Why Green Claims Matter in MedTech
Sustainability in MedTech has always been fluid, but right now the industry is in a noticeable shift. A few years ago, especially in the immediate post-COVID era, companies were racing to announce sustainability commitments. Today, the landscape feels more cautious. Organizations are under greater scrutiny, regulations are evolving rapidly, and companies are beginning to realize that sustainability claims are far more complicated than simply calling a product “eco-friendly.”
In many ways, I believe the shift signals maturity. The industry is moving away from aspirational sustainability goals and working toward a much harder question:
How do companies actually prove the claims they are making?
One of the biggest wake-up calls has been Scope 3 emissions. On paper, sustainability goals sounded straightforward, but once organizations began evaluating, the complexity became enormous. Many companies underestimated the work required to understand carbon impacts not just in a meaningful but also in a defensible way. Which in some ways has led to unintentional greenwashing.
Traditional MedTech marketing is deeply technical. Teams are accustomed to making claims backed by highly structured evidence that requires review by the FDA and FTC. Examples being things like improved clinical outcomes, XX% reduced OR time, or enhanced device performance. But with sustainability claims teams are wanting to use terms like “green,” “eco-friendly”, “recyclable,” or “better for the environment,” without fully recognizing that these are still claims requiring validation.
Additionally, a package may technically be recyclable in theory, but if almost no municipality can actually process it, regulators are beginning to question whether companies should market it that way at all. This is where many sustainability claims become risky. Not necessarily because companies are intentionally greenwashing, but because good intentions often outpace understanding. This is an area where we have seen (and can learn from) consumer packaging. Consumer packaging has faced many challenges and lawsuits for misleading claims. It can happen easily … a team incorporates recycled content into one component and wants to highlight it. Marketing adds sustainability visuals to collateral. Sales materials mention waste reduction. Individually, those decisions may seem harmless, but once public claims are made, organizations enter a legal and regulatory space that is becoming increasingly aggressive. For MedTech companies selling globally, this creates an even more unique challenge because a claim developed for one market can easily become visible in another market with entirely different rules.
Ultimately, the MedTech industry needs to start treating sustainability claims with the same seriousness as product claims. Green claims are not marketing. They are not throw away claims. They are not aesthetics or opinions. They are claims that require documentation, justification, and scientific backing. I really believe the companies that will succeed are the ones building sustainability intentionally into product and packaging development from the beginning. That means understanding what green claims really are, learning regulations early, documenting design decisions, involving sustainability experts, and identifying what environmental outcomes can actually be supported with data.
Sustainability is so much more than just packaging, and our industry needs to broaden the conversation. When you look at the bigger picture, some of the most meaningful sustainability improvements come from improving the total care pathway. A pacemaker that lasts longer and reduces replacement surgeries may have a greater environmental impact than a packaging redesign. A diagnostic device that prevents unnecessary invasive procedures may reduce overall healthcare resource utilization significantly. These are great examples of how sustainability savings can be found through more than packaging.
Next time you’re in a discussion around sustainability, challenge the team to ask themselves more than, “Can we call this product green?” but rather, “What meaningful environmental or healthcare outcome are we improving, and can we prove it?”
