Life sciences real estate: Beyond labs

A familiar narrative surrounds the current state of the life sciences sector: growth in biotechnology, pharmaceutical R&D, and advanced therapies is driving demand for specialist laboratory space. As pharmaceutical research continues to evolve, organisations need facilities that can accommodate complex work, support new technologies, and attract the talent required for innovation.

Much of the conversation has focused on laboratory availability, design, and expansion. However, findings from the latest Future of Work Survey suggest that the industry's property needs may extend beyond the laboratory. While research facilities remain integral to life sciences, manufacturing and production also account for a significant share of the sector's real estate footprint. This raises the question of whether the industry needs to look beyond laboratory capacity and adopt a more integrated approach that supports both research and production.

Supporting the journey from scientific research and development through to production

R&D laboratories account for 21% of the life sciences real estate footprint, compared with 5.5% across all industries, according to the survey. Additionally, 85% of life sciences respondents indicated that laboratories account for 10% of their real estate footprint, compared with 27% across the wider survey. What is clear is the importance of facilities that support specialised research and development, but laboratories are only a small part of the picture.

It is also crucial to consider how property portfolios support the journey from scientific research and development through to production, while ensuring that facilities meet both scientific and operational requirements. Expansion and developing new facilities are not the only consideration, as existing buildings also need investment for evolving processes and operational function. The decision to expand or upgrade an existing facility depends on things like suitability, location, and future needs of the organisation.

This is evident in the case when specialist facilities are complex to develop. An organisation that places their focus on additional space and capacity may miss opportunities, whereas upgrading an unsuitable space or facility may not produce the capabilities a business may require. Organisations should look beyond the immediate demand for space and consider whether the existing buildings can accommodate the technical requirements, ongoing operations and aid future business needs. The potential for future expansion may also play a role in what makes an existing site suitable. Upgrading may offer an opportunity to improve facilities, but there could be limitations that could not be addressed through refurbishment alone. Overall, the decision should be guided by scientific and production objectives, rather than expansion or upgrades in isolation.

Research and manufacturing teams have different needs, and organisations have to acknowledge that these functions also have different operational requirements and planning horizons. Manufacturing teams may need to prioritise operational continuity and production capacity, whereas research teams may focus on scientific capability and the flexibility to accommodate evolving programmes. Bringing these together earlier in the process can help real estate and finance teams assess priorities and the organisation’s wider objectives. It can also help identify where existing facilities could be adapted and where new infrastructure may be necessary

Evaluating property needs holistically

Investing in a facility that will fail to support future requirements may lead to an organisation needing changes later and committing to an upgrade that may not solve problems if the building has fundamental limitations.

As a result of this, bringing this perspective can aid with evaluating property needs in a more holistic fashion. However, the caveat to add is that not to say that every organisation should seek to combine research and manufacturing; the approach will differ based on each business model and operational requirements, but the aim here is to make sure decisions about facilities are made with an understanding of how it contributes to the wider business function.

Real estate should form part of the infrastructure that complements both scientific and commercial objectives, considering both holistically and early on in the decision-making process how portfolio decisions are made.

Ultimately, the challenge for life sciences organisations is not simply deciding where to add space, but ensuring that their real estate supports their wider business objectives. By assessing research and production requirements together, pharmaceutical leaders can make more informed decisions about where to invest and how to prepare their facilities for future needs.

The value of life sciences real estate lies in how effectively it enables scientific progress and supports the delivery of medicines widely.

About the author

Juan Pablo Negus is managing director and industry head for EMEA life sciences accounts at JLL Work Dynamics. He has more than 25 years of executive leadership experience across life sciences and industrial operations. Prior to joining JLL, he served as executive managing director at CBRE, having previously led the firm’s Novartis account. In his current role, he supports the continued growth of JLL’s life sciences platform across EMEA.