If green is the new black, why are some seeing red?
Recycling and sustainability, the dynamic duo of a circular economy, seems ensnared between a rock and a hard place. Some might see it as running in circles, questioning perceived outcomes as well as the pathways to those outcomes. Skeptics may debate the necessity and severity of it all as cynics effectively dismiss the never-ending hue and cry.
However, many converge around a single – and simple – question: What is the value proposition for recycling and sustainability? If it costs more to do “what’s right,” is that worth it? Sift your response through administrative, clinical, ethical, financial, moral, operational, and societal filters.
Emerging from the nearly three-year pandemic era, which generally seemed to dominate priorities, healthcare organizations, by and large, have returned to a host of priorities that they likely relegated to lower ranks from 2020 to earlier this year – such as recycling and sustainability.
Yet as healthcare organizations “reboot” their post-pandemic strategic plans, have those organizations elevated recycling and sustainability on the priority list or returned to standard operations circa 2019? Reviews are mixed even as views are variable (see sidebar titled "What motivates recycling, sustainability in healthcare organizations?").
“Legacy sustainability programs had no value proposition – they were a financial burden to hospitals, and the question became whether to do the right thing or to do the thing that made financial sense,” Lars Thording, vice president, Marketing & Public Affairs, Innovative Health, told Healthcare Purchasing News. “This is because legacy sustainability programs were straight-out recycling programs where used items were broken down to component parts and inserted into ill-equipped recycled parts manufacturing – in a very expensive process. The fact is that in terms of circular utilization, recycling is a very poor solution.
“Today’s emerging circular programs combine environmental sustainability with financial upside,” Thording continued. “When an item is not broken down into its component parts, but rather made ready for a second use, there is balance in the sustainability-cost equation: Tomorrow’s circular solutions reduce costs and environmental impact. Single-use device reprocessing, for example, retains the value of devices while reducing carbon footprint by 50% or more. Recycling solutions are the enemy of financially and environmentally responsible reuse. High-value circular solutions achieve both because they are about bringing extra life to items, not piecing out their death.”
Circular pain in the gas
Whether a healthcare organization has yet to embark on a recycling/sustainability project or program for the first time, looks to re-engage in environmental responsibility after a multi-year gap or seeks a fresh new target to accelerate ongoing efforts post-pandemic, corporate supplier executives whose companies service and support recycling and sustainability strategies and tactics industrywide offer plenty of recommendations. To begin, any prospective project or program should be preceded by an operational audit of supply chain operations.
Burgess touches on one area that seems to resonate the most, echoed by Innovative Health’s Thording and several others who zero in on reducing carbon emissions with no impact on finances or patient care.
Mikhail Davis, director, Technical Sustainability, Interface, concurs, homing in on specific areas of concern. He said, “Currently, healthcare systems contribute to around 5% of annual greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, with a majority of that percentage corresponding to embodied carbon emissions. Embodied carbon is defined as the GHG emissions generated by the manufacturing, transportation, installation, and disposal of materials used in buildings.”
“Reducing a healthcare facility’s embodied carbon emissions presents a huge opportunity for the industry to decarbonize,” Davis continued. “To do this, healthcare organizations must begin tracking the embodied carbon of all purchases. This accounts for emissions generated by their providers and suppliers on their behalf, called ‘Scope 3, Category 1 Emissions’ by regulators.”
“By tracking the emissions generated by their purchases, healthcare organizations can begin identifying opportunities to reduce their footprint and even reduce costs. More importantly, they can begin to influence their key suppliers to decarbonize across their supply chains, prompting a shift to production of lower-carbon materials and encouraging sustainable innovation,” he added.
Beyond carbon emissions and greenhouse gas reduction, Ashley Perry, Hazardous Waste Specialist, Daniels Health, urges healthcare organizations to evaluate waste generation in the operating room for a variety of reasons.
Rob Chase, founder and CEO, NewGen Surgical Inc., pinpoints trays as a key option. “Start transitioning your plastic procedure kit packaging trays to renewable plant-based trays currently on the market,” he said. “Transition off plastic in the area that is easiest first, packaging, and then move to renewable plant-based OR consumable products where available.”
Options to make a difference abound, acknowledges Richard Radford, CEO, Cenorin. “Every institution has its own set of opportunities to significantly improve its sustainability programs,” Radford noted. “Many have begun by assessing a variety of sustainability initiatives, from better purchasing programs to the utilization of third-party reprocessors and incorporating those that seem easily workable. The result: reduced costs, environmental impact, and material waste. This approach is incremental and will certainly make steady progress.”
What if financial concerns were removed from the equation?
“Develop a list of all [single-patient use] devices and set priorities – from Pareto analysis [80-20 rule] for which devices would bring the best value if processed inside the hospital and saving on packaging, shipping, storage, and disposal,” Radford noted. “Follow this by determining which devices have reprocessable alternatives and creating a plan to integrate them into inventory. Next, determine the necessary FDA-cleared reprocessing technologies required to safely return these devices for next safe use on a patent. Hospitals that have taken this course have found that the savings gained will offset both labor and capital investment costs with payback in less than 18 months. This is a big step and project. However, it is safe, sound, and meets the larger goals of sustainability.”
If money were no object, according to Tom Ricciardelli, president and CEO, SelecTech Inc., he suggests “implementing renewable energy to completely offset consumption.”
Modifying behaviors
Short of mandates, regulations and requirements that may involve certification, licensing and reimbursement issues, among others, the playbook to motivate healthcare organizations to participate in recycling and sustainability efforts likely centers on economic incentives.
“I think monetary incentives are the primary driver for implementing any new program,” insisted SelecTech’s Ricciardelli. “Healthcare organizations, in particular, often operate on tight profit margins and have to drive decisions based, in large part, on use of capital and ROI. Tax credits seem to be the most implementable and attractive to organizations.”
Others assess benefits from short-term and long-term perspectives, along with micro- and macro- impacts.
“If there is short-term economic opportunity involved, the business will take advantage of it,” assured Medline’s Burgess. “This is what we call double materiality, where an opportunity for improvement is both good for the business and the planet. An area that remains yet to be explored for economic payback is climate risk in both physical and transitional. There can be long-term business incentives found here to take advantage of and reduce the risks of relying on current systems.”
Interface’s Davis emphasizes the competitive impact of environmental responsibility. “The threat of losing business should be an initial motivator for providers and suppliers to implement recycling and sustainability programs,” Davis insisted. “Today, sustainability is no longer a ‘nice to have.’ Instead, it’s an expectation and a pathway for winning additional business.
“It’s important to prioritize sustainability and continuous innovation to remain competitive in the marketplace,” he continued. “If you are going up against another supplier to win business but cannot show that sustainability is deeply integrated into your organization’s strategy, you will most likely lose out on that business.”
Still, much hinges on specific choices and actions made, according to Cenorin’s Radford.
“Recycling has its own set of incentives that will return some benefits to healthcare institutions,” he said. “However, reuse of devices has a far larger impact on cost savings and sustainability, and thus, a stronger incentive to implement as broadly as possible. The reuse of devices does not eliminate recycling; it may just postpone it. The alternative is to repurpose the device construction materials to another purpose. An easy example is found in any number of plastic devices used throughout the hospital. These devices have a natural or stated useful life, many times listed in the [instructions for use]. There may be hundreds of examples of this in most hospitals. The motivation to move in this direction is found in the values held by most providers/practitioners: Don’t be wasteful and do protect the environment. The challenge for management at all levels is to create policies and processes that will allow hospital staff to act on their natural tendencies to do what is right for sustainability.”
To move the healthcare market toward low-carbon patient care, NewGen Surgical’s Chase posits a carrot-and-stick approach that is applied to providers and suppliers alike.
“For suppliers it is quite possible that manufacturers of single-use plastic products could be held responsible for the end-of-life impacts to the commons and society at large – the stick – or more likely and a more effective way to move the market would be for a change in reimbursement – the carrot – to providers, paying more for measuring and achieving lower carbon surgical procedures [and] patient care. This would really drive change and get manufacturers working on low-carbon product solutions. Absent some regulatory lever being put in place, providers and suppliers should act now because we all have families and we need to do the right thing, where we have expertise and can make a difference for future generations.”
Obvious value proposition
Vizient’s Indiveri argues that sustainability’s value proposition should be evident already. “It yields cost savings, mitigates risk, improves resiliency, increases efficiency and most importantly, is critical for human health and safety,” she said, adding that many facilities already recognize it.
“Many healthcare organizations are connecting their mission statements with the health impacts occurring due to climate change,” she continued. “Everyone’s health will benefit from efforts to reduce carbon emissions. Other healthcare providers are leveraging sustainability’s comprehensive economic benefits through reprocessing programs, energy-efficient initiatives and anesthetic gas management to reduce costs. In addition to cost reductions, funding mechanisms are now available through the Inflation Reduction Act and other climate action resources to provide incentives for this work.”
Plus, some providers are leveraging sustainability to support resiliency, Indiveri adds. “Prioritizing sustainability supports supply assurance, value chain sustainability, and furthers transparency and visibility to encourage agile decision-making. For instance, sustainability goes hand-in-hand with local purchases to reduce carbon emissions and transportation costs, assure supply chain resiliency and domestic sourcing, improve quality control, and forge partnerships with community-based suppliers for job creation to stimulate the local economy,” she noted.
If anything, recycling and sustainability encourage healthcare facilities to evaluate what they do holistically, according to Health Care Without Harm’s Ullman. “Sustainability and recycling programs can spur organizations to more closely analyze their procurement practices as well as waste streams, which has the potential for creating operational efficiencies and cost savings,” he indicated.
PDI Healthcare’s Ryba offers more of a global viewpoint. “Ultimately, healthcare leaders need to understand that the effects of climate change have direct impact on population health and could lead to overburdening the healthcare system,” she concluded. “We are all in the business of healthcare delivery and prevention, and protecting the health of the planet is necessary to protect the health of its people.”
What motivates recycling, sustainability in healthcare organizations?
Regardless of a nearly three-year global pandemic disrupting healthcare operations, the hot environmental topics of recycling and sustainability continue simmering to a slow boil with healthcare organizations pursuing projects and programs even if they lack and yearn for strategic and tactical direction as a number of recent studies show.
While justifications for recycling and sustainability participation are numerous, logical and salient from administrative, clinical, financial, and operational perspectives, one overarching theme seems to bubble to the surface among the roiling reasons. Healthcare Purchasing News (HPN) surveyed corporate executives at 10 different companies that support healthcare provider organizations with recycling and sustainability services. HPN asked them to rank the following nine reasons for recycling and sustainability efforts with the results based on averaging the scores. Here’s what the collective suggested:
HPN: Please rank the following reasons as provider and supplier justifications for implementing recycling and sustainability strategies, processes, and projects.
1. Competitive and economic advantage
2. Future of the company
3. Strategy/tactic to ensure/reinforce employee health and safety
4. Simply the right thing to do
5. Future of the environment
6. Reinforce positive publicity
7. Legal obligation
8. Key strategy to attract labor
9. Elude/evade negative publicity
The skinny: Although the rankings were based on averaged scores, the biggest issue was that few – if any – agreed on any one reason. No one agreed on standard aims, goals, strategies, and tactics. Responses generally were all over the board. Lacking unity of purpose, beyond the monolithic support of sustainability, any movement may stagnate and stall – no progress. Striving for circular economy spirals in circles.
Most noteworthy, the top three reasons above all center/converge on business and economics. After that, there are ethical and moral motivations around the environment. The lowest concern? Publicity.
If you wanted your organization – or to convince other provider and supplier organizations – to embark on an effective recycling and sustainability process/program/project, what element could/should/would you include first?
1. Efficient energy consumption
2. Carbon neutrality
3. Reduced packaging (tie)
Using energy-/fuel-efficient transportation methods/vehicles (tie)
4. Net zero emissions (tie)
Using renewable energy sources (e.g., bioenergy, geothermal energy, solar panels, windmills, etc.) (tie)
5. Using recycled materials in construction, remodeling, daily operations (e.g., building materials, flooring, paper, water, etc.)
The skinny: Respondents were allowed multiple responses and could suggest their own. Among the “other” responses were a lack of subject matter experts in the space to own the project or efforts, which dissuades the C-suite from investing in human capital, lack of regional infrastructure to facilitate recycling, lack of capital to support progress, and lack of understanding the connection between single-use plastics and climate change. Once again, response rankings were averaged, but responses were all over the board. In fact, four responses emerged as dual two-way ties. Respondents were given the option of making their own suggestions, which included switching to renewable products completely, aligning goals and strategies, enlisting teams, developing roadmaps, setting resources and engaging participants, and minimizing the use of single-use plastic devices.
The skinny: Energy consumption, followed by packaging and recycled materials usage outpaced the rest.
For those healthcare organizations that delay, postpone or reject recycling and sustainability efforts, why do you think they decline to participate in any environmental initiatives?
1. Not a primary priority per the C-suite
2. Perceived as too costly right now
3. Too many questions about ROI
4. Greenwashing (unreliable claims) give us pause
5. Lack of standards and validation
6. Other
The top three came in very close together, followed by the bottom three in a very close format – both groups separated by a wider gap. The top three concentrate on confidence and priority, followed by lack of standards and reliability of claims.
Ignoring, postponing, sidestepping recycling, sustainability efforts means business
Non-compliance with any recommendation, requirement, rule or standard may lead to negative or positive consequences, depending on context and outcomes, in the short term and long term. Participation in recycling and sustainability efforts offers no exceptions. So what might happen should any say, “meh?”
Short-term consequences
“With regard to recycling, we will continue to burden our disposal systems. We do see some of this now with some waste materials being exported for disposal. This is just a shift of the problem. I’m actually a proponent of burning waste as usable energy. With all the proper controls, I believe this can be done cleanly and solve two problems (waste disposal and energy generation) at the same time.”
Tom Ricciardelli, president/CEO, SelecTech Inc.
“In the short term, it can be hard to see the challenges of not having programs in place. But that means you’re not able to course-correct down the road. As an example, there may be an opportunity cost to losing out on sustainability experts going to other organizations. In general, you’re losing out on the opportunity to get ahead.”
Ashley Perry, hazardous waste specialist, Daniels Health
“Public image, employee loyalty, financial [issues].”
Lars Thording, vice president, Marketing & Public Affairs, Innovative Health
“For a portion of recycling and sustainability efforts there is an economic benefit to taking on the project or initiative. Businesses should look to capitalize on these opportunities for near-term benefit. Customers, in this case patients, and prospective employees are also evaluating sustainability efforts by healthcare systems. Undertaking sustainability initiatives can lead to a positive reputation within the community and further advance a health system’s appeal to be the provider and employer of choice.”
Jim Burgess, director, Sustainability, Medline
“Increased costs due to unnecessary waste or energy/operational inefficiencies; poor perception/reputation with patients, staff, visitors, and the community.”
Deb Fillis Ryba, global director, Corporate Social Responsibility and Sustainability, Nice-Pak/PDI Healthcare
“In the immediate environment, it frustrates the people who are working towards behaving in a more environmentally responsible fashion to see their colleagues and their business associates – patients, vendors, contract MDs or travel HCPs – ignore and disrespect their efforts. If enough people who are employees sense a low level of commitment within the organization to reaching its stated sustainability goals, there will be morale issues that could lead to departures to – yes, it’s a deliberate pun – greener pastures.”
Ann Hewitt, vice president, Sales and Marketing, Cenorin
“In the short term, suppliers and vendors might see a loss of business opportunities, a lack of monetary savings from efficiency gains, and low employee motivation.”
Mikhail Davis, director, Technical Sustainability, Interface
“Short-term consequences of non-compliance to sustainability efforts may include the inability to differentiate an organization’s business to promote human health and safety as well as missed recruitment opportunities. Poul Weihrauch, CEO of Mars Inc., recently shared ‘companies that back off their social and environmental commitments in the face of ‘nonsense’ political attacks risk alienating a generation of talent’ (https://hbr.org/2023/04/why-business-leaders-must-resist-the-anti-esg-movement).
“Other short-term consequences may include the inability to earn revenue and conduct business in specific locations. The California Senate Bill 253 requires both public and private U.S. businesses with revenues greater than $1 billion operating in California to report their carbon emissions including scopes 1, 2, and 3, beginning in 2026. Senate Bill 253 also requires reporting companies to obtain third-party validation of their reports. The governor has recently expressed support for signing the bill. In addition, the NHS in the U.K. will require all suppliers to publicly report targets, emissions and publish a Carbon Reduction Plan for global emissions aligned to the NHS net zero target, for all scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions in 2027. In 2030, suppliers will only be able to qualify for NHS contracts if they display their progress through continued reporting (https://www.england.nhs.uk/greenernhs/get-involved/suppliers).”
Cristina Indiveri, associate vice president, Core Tenet Programs, Vizient
“A short-term consequence could be regulatory violations that result in fines from state and federal agencies. Not having an effective waste management program results in regulatory risk, as well as unneeded financial expenditures. For example, the lack of a regulated medical waste (RMW) reduction program could result in a large amount of waste that could be managed as MSW, instead of going out with the RMW at a much higher cost.”
John Ullman, director, Safer Chemicals and Procurement, Health Care Without Harm
“The possibility of looking unfavorable with employees and other stakeholders. You’re part of the problem and not the solution.”
Rob Chase, founder and CEO, NewGen Surgical Inc.
Long-term consequences
RICCIARDELLI: “With regard to recycling, our disposal systems will be stressed beyond capacity and mandates will be required to prevent waste from piling up.
PERRY: “The landscape around sustainability overall has been changing. More than ever it’s a primary focus for many organizations. From a healthcare perspective, the long-term consequence of non-compliance is that if/when things become mandated, they are going to be so far behind and will have a much larger gap to make up. It is much better to start small and work towards it over time than to be forced to bump up against a regulatory deadline. When you’re rushed by a regulatory deadline, you have the potential for gaps or inefficiencies. With the luxury of starting early, you can avoid those pitfalls.
“As a supplier, this is becoming a much more common topic/ask of healthcare organizations. They want to know what suppliers are doing re: internal sustainability efforts. As a supplier in this space, the long-term consequences are that you could lose business when partners put parameters in place over who they can work with.”
THORDING: “Competitiveness, macro-environmental impact.”
BURGESS: “There are so many reasons for a healthcare organization to invest in sustainability. The goal of a health system is to increase health. Not investing in sustainability projects that reduce emissions, specifically in the supply chain where most emissions from a healthcare system can be attributed to, will continually decrease the ability for a health system to perform their most basic function. Almost everything a healthcare organization invests in sustainability can be attributed to increasing the health of those it serves. Examples include using emissions free and renewable energy and purchasing products that are designed to be recycled and are actually recycled, to name a few.”
RYBA: “Deforestation, biodiversity loss, climate change, and ocean plastic pollution, which may lead to more diseases and sicker people and potentially hospital systems that are overwhelmed by an ill human population.”
HEWITT: “We will face increasing upheaval from weather-related events, mass migrations, and inability to source products we need to care for increasingly vulnerable populations of patients.”
DAVIS: “In the long term, companies run the risk of being unable to compete in a resource-constrained economy while also being subject to lawsuits over their supply chain’s contributions to negative ecological and social impacts.”
INDIVERI: “Long-term consequences of non-compliance to sustainability efforts include an array of adverse health outcomes. Climate change is expected to cause approximately 250,000 additional deaths per year between 2030 and 2050 (https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/climate-change-and-health). Exacerbated air pollution may negatively impact respiratory and cardiovascular conditions. Changes in temperature may lead to changes infectious diseases. Droughts, extreme heat may affect food safety and lead to malnutrition.
“In addition, climate change and its reparations are not cheap. Direct damage costs to health are expected to be between $2 billion-$4 billion per year by 2030 due to climate change (https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/climate-change-and-health). No one is safe from these significant environmental, safety, and health risks.”
ULLMAN: “Without sustainability being a focus in an organization’s strategy and plans, opportunities for significant cost savings and efficiencies could be overlooked, as well as opportunities for reducing risk and strengthening organizational and local community resilience for being able to respond to future crises.”
CHASE: “We surpass what the scientific community has established as our planetary boundaries and exceed a 1.5-degree Celsius increase in average temperature with a continuation of and an increase in the extreme weather events happening now.”
Recycling, sustainability efforts and outcomes abound among providers, suppliers
As myriad healthcare provider organizations successfully carry out recycling and sustainability projects and programs within their operations, Healthcare Purchasing News (HPN) asked a variety of supplier executives who work in companies that directly service and support providers in their recycling and sustainability efforts to share noteworthy accomplishments. Here’s what they said.
“Simple changes can make a big difference when it comes to carbon footprints. Several years ago, we developed an innovative soft pack package that uses approximately 80% less plastic than our canisters. When we switched customers from our canisters to the soft pack format, we were able to reduce the number of trucks it takes to ship the same amount of product and reduce the amount of plastic packaging in their supply chain.
“However, we didn’t stop there. We are continuing to refine all product packaging to be more sustainable. Look out for more on this in the coming weeks. Learn more about our sustainability initiative here: https://wearepdi.com/en-us/innovation.“
Deb Fillis Ryba, global director, Corporate Social Responsibility and Sustainability, Nice-Pak/PDI Healthcare
“Medline ReNewal takes back single-use medical devices and reprocesses/refurbishes them to where the quality can be better than original OEM specification. This program can potentially lower overall life cycle emissions from a material and provide economic benefit for the health system. In 2022 alone, ReNewal helped Medline customers divert 1.1 million pounds of waste from landfills. Our 2022 Environmental, Social and Governance report provides more details on the work Medline is doing to make healthcare more sustainable for people and the planet.”
Jim Burgess, director, Sustainability, Medline Industries
“At our organization, we have subject matter experts that are trained in sustainability/compliance to evaluate organizations to determine opportunities for recycling or landfill diversion. Through this process, we have been able to reduce waste volumes for customers. In one instance, we were able to divert 115 tons of waste from hazardous waste treatment and landfill disposal.”
Ashley Perry, hazardous waste specialist, Daniels Health
“We see hospitals reduce carbon emissions by 10,000 pounds CO2 equivalent per year and achieving $1 million in cost reductions from reprocessing – a circular economy program, as well as reducing the cardboard footprint of packaging. Healthcare throws away far too much packaging.”
Lars Thording, vice president, Marketing & Public Affairs, Innovative Health
“Many medical devices are constructed of plastic and are sold in both single-patient use (SPU) and reprocessable offerings. They serve the same function – though reusable may work better – but may be priced differently. A good example is sleep masks used in CPAP therapy, where achieving the right fit results in better compliance with wearing the mask and thus better sleep. The right fit is usually achieved with a reusable mask. Often, a lab chooses SPU devices because of a perception that sterile semi-critical devices are the best infection prevention option. And even if they prefer to employ reusable devices, many sleep center staff believe that The Joint Commission will cite them for using reusable supplies. Many sleep centers have switched to single-use masks, tubing and other materials as a proactive measure to avoid a citation.”
Richard Radford, CEO, Cenorin
“Cenorin has worked with several progressive sleep centers to implement FDA-cleared high-level thermal disinfection (i.e., pasteurization) so they can continue to offer the high-quality, reusable masks that provide the best fit and highest compliance level for their obstructive sleep apnea patients. Pasteurization requires only water, uses minimal electricity, and involves zero solid waste disposal. Sleep centers that reprocess their reusable medical devices see a payback in less than a year, due to cost savings from eliminating purchasing, storage, and disposal of single-use plastics. They also report higher patient satisfaction, and several have seen an uptick in their referral base related to their higher compliance levels.”
Ann Hewitt, vice president, Sales and Marketing, Cenorin
“The experience of high-level thermal disinfection in sleep labs can be generalized to many other clinical areas that use plastic devices, such as respiratory care, anesthesia, [emergency department] and even perioperative locations. The opportunities are there to improve sustainability throughout the hospital.”
Richard Radford, CEO, Cenorin
“At Interface, we offer the ReEntry Recycling and Reclamation program to our customers. This program includes partnerships with independent recyclers to reclaim and reuse carpet tile and LVT to ensure nothing ends up in a landfill. ReEntry is the only third-party certified recycling system among flooring manufacturers in North America.
“Interface is consistently reinventing the ReEntry program and the company’s product technology to make flooring-to-flooring recycling more scalable. For example, in 2020, Interface replaced its pioneering Cool Blue recycled backing technology with the CQuest backings line, which can use even more bio-based materials and recycled content. This increases our appetite for old carpet tile reclaimed from customers through ReEntry to use in new CQuest-back carpet tiles. Carpet tiles made on these backings are third-party certified as recyclable by GreenCircle Certified. Additionally, all of Interface’s Sound Choice LVT products in North America are third-party GreenCircle Certified as 100% recyclable at end of life into CQuestGB backing.
“Interface also provides customers with a ReEntry certificate to highlight their commitment to closed loop recycling of their flooring.”
Mikhail Davis, director, Technical Sustainability, Interface
“Our company specializes in interlocking flooring and uses high recycled content in the products we make, with some of our products using up to 100% recycled content. Our interlocking system is designed so that it is easy to move/reuse the tiles for additional use and we will pay to take back old tiles and recycle them back into new tiles. Our manufacturing also has implemented solar electricity to offset some of its electricity needs.”
Tom Ricciardelli, president/CEO, SelecTech Inc.
“I recently moderated a panel discussion between three leading healthcare providers who are advancing sustainability performance improvement. One provider successfully integrated sustainability within major areas including: fleet management, water consumption, zero waste, carbon neutrality, locally sourced food, building energy consumption, and sourcing procurement. She has partnered with a variety of leaders at her organization to institute sustainability leadership councils and employee engagement groups and has leveraged external partners to realize over $13 million in cost savings over five years.
“Another provider prioritized sustainability within the sourcing process at his organization by avoiding chemicals of concern, improving energy and water efficiency, reducing climate impacts and reducing the total cost of ownership. His organization’s strategic vision focuses on the triple-bottom line: Improvements in social, economic, and environmental areas and collectively saves over $12 million annually from avoided cost.
“The third sustainability leader completed a greenhouse gas inventory assessment to baseline carbon emissions at her organization. She organized emissions by energy and water, transportation, zero waste, and procurement to set goals and align departments throughout her organization. Her organization is on track to reduce scopes 1 and 2 greenhouse gas emissions 50% by 2030 and has integrated climate action as a cornerstone of its sustainability program.
“Sustainability opportunities are abundant. What’s most important is acting now as the health and safety of our patients, families, and communities depend on it.”
Cristina Indiveri, associate vice president, Core Tenet Programs, Vizient
“Practice Greenhealth created a custom waste-tracking tool for a multi-hospital health system in the Midwest. This baselining activity allowed this system to understand its waste streams, aggregate its vendors and vendor contacts, and set reduction goals moving forward. By understanding its waste streams, this system can better negotiate contracts and realize cost savings. Many other tools for addressing climate, waste, food, safer chemicals, and other areas can be found on the Practice Greenhealth website.”
John Ullman, director, Safer Chemicals and Procurement, Health Care Without Harm
“We have one distribution customer that moved all their large surgical packaging trays in 2022 from Polystyrene to a Bagasse plant-based renewable packaging tray, and to date has eliminated over 281,000 pounds of single-use plastic and 262 metric tons of CO2e.”
Rob Chase, founder and CEO, NewGen Surgical Inc.
Rick Dana Barlow | Senior Editor
Rick Dana Barlow is Senior Editor for Healthcare Purchasing News, an Endeavor Business Media publication. He can be reached at [email protected].
