dis­po­sal. Accor­ding to the cur­rent legal situa­ti­on in Ger­ma­ny, the return of unu­sed medi­ci­nes by phar­maci­es is purely a vol­un­t­a­ry ser­vice. Cus­to­mers are neither obli­ged to take back their unu­sed medi­ci­nes, nor do they have a right to do so. Until 2009, the dis­po­sal of old medi­ci­nes via phar­maci­es was regu­la­ted natio­nal­ly. Howe­ver, this sen­si­ble regu­la­ti­on was dis­con­tin­ued as a result of an amend­ment to the Pack­a­ging Act with the dis­con­ti­nua­tion of a coll­ec­tion sys­tem free of char­ge for phar­maci­es.32 A new, con­sis­tent regu­la­ti­on could be intro­du­ced by the EU Was­te Frame­work Direc­ti­ve (2008/98/EC), which could have an effect tog­e­ther with the tar­ge­ted edu­ca­ti­on of end con­su­mers on the pro­per dis­po­sal of medi­cinal pro­ducts. 

Sus­tainable manage­ment and envi­ron­men­tal pro­tec­tion are also taking on an incre­asing­ly important role in the phar­ma­cy land­scape. At the begin­ning of 2022, the Fede­ral Uni­on of Ger­man Asso­cia­ti­ons of Phar­macists (ABDA) men­tio­ned sus­taina­bi­li­ty and cli­ma­te pro­tec­tion in the pre­am­ble of its reso­lu­ti­on on “Phar­ma­cy 2030”, but did not ela­bo­ra­te on the­se aspects.33 In Sep­tem­ber 2022, “Cli­ma­te Chan­ge, Phar­ma­cy and Health” was a key the­me of the Ger­man Phar­macists’ Con­fe­rence 2022. Seven rele­vant moti­ons were adopted, deal­ing with mea­su­res to make phar­maci­es and the ABDA work more sus­tain­ab­ly and inclu­ding the fol­lo­wing core demands for the pro­fes­si­on:34

  • Cli­ma­te-fri­end­ly rede­sign of phar­maci­es’ ways of working 
  • Inte­gra­ting the health con­se­quen­ces of cli­ma­te chan­ge into initi­al, fur­ther and con­ti­nuing edu­ca­ti­on and trai­ning 
  • Advice from phar­macists to pati­ents on the health con­se­quen­ces of cli­ma­te chan­ge 
  • Com­mit­ment by the pro­fes­sio­nal asso­cia­ti­ons of phar­macists to include more com­pre­hen­si­ve cli­ma­te pro­tec­tion mea­su­res in phar­maci­es 

Whilst the­se deve­lo­p­ments within Ger­ma­ny are important, the sec­tor often points out that regu­la­ti­ons at EU level would be nee­ded to anchor sus­taina­bi­li­ty in law.

Start­ing points for new Euro­pean and natio­nal stra­te­gies

The Euro­pean Commission’s reform efforts could reme­dy the cur­rent defi­ci­en­ci­es in the regu­la­ti­on of medi­cinal pro­ducts. The Medi­ci­nes Stra­tegy for Euro­pe 2020 aims to ensu­re the qua­li­ty and safe­ty of medi­ci­nes and to increase the trans­pa­ren­cy and secu­ri­ty of sup­p­ly chains. The aim of this initia­ti­ve is to pro­po­se and deve­lop a regu­la­ti­on to revi­se the cur­rent EU phar­maceu­ti­cal regu­la­ti­ons.35 Within this frame­work, the requi­re­ments for envi­ron­men­tal risk assess­ment and con­di­ti­ons of use for medi­cinal pro­ducts are to be streng­the­ned. 

In addi­ti­on to the new phar­maceu­ti­cal stra­tegy at Euro­pean level, the­re is a govern­ment draft for a new natio­nal water stra­tegy for Ger­ma­ny. This pro­vi­des for con­sidera­ble impro­ve­ments in the con­trol and reduc­tion of pol­lut­ants in the Ger­man water sup­p­ly. It is inten­ded to imple­ment the EU’s Zero Pol­lutant Action Plan across all sec­tors and to streng­then che­mi­cals manage­ment. Among other things, thres­hold values for human and vete­ri­na­ry medi­ci­nes are to be intro­du­ced in ground­wa­ter sup­pli­es by 2030 and a new data­ba­se for che­mi­cal sub­s­tances is to be estab­lished, which will crea­te trans­pa­ren­cy and enable fol­low-up con­trols.36

In order to effec­tively estab­lish the neces­sa­ry envi­ron­men­tal and cli­ma­te pro­tec­tions in the phar­maceu­ti­cal sec­tor, seve­ral win­dows of oppor­tu­ni­ty are ope­ning up for legis­la­tors at fede­ral and EU level, as well as for actors in the phar­maceu­ti­cal sec­tor, as out­lined in this poli­cy brief.

Faced with the urgen­cy of our eco­lo­gi­cal cri­ses, to impro­ve sus­taina­bi­li­ty and cli­ma­te pro­tec­tion in the enti­re phar­maceu­ti­cal sec­tor, legis­la­tors must act with the fol­lo­wing opti­ons:

  • Aut­ho­ri­sa­ti­on-rele­vant envi­ron­men­tal risk assess­ment for all medi­cinal pro­ducts for human use with bin­ding risk reduc­tion mea­su­res in medi­cinal pro­ducts law at natio­nal and Euro­pean level: In the inter­play of che­mi­cals and medi­cinal pro­ducts law, the­re is a need for the inclu­si­on of envi­ron­men­tal effects in the aut­ho­ri­sa­ti­on regime of medi­cinal pro­ducts for human use or their acti­ve sub­s­tances in the Euro­pean Direc­ti­ve 2001/83/EC (Com­mu­ni­ty Code for Medi­cinal Pro­ducts for Human Use) and in the Ger­man Medi­cinal Pro­ducts Act.
  • Man­da­to­ry con­side­ra­ti­on of sus­taina­bi­li­ty cri­te­ria in the ten­de­ring pro­cess for medi­cinal pro­ducts: To this end, sus­taina­bi­li­ty should be inte­gra­ted into the Ger­man Social Code. 
  • Inclu­si­on of green­house gas emis­si­ons and impacts on bio­di­ver­si­ty in the Act on Cor­po­ra­te Due Dili­gence Obli­ga­ti­ons in Sup­p­ly Chains: The law should be expan­ded to include the­se essen­ti­al dimen­si­ons and pro­vi­ded with clear, evi­dence-based cri­te­ria. 
  • Trans­pa­rent, publicly available data on the cli­ma­te and envi­ron­men­tal impacts of new and exis­ting medi­ci­nes: The­se data should be publicly available and evi­dence-based thres­holds should be set to limit dama­ge to eco­sys­tems.
  • Reduc­tion of was­ta­ge and impro­per dis­po­sal: Bet­ter edu­ca­ti­on of phar­macists, health pro­fes­sio­nals and pati­ents on the pro­per dis­po­sal of medi­ci­nes and an expan­si­on of take-back points for medi­ci­nes in phar­maci­es is desi­ra­ble. 
  • Sup­port for the pro­duc­tion of gene­ric medi­ci­nes in Euro­pe: In order to ensu­re secu­ri­ty of sup­p­ly, espe­ci­al­ly for anti­bio­tics, in Ger­ma­ny, and to have trans­pa­rent infor­ma­ti­on and con­trol over pro­duc­tion con­di­ti­ons as well as to save emis­si­ons, stric­ter requi­re­ments should be adopted with regard to dis­count con­tracts for gene­rics and/or tar­ge­ted sup­port for the pro­duc­tion of gene­rics in Euro­pe intro­du­ced.
  • Edu­ca­ti­on and trai­ning for phar­macists with regard to envi­ron­men­tal pro­tec­tion and sus­taina­bi­li­ty: Both phar­ma­cy stu­dents and alre­a­dy qua­li­fied phar­macists should be trai­ned in the hand­ling of envi­ron­men­tal­ly hazar­dous medi­cinal pro­ducts. In addi­ti­on, infor­ma­ti­on on envi­ron­men­tal risks of medi­cinal pro­ducts urgen­tly need to be made more publicly acces­si­ble so that phar­macists can inform them­sel­ves about chan­ges in envi­ron­men­tal risks.

In order to pro­tect health, the cli­ma­te and the envi­ron­ment, the­se chan­ges in the regu­la­ti­on of the phar­maceu­ti­cal sec­tor should be imple­men­ted as quick­ly as pos­si­ble at the fede­ral and EU levels. Stake­hol­ders in the phar­maceu­ti­cal sec­tor can and should con­ti­nue to play an important role in this regard and take grea­ter respon­si­bi­li­ty and oppor­tu­ni­ties for action.

Refe­ren­ces

  1. Ger­man Advi­so­ry Coun­cil on Glo­bal Chan­ge (WBGU) (2021). Pla­ne­ta­ry health: What we need to talk about now. Ber­lin: Ger­man Advi­so­ry Coun­cil on Glo­bal Chan­ge. 
  2. Health Care Wit­hout Harm (2019). Health care’s cli­ma­te foot­print. 
  3. NHS Eng­land (2022). Deli­ve­ring a ‘Net Zero’ Natio­nal Health Ser­vice. 
  4. Weisz U. et al. (2019). The car­bon foot­print of the Aus­tri­an health sec­tor. Final Report. Vien­na: Cli­ma­te and Ener­gy Fund, Aus­tri­an Cli­ma­te Rese­arch Pro­gram­me. 
  5. Belk­hir L. & Elme­li­gi A. (2019). Car­bon foot­print of the glo­bal phar­maceu­ti­cal indus­try and rela­ti­ve impact of its major play­ers. Jour­nal of Clea­ner Pro­duc­tion 214, 185–194. 
  6. Manu­fac­tu­re 2030 (2022). Acti­va­te pro­gram laun­ched to acce­le­ra­te decar­bo­niza­ti­on in acti­ve phar­maceu­ti­cal ingre­di­ent (API) sup­p­ly chains.
    https://manufacture2030.com/insights/news/2022/11/activate-program-launched-to-accelerate-decarbonization-in-active-pharmaceutical-ingredient-api-supply-chains 
  7. EcoAct (2021). The Cli­ma­te Report and Per­for­mance of the DOW 30, EURO STOXX 50 and FTSE 100.
    https://info.eco-act.com/hubfs/0%20-%20Downloads/SRP%20research%202021/Climate-reporting-performance-research-2021.pdf 
  8. Aus der Beek T. et al. (2016). Phar­maceu­ti­cals in the envri­onment: Glo­bal occu­rance and poten­ti­al coope­ra­ti­ve action under the Stra­te­gic Approach to Inter­na­tio­nal Che­mi­cals Manage­ment (SAICM). Fede­ral Envi­ron­ment Agen­cy. 
  9. Fede­ral Envi­ron­ment Agen­cy (2014). Phar­maceu­ti­cals in the envi­ron­ment. Fede­ral Envi­ron­ment Agen­cy. 
  10. NHS Eng­land (n.d.). Net zero sup­pli­er road­map.
    https://www.england.nhs.uk/greenernhs/get-involved/suppliers/ 
  11. Amgros (2022). Second Joint Nor­dic Ten­de­ring Pro­ce­du­re for medi­ci­nes com­ple­te.
    https://amgros.dk/en/knowledge-and-analyses/articles/second-joint-nordic-tendering-procedure-for-medicines-completed/ 
  12. Stock­holm Regi­on (n.d.). Infor­ma­ti­on on envi­ron­men­tal effects of medi­cinal pro­ducts.
    https://janusinfo.se/beslutsstod/lakemedelochmiljo.4.72866553160e98a7ddf1d01.html 
  13. Wal­ter S. & Mit­ki­dis K. (2018). The Risk Assess­ment of Phar­maceu­ti­cals in the Envi­ron­ment: EU and US Regu­la­to­ry Approach. Euro­pean Jour­nal of Risk Regu­la­ti­on 9(3), 527–547. 
  14. Daugh­ton C.G. (2003). Crad­le-to-crad­le ste­ward­ship of drugs for mini­mi­zing their envi­ron­men­tal dis­po­si­ti­on while pro­mo­ting human health. I. Ratio­na­le for and ave­nues towards a green phar­ma­cy. Envi­ron­men­tal Health Per­spec­ti­ves 111(5). 
  15. Küm­me­rer K. & Hem­pel M. (2010). Green and sus­tainable phar­ma­cy. Sprin­ger.
  16. Arz­nei­mit­tel­ge­setz (2012). § 22 Zulas­sungs­un­ter­la­gen Abschnitt 3c.
    https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/amg_1976/__22.html 
  17. Krü­ger, C. in Kügel, J.W. et al. (2022), Arz­nei­mit­tel­ge­setz, 3rd edi­ti­on 2022, § 4 mar­gi­nal no. 295. 
  18. Arz­nei­mit­tel­ge­setz (2012). § 4 Sons­ti­ge Begriffs­be­stim­mun­gen Abschnitt 28.
    https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/amg_1976/__22.html 
  19. Arz­nei­mit­tel­ge­setz (2012). § 22 Zulas­sungs­un­ter­la­gen Abschnitt 3c.
    https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/amg_1976/__22.html 
  20. Gil­de­meis­ter D. et al. (2022). Impro­ving envi­ron­men­tal pro­tec­tion in EU phar­maceu­ti­cal legis­la­ti­on. Fede­ral Envi­ron­ment Agen­cy. 
  21. Arz­nei­mit­tel­ge­setz (2012). § 63b All­ge­mei­ne Phar­ma­ko­vi­gi­lanz-Pflich­ten des Inha­bers der Zulas­sung.
    https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/amg_1976/__22.html 
  22. Direc­ti­ve 2006/121/EC of the Euro­pean Par­lia­ment and of the Coun­cil on the appro­xi­ma­ti­on of laws, regu­la­ti­ons and admi­nis­tra­ti­ve pro­vi­si­ons rela­ting to the clas­si­fi­ca­ti­on, pack­a­ging and label­ling of dan­ge­rous sub­s­tances in order to adapt it to Regu­la­ti­on (EC) No 1907/2006 con­cer­ning the Regis­tra­ti­on, Eva­lua­ti­on, Aut­ho­ri­sa­ti­on and Rest­ric­tion of Che­mi­cals (REACH) and estab­li­shing a Euro­pean Che­mi­cals Agen­cy. II: Regis­tra­ti­on of sub­s­tances, sec­tion 5 lit. A.
    https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/DE/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32006L0121&from=EN 
  23. Pro­ge­ne­rics (2020). Whe­re do our APIs come from? A world map of API pro­duc­tion. 
  24. Euro­pean Com­mis­si­on (2021). Com­mu­ni­ca­ti­on from the Com­mis­si­on to the Euro­pean Par­lia­ment and the Coun­cil: Stra­te­gic Per­spec­ti­ves 2021 — The EU’s capa­ci­ty and free­dom to act.
    https://dserver.bundestag.de/brd/2021/0726–21.pdf 
  25. Bun­des­ver­band der phar­ma­zeu­ti­schen Indus­trie e.V. (2022). Pro­duc­tion of phar­maceu­ti­cals.
    https://www.bpi.de/de/themendienste/produktion-von-arzneimitteln 
  26. Gesetz über die unter­neh­me­ri­schen Sorg­falts­pflich­ten zur Ver­mei­dung von Men­schen­rechts­ver­let­zun­gen in Lie­fer­ket­ten (2022). § 2 Begriffs­be­stim­mun­gen, Abschnitt 2, Num­mer 9.
    https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/lksg/__2.html 
  27. Euro­pean Com­mis­si­on (2022). Pro­po­sal for a Direc­ti­ve of the Euro­pean Par­lia­ment and of the Coun­cil on cor­po­ra­te due dili­gence with regard to sus­taina­bi­li­ty and amen­ding Direc­ti­ve (EU) 2019/1937. 
  28. Ver­ord­nung über den Betrieb von Apo­the­ken (Apo­the­ken­be­triebs­ord­nung — ApBe­trO) (2012). § 20 Infor­ma­ti­on und Bera­tung, Abschnitt 1.
    https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/apobetro_1987/inhalts_bersicht.html 
  29. Ver­ord­nung über den Betrieb von Apo­the­ken (Apo­the­ken­be­triebs­ord­nung — ApBe­trO) (2012). § 20 Infor­ma­ti­on und Bera­tung, Abschnitt 2.
    https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/apobetro_1987/inhalts_bersicht.html 
  30. Ver­ord­nung über den Betrieb von Apo­the­ken (Apo­the­ken­be­triebs­ord­nung — ApBe­trO) (2012). § 20 Infor­ma­ti­on und Bera­tung, Abschnitt 1a.
    https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/apobetro_1987/inhalts_bersicht.html
  31. Ger­man Col­lege of Gene­ral Prac­ti­tio­ners and Fami­ly Phy­si­ci­ans (DEGAM) (2022). Cli­ma­te-con­scious pre­scrip­ti­on of inha­led medi­cinal pro­ducts. 
  32. Wes­sin­ger, B. (2018, March 22). Alt­arz­nei­mit­tel gehö­ren in die Apo­the­ke! [Exis­ting medi­ci­nes belong in the phar­ma­cy!] Deut­sche Apo­the­ker­zei­tung.
    https://www.deutsche-apotheker-zeitung.de/news/artikel/2018/03/22/altarzneimittel-gehoeren-in-die-apotheke 
  33. Bun­des­ver­ei­ni­gung Deut­scher Apo­the­ker­ver­bän­de e.V. (2022). Apo­the­ke 2030: Per­spek­ti­ven zur phar­ma­zeu­ti­schen Ver­sor­gung in Deutsch­land (2.0). 
  34. ABDA (2022). Reso­lu­ti­ons of the Gene­ral Mee­ting of Ger­man Phar­macists.
    https://www.abda.de/fileadmin/user_upload/assets/DAT_Beschluesse/DAT_2022_Beschluesse.pdf 
  35. Euro­pean Com­mis­si­on (2020). Phar­maceu­ti­cal Stra­tegy for Euro­pe. 
  36. Fede­ral Minis­try for the Envi­ron­ment, Natu­re Con­ser­va­ti­on, Nuclear Safe­ty and Con­su­mer Pro­tec­tion (2022). Govern­ment draft of the Natio­nal Water Stra­tegy.
    https://www.bmuv.de/download/regierungsentwurf-nationale-wasserstrategie

© CPHP, 2023
All rights reser­ved.
Cent­re for Pla­ne­ta­ry Health Poli­cy
Cuvrystr. 1, 10997 Ber­lin

info@cphp-berlin.de
www.cphp-berlin.de

Cita­ti­on sug­ges­ti­on: Baltruks D., Sowa M., Voss M. (2023). Streng­thening sus­taina­bi­li­ty in the phar­maceu­ti­cal sec­tor. Poli­cy Brief 01–2023. Ber­lin: Cent­re for Pla­ne­ta­ry Health Poli­cy. Available from: https://cphp-berlin.de/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/CPHP_Policy-Brief_01-2023-en.pdf 

CPHP publi­ca­ti­ons are sub­ject to a three-step inter­nal review pro­cess and reflect the views of the aut­hors.