Hello Reader, there are many sustainable innovations for lab equipment being introduced now.
However, marketing claims can sometimes be misleading.
How do you know whether manufacturers are telling you the truth?
Let’s find out what to look for - and why this challenge will never disappear:
Today's Lesson: Assessing Greener Lab Products
What to consider when searching for alternatives
Number Of The Day
The first time a company conducted a formalized analysis of its products was in 1969. What we know today as a Life Cycle Assessment was originating in the late 1960s and 70s. For the first time, in comparable form, carried out by Coca-Cola to compare the environmental performance of different beverage containers - glass, steel, and emerging plastic bottles - after growing criticism for switching from reusable glass bottles to disposable packaging.
1969
Analyzing Sustainability Claims
Claims like “50% lower footprint” or “300 grams of CO₂ saved” appear exactly like what we need at first glance.
Yet these numbers often conceal a complex reality.
Of course, I would never use an example from the life sciences industry ; ) Actually, this is a perfect instance of completely mistaken sustainability communication. Originally, I thought they would promote the 360 g as being small - but they didn’t. However, as a consumer, what do I do with a number like 360 g? Exactly: I wonder, and then ignore it. Marketing only makes sense with the right framing.
The difficulty lies in the nature of sustainability itself: it’s not a single metric.
Big, impressive numbers can sound convincing, but if you take them at face value, two problems arise.
The Danger of False Claims
First, you might buy items that seem sustainable but actually aren’t.
That’s not only ethically frustrating—it can cause headaches later when reporting to funding bodies, clients, or under regulations like CSRD.
Especially if you want to use ready-made calculators, you’ll need reliable numbers. Since emissions from product use are often estimated based on spending, your best approach for now is to gather data from the more sustainable products you buy. That means you should make the most of the information your manufacturer provides. Picture is exemplarily from greenly.
At worst, you will find yourself redoing the calculations, sometimes realizing there was no real environmental benefit at all.
Second, you might end up supporting companies that prioritize marketing—and this also hurts those innovative companies that invest in transparency and truly sustainable alternatives.
But why do false claims still exist?
1. Complexity Can Be Quite Complex
The issue is that words like impact, footprint, or sustainability are multidimensional.
As a result, when a company says something has a lower footprint, we have to ask: what footprint?
Usually, this refers to the carbon footprint - more precisely, CO₂ equivalents, a measure of greenhouse gases.
But that’s only one piece of the environmental puzzle. A lower CO₂ footprint says nothing about other critical impacts like:
Biotoxicity
Water pollution
Acidification
Resource depletion
Click to enlarge. And yes, it gets even more complicated — we don’t just have several impact categories; they can also have different time horizons and play a role in various stages of a product’s life cycle. I like this visualization from Vaayu.
In short, a product can reduce emissions while still harming the environment in other ways.
2. “Relative to What?”
Secondly, when we hear marketing, we often have a clear goal in mind and don’t automatically ask about the mathematical framework in which the numbers were generated.
When a product claims a “70% smaller footprint,” we have to ask: 70% compared to what?
Comparisons can be tricky because the resulting number can look impressive while the actual difference is quite small. We see this in medical science too: relative risk increases can sound tremendous, while absolute changes are far less dramatic. In sustainability terms, there are two common situations: If you start from a very low baseline, a 100% increase doesn’t mean much. If you artificially inflate the reference point, your actual savings appear much larger than they are. That’s not to say relative numbers don’t matter - just that we need to look carefully at what’s being compared. P.S. Try to avoid processed meat but remember, red meat isn’t the same as processed meat! Graphic is adopted from this blog and you read more here.
The chosen baseline can completely change the result. A company can compare its product to an unusually inefficient or outdated one to make the difference look dramatic.
The solution lies in knowing the reference point—or having absolute numbers.
3. Boundaries Matter
However, even if the comparison is mathematically valid, it might not be practical.
A footprint can be calculated “cradle to gate” (only until the product leaves the factory) or “cradle to grave” (including use and disposal). The differences can be enormous.
This video gives a nice overview—although it’s about the construction industry, the basics are the same (and, as you’ll see, it inspired the graphics above).
Similarly, greenhouse warming potential can be measured over 20, 50, or 100 years, which can have dramatic implications for strong greenhouse gases with short half-lives, like methane.
And because there’s no globally unified protocol for these analyses, even standard methods (like ISO-compliant LCAs) can vary widely in their results.
That’s why one company’s “50% reduction” may not be comparable to another’s “40% reduction.”
4. And Assumptions Matter Too
To cut a long story short: to calculate reductions, we always have to make assumptions.
Examples:
Products are composted after use
Product is used up 100% without loss
Transport routes are short and efficient
Obviously, different people have different opinions on which assumptions best reflect reality.
The biggest challenge for us is that assumptions are rarely communicated openly - we need to discover them.
5. What Is Actually Talked About
We also have to consider that sometimes only parts of a product are improved—and that surprisingly goes in both directions.
While a “bioplastic tube” may be made from biobased feedstock, that doesn’t necessarily include the cap.
For example, in Eppendorf’s biobased tubes (not shown above), this matters because the PP is 90% derived from biobased feedstock. How do we know? Because they openly and transparently disclose this - you can find it easily on their product page.
On the other hand, several manufacturers of instruments do not necessarily count reduced solvent or sample use in their sustainability claims.
When assessing, ask what exactly is more sustainable—only energy consumption? Only packaging? Only greenhouse gas emissions?
Applying The Knowledge
A little disclaimer: this lesson shouldn’t give you the feeling that sustainability claims are worthless.
These innovations are already making a difference!
I write this from a standpoint that assumes you want to choose a more sustainable product.
The question is simply: which of the competing products should you choose?
Here’s how I would evaluate sustainability claims in practice:
Follow the big numbers - but question them. Ask: What are the assumptions? What’s the baseline? Can I see the underlying data or method?
Contact the manufacturer. If they can’t (or won’t) provide details, that’s a red flag. If they do, you can assess how thorough their analysis is - and you’ll have documentation for future reporting.
Check for independent evidence. Search for similar results or peer-reviewed studies.
For example, when Eppendorf introduced bio-based plastics, their approach aligned with published research and was soon adopted elsewhere - showing it was technically credible.
By contrast, claims about “closed-loop recycling systems” for plastics often show that phrasing is imprecise.
Current technology can recycle a few times - but never infinitely. There’s always degradation, and new material must be added.
Upcoming Lesson:
Pitfalls To Avoid
How We Feel Today
References
Today, we did not discuss technical details that are currently researched : )
If you have a wish or a question, feel free to reply to this Email. Otherwise, wish you a beautiful week! See you again on the 13th : )
Edited by Patrick Penndorf Connection@ReAdvance.com Lutherstraße 159, 07743, Jena, Thuringia, Germany Data Protection & Impressum If you think we do a bad job: Unsubscribe
Personal Note From Patrick, The Editor Hello Reader, think 50 years into the future. Do you think we’ll still be using plastic? Carbon-negative items, bioplastics, and automation are terms we hear a lot these days. Some are exciting, while others are empty promises. I outlined my understanding of where our lab plastics are headed and what could make your lab truly greener! Today's Lesson: The Future Of Our Plastics What innovations exist and which are still coming Number Of The Day We can...
Personal Note From Patrick, The Editor Hi Reader, as we were limited in time during our event, I thought I share a very personal lesson with you here. This piece comes courtesy of Corning Life Sciences. Having them as a sponsor of our communications allows me to get a few more looks behind the curtain. This matters to me so much because for a long time, I wasn't sure whether companies would support us scientists. Here’s what you should know and a few special innovations for you: A Deeper Dive...
Personal Note From Patrick, The Editor Hi Reader, reading this will just take you 5 minutes. I compiled all the essential resources I’ve prepared over the last 2 years into an overview for you. Here, you can watch my 20 minute talk in which I outline some of the core principles (as well the rest of our summit). These information are state of the art now. But a lot will change in the future. I developed these as part of my Sustainability Snack – a weekly educational newsletter I write....
