2026.10.10 | GP | Healthcare | Sharps Medical Waste Organic Growth

Primary:

Sharps Compliance Corp.

Associated:

Stericycle, Inc.

Aurora Capital Partners

Trilogy MedWaste, Inc.

CLH

Viewpoint:

Former Executive

Moderator: Revti Bhaskar (RB)

Christopher Hendrickson (CH), Former Vice President of Operations - Sharps Medical Waste Services

SUMMARY

Overview

A former operations executive assessed a medical waste provider’s growth strategy, operating efficiency and competitive position. The company relies heavily on regulated medical waste, mail-back services and acquisitions. Despite completing six acquisitions during the expert’s tenure, revenue remained broadly unchanged, indicating weak organic growth.

The expert attributed stagnation primarily to customer losses and ineffective sales execution among small-quantity generators, rather than poor service. Recent routing improvements have increased productivity, but sustainable margin expansion depends on stronger customer acquisition and retention.

Key Insights

Approximately 90% of growth came from acquisitions, while reported revenue stayed near $150 million. Small-quantity customers are the most profitable route-based segment but are frequently lost to local competitors offering lower prices and in-person sales coverage. Centralized telephone sales underperformed competitors’ local field-sales models. The expert viewed field-sales investment as the most important corrective action. Route optimization exceeded expectations and appears capable of supporting additional revenue without major incremental costs. Closing an inefficient incinerator could be operationally beneficial, although outsourced treatment, added logistics and new waste-segregation requirements may threaten some large accounts. Repeated executive turnover and the absence of a coherent growth plan materially weakened execution. The bullish scenario requires improved small-customer retention and meaningful organic growth. Continued customer losses, low-margin hospital growth and account disruption from the incinerator closure underpin the bearish scenario.

Competitive Landscape

Participant type

Positioning

Advantages

Challenges

Subject company

Competitive against major national providers

Strong service, pricing and improved route efficiency

Weak organic sales and small- customer churn

Large national competitors

Comparable in larger accounts

Scale and established field-sales resources

Not viewed as the primary competitive threat

Local and regional providers

Strongest in small accounts

Local presence and aggressive pricing

Smaller scale

Subject company’s mail-back unit

Attractive niche position

High margins and stable customers

Limited recent customer growth

10/11/2026 at 11:28 AM UTC

Quantitative Insights

Metric

Expert assessment

Acquisition contribution to growth

About 90%

Acquisitions during tenure

Revenue

Approximately $150 million and broadly flat

Mail-back gross margin

45%–50%

Route-based medical waste gross margin

25%–35%

Small-generator gross margin

55%–60%

Hospital gross margin

10%–15%

Route productivity improvement

15%–20%, ahead of a 10% plan

Sustainable annual pricing

Roughly 5%–10%

Driver turnover

About 30%, considered industry-normal

Bull-case organic growth

5%–10%

Bull-case retention

Above 90%

Bull-case route operating margin

High-20% to low-30% range

Bear-case indicators

Flat growth, retention below 90%, and margins in the high-teens to low-20% range

RB: Good afternoon, I'm an analyst at Guidepoint Insights. Thank you for joining us today. In today's discussion, we will be focusing on Sharps Medical Waste Services with Christopher Hendrickson, who was a former VP of Operations at Sharps Medical Waste Services. So Christopher, before we start today's conference call, could you please provide a brief overview of your background responsibilities, particularly as it pertains to today's topic of discussion?

CH: Yes, I was Vice President of Operations for Sharps Medical Waste Services for a little over 2 years. I also spent 5 years in medical and hazardous waste with Stericycle before they were acquired by Waste Management, operating as regional operations director in the hazardous waste side and then as a district operations manager on the medical waste and document destruction side. I've got a combined roughly 10 years of senior level operations leadership experience in the industry with both Stericycle and Sharps Medical Waste Services.

RB: Got it. That's really helpful, Christopher. So maybe just starting off with the company's organic growth strategies.

10/11/2026 at 11:28 AM UTC

During your tenure, how much of Sharps' growth came from acquisitions, new customers, existing account expansion and pricing?

CH: I would say 90% of our growth came from acquisitions. We struggled pretty significantly to grow the business organically. And in my 2.5 years there, our top-line revenue was basically flat. We made 6 acquisitions in my time there. And even with those 6 acquisitions, we stayed relatively flat around $150 million in top-line revenue.

RB: Correct, that's really helpful. Does your estimated business mix of 70% regulated medical waste, 20% mail-back, 7% pharmaceutical waste and 3% compliance reflect the revenue or gross profit and which segment generated the strongest returns over the customer relationship?

CH: So you're asking which segment had the strongest returns over the course of the relationship? Is that what you were saying?

RB: Yes, yes.

CH: I would say the mail-back was the strongest. They had the strongest margins and those customers were relatively stable. We didn't have nearly as much customer churn in that segment.

RB: Got it.

CH: So, RB: Yeah, CH: no, RB: go ahead.

CH: I just was ready for the next question.

RB: How did contribution margins and customer acquisition payback compare across mail-back when you said that mail-back was the strongest in terms of margin? Mail-back small quantity generators and hospitals?

CH: Yes. So for the mail-back business, the gross margins were around 45% to 50%. For the route-based medical waste, gross margins were 25% to 35%. What was the other stream you asked about?

RB: Yeah, so I would like to understand.

CH: Hospitals and SQ. Okay, for the small quantity generators, those margins were 55% to 60%. For the hospital generators, the margins were 10% to 15%.

RB: That's really helpful. Inside sales as largely ineffective. What was the biggest obstacle to converting prospects into profitable customers and which corrective action would have had generated the impact and what sales productivity or conversion benchmark would demonstrate improvement?

CH: The biggest hurdle to overcome was in the small quantity generator space. It was very competitive on price as well as service. So I don't know that I understand the question, though. You're saying what metric would demonstrate improvement? I'm not sure what you're asking.

RB: Yes, so CH: Not sure what you're asking, okay.

10/11/2026 at 11:28 AM UTC

RB: So given inside sales as largely ineffective, what was the biggest obstacle to converting prospects into profitable customers? That was the first question.

CH: Okay, let me answer that one first. So the biggest obstacle would have been in that space, converting was probably identifying the right prospects, having a good, strong pipeline of leads for that team. And then the fact that our competitors had actual field salespeople outgoing to customers physically versus calling them on the phone. They had better success with local sales strategy than we did with a decentralized or a centralized call center based strategy.

RB: Got it. That's really helpful. And the second part of the question was, which corrective action would have had the greatest impact and what sales productivity or conversion benchmark would demonstrate the improvement?

CH: I don't really have a good idea as far as what benchmark you would use. I think the thing that would need to change, you would need to add field salespeople.

RB: Got it. How far had the routing efficiency program progressed when you left and what actual improvements had it delivered?

CH: So we had developed all of the tools. We were in the process of rolling it out. We had rolled out several operations. We were probably 40% rolled out when I left. I know they do have it 100% rolled out now. We were seeing a 10% to 15%, really more like 15% to 20% improvement in stops per route day in the operations where it had been rolled out and implemented. And I believe they are continuing to see that level of improvement, so fully implemented, you're seeing a 15% to 20% productivity improvement in the efficiency of the route-based operation. Which was ahead of what we had planned and budgeted for, which was a 10% improvement.

RB: That's really helpful. During the wind-down, how dependent was Sharps on Baltimore incineration and third-party treatment facilities? And based on that exposure, how would you assess the potential impact of the Baltimore incineration wind-down?

CH: Well, the Baltimore incineration, the regional operations were somewhat dependent on it, but honestly, that facility operated so inefficiently that from an operations standpoint, I think the businesses will be better off. They're going to move that medical waste. They're going to process most of it in Petersburg at that site. They'll process some of it at the Nesquehoning site, which are both better run, more efficient facilities. The main impact that they're going to have is they are losing the ability to process all of the incineration waste streams. And they will now have to third- party that waste stream, which will be fairly expensive. It's also yet unknown what impact that could potentially have on customer relationships, meaning like some of their very large hospital customers were sold and signed with the concept that they wouldn't have to segregate their waste because everything was being incinerated, and now those customers are going to have to segregate waste into the proper classes, meaning you can't just lump everything together. Now that incinerate-only waste is going to have to be put in different containers. It's going to have to be handled differently. Pricing may have to change. So that sort of remains unseen as what impact that will have on their business and could they potentially lose some large customers like Geisinger Hospital in Pennsylvania that could be at risk. That remains to be seen. The vet school at North Carolina State University, they could lose that account. There's some potential risk that way, but I don't think from their day-to-day efficiency of processing waste, it'll add some additional logistics cost in moving that waste a little farther. But frankly, the cost and headache and hassle of operating that incinerator, it'll probably net out to be a positive gain to shut it.

RB: Correct, Christopher. That's really helpful. When we talk about the competitive positioning of Sharps, where do Sharps consistently win or lose against the competitors such as Daniels, WM, Stericycle, Trilogy, and regional providers?

10/11/2026 at 11:28 AM UTC

CH: They generally win against all of the larger providers. That is not their challenge. They're very competitive from a pricing and a service standpoint against Trilogy, Waste Management, Stericycle, Triumvirate, any of those companies. Where they are losing pretty consistently and pretty heavily is in the SQ space to smaller local and regional providers. Those companies are pretty consistently taking their small quantity business, and that's a big challenge because that's their most profitable stream. It is the main reason why their revenue isn't growing. That and the fact that they're not really growing the mailback business. It's been pretty stagnant for a while and it's very dependent on their large kind of anchor customers and they've not been able to add really significant amount of new customers. Hello?

RB: It has been. Yeah. Sorry.

CH: Okay.

RB: I was talking. Yeah. So on your earlier point around the customer churn, what most often caused customer churn and what directional annual retention range separated strong markets from an underperformer?

CH: So generally, customer churn was related to pricing, especially in that SQ space. Local competitors would simply come in to those customers and say, hey, what is Sharps charging you? We'll do it for 10% less. We'll do it for 20% less. And, you know, oftentimes, yeah, we could compete. We would offer to, okay, we'll match that pricing. But by then it was usually too late. They had signed a new agreement. Our agreements didn't necessarily have a lot of teeth in them that allowed us to push back on those small customers and say, hey, you have a contract with us. And it was individually, it was small amounts of spend, and they would just lie. They would say they were going out of business. They would say whatever, and we didn't really have a process to verify that or push back. So that was the main lever there that caused us to lose business in that space.

RB: Okay, following up, why just... Yes, go ahead, go ahead.

CH: And we weren't adding enough new business to overcome the churn rate. So we were losing more than we were winning pretty consistently.

RB: So on your point, the churn was due to pricing. How much cost inflation could Sharps recover through price increases or surcharges before retention deteriorated?

CH: Generally, we were able to pass along a 5% to 8% price increase annually without there being too much pushback. Honestly, for most customers, this is a relatively small spend in their overall budget. And as long as service is good, they usually won't change, especially in the medium to larger size accounts. They're not nearly as price sensitive as the smaller customers. And the smaller customers don't usually price shop. They don't really think about it, but if they get approached and someone offers them a good deal, they'll listen. So generally, you are able to be pretty consistent with that 8% to 10% or let's call it 5% to 10% on price increases without it really impacting your churn.

RB: Got it. That's really helpful. How did leadership turnover and the lack of clear growth strategy affect Sharps' day- to-day operations and execution of growth initiatives?

CH: Pretty significantly. There was never really a coherent growth strategy. There was a lot of talk of growth strategy, but we never really had one that was, you know, strongly implemented. They brought in a CEO, Kerry Jones, who was supposed to have this big growth strategy and had this background of growing businesses. And I don't know if he just never really got his arms around understanding the industry or the business. I can't really speak to that, but... We made some inroads in the large quantity space. We made some good hires in that space, although I believe those folks have left the company. But we were able to sign some hospitals, but we never really were able to make any

10/11/2026 at 11:28 AM UTC

traction in the SQ space. And frankly, I don't know that the executive team even really ever understood that that's why we were struggling. There was a thought that we, for some reason, had poor service and that's why we had churned, but none of the service metrics supported that. On-time service, customer satisfaction surveys, reasons for canceling, number of customer complaints; none of that data ever bore out that we had service challenges. It was pricing and it was our inability and ineffectiveness in signing new customers.

RB: Got it. That's really helpful. Which investment in fleet systems, staffing or treatment access would have generated the greatest operating return and what prevented it?

CH: Really, the biggest thing was we made significant investments in fleet and staffing around drivers. We didn't for a while and that was impacting us negatively. But towards the end of my time and after I left I know they did make some investments... they raised driver pay, they hired some more drivers, they implemented the route optimization solution, and all of those things have had pretty solid impacts on service and operational efficiency. The biggest challenge is there's some pretty significant investments needed into the processing sites. They're pretty inefficient when it comes to waste processing, container washing, those sort of things. And all of our CapEx was being eaten up by the incinerator. So we just, or rather, didn't have or didn't want to invest additional capital into the other facilities based on how much money we were having to put into the incinerator just to keep it compliant and operational.

RB: Got it. So on your point around turnover that we just discussed, what directional annual turnover rates did you observe among leadership and frontline employees? And how did this compare with the well-run medical waste operators?

CH: Well, for the leadership team, at the executive level, it's basically been 100% turnover multiple times over the last 3 years. They've gone through 3 CEOs. They've gone through multiple CFOs. They've gotten a new VP of HR and multiple operational leaders. I was VP of Operations. A couple of COOs have turned over. So there's been 100% turnover multiple times at the executive level. Frontline level, generally, our driver turnover was 30%, let's call it, which I would say was pretty around the industry standard. It's very difficult to retain drivers in that industry. They'll leave for a small raise usually and drivers are always in demand. So I would say frontline turnover was pretty in line with industry standards, but at the executive level, it was pretty significant.

RB: Got it. How dependent were Sharps on its large customers or geographic markets and where did concentration create the greatest risk?

CH: I would say in the Northeast was probably where the concentration created the greatest risk. Those markets were much more heavily weighted towards large hospital customers. When you got into the Southeast, Texas, Louisiana, those markets were a little more diversified with smaller customers. So, you know, that biggest risk would have been in Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia. Those markets were heavily weighted towards large hospital customers and losing any of those contracts would have a really significant impact on volume, revenue, profitability.

RB: Got it. So did acquisition in new geographies generate better returns than adding customers within existing routes?

CH: No, adding customers within existing routes was the most profitable way to grow the business. Acquisition, in my opinion, really only made sense from the standpoint of needing to grow geographically. Obviously there were parts of the country where we didn't have service and so when we could make an acquisition and enter a new market that made a lot of sense but the best growth strategy was to grow organically and create route density or improve your route density and the acquisitions that we made where they were like tuck-ins where we could add that density to existing routes. Those were the most profitable.

10/11/2026 at 11:28 AM UTC

RB: Got it. Almost reaching the time limit here, Christopher. But before we wrap up, just 1 question more. Based on your experience, what can be the strongest bull and bear cases for Sharps over the next 2 to 3 years? And which 3 operating indicators would you monitor first to assess whether growth and margins were improving sustainably?

CH: So can you ask that again? Like you said what growth levers?

RB: Yes, so based on your experience, what are the strongest bull and bear cases for Sharps over the next 2 to 3 years?

CH: Gotcha. Bull and bear cases. Okay.

RB: What can be the indicators? Yeah, go ahead.

CH: Yeah.

RB: Go ahead.

CH: The strongest bull case would be they get a coherent small quantity growth strategy. They lower their customer churn rate significantly, and they start to grow their top-line revenue. They do not have cost problems. They have wrung a lot of inefficiency and cost out of the business. They've created route density. They've improved operational efficiencies. Now they could do more of that in the plants, in the processing facilities with some capital investment and some automation, but they've done a significant amount already. They need revenue growth. And if they can get consistent 5% to 10% organic revenue growth, they should see margins improve in the route-based business, you know, by a pretty healthy amount because they would be able to ingest that growth without any significant cost increase. The bear side is they continue to shed SQ business. It continues to eat into their margin. They'll grow on the LQ side, but that is a long sales cycle. Adding those large hospitals can take 2 to 3 years, based on their contracts, the RFP process, plus the margins on those large accounts are much lower. And if they don't figure out the SQ strategy, they'll continue to be stagnant. They won't grow. They won't have the money to finance acquisition. The closing of the incinerator will cause them to lose more customers and they'll continue to shrink.

RB: Got it. And when you say for the bull cases, what direction and targets for organic growth, customer retention, and route contribution margin would support the bull case and what deterioration would signal the bear case?

CH: If they see 5% to 10% organic growth, that should generate route-based operating margins in the high 20s, low 30s. The customer retention would need to go to 90+%. The bear case would be flat growth, operating margins in the high teens, low 20s, and customer churn below 90%, or customer retention below 90%.

RB: Correct. I think we have covered most of the agenda here. Is there anything else that you would like to highlight and discuss which we haven't covered during the call for someone doing diligence on Sharps Medical Waste Services?

CH: Not at this time.

RB: Got it, Christopher. Thank you so much for your time today. It was a really insightful call and we will definitely follow up if we do more work here. Thank you again.

CH: Thank you very much.

RB: Have a great day ahead. Bye-bye.

10/11/2026 at 11:28 AM UTC

CH: You too. Bye-bye.

DISCLAIMER: The statements or opinions expressed today are those of the Advisor and not Guidepoint, who disclaims all liability for the content provided. The Advisor may not disclose material nonpublic or confidential information or any information that would cause the Advisor to breach any duty or obligations. Guidepoint is not a registered investment advisor and the information provided is not intended to constitute investment advice.

10/11/2026 at 11:28 AM UTC