Pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies today face a paradox: while they develop therapies that prolong and improve life, they help threaten the ecosystems on which global health depends.<\/p>\n
The life sciences sector generates emissions comparable to those of a medium-sized nation,<\/strong> and more than 90 percent of the climate-changing gases attributable to a company are not directly dependent on it. In a world that, albeit amid continual slowdowns and second thoughts, has now embarked on the – compulsory – road to sustainability, decarbonization is no longer a choice, but a basic requirement for maintaining sufficient levels of competitiveness and attractiveness to customers and financiers.<\/p>\n The first option is to start with the basics: reduce directly produced emissions,<\/strong> what are called Scope 1 and 2. While cutting 59 percent of its emissions compared to 2015 by replacing fossil energy sources with renewable electricity in all its plants, AstraZeneca<\/strong> in 2020, announced a billion-dollar plan<\/strong> to achieve zero emissions by 2025 and a carbon negative goal for the entire value chain by 2030. Johnson & Johnson<\/strong> has also followed a similar path, installing, for example, 56 MW of solar and wind power plants, through which it has saved the Planet 260,000 tons of CO\u2082 per year<\/strong>.<\/p>\n . According to McKinsey, in the category of purchased goods and services, which accounts for about 50 percent of total industry emissions, raw materials-including APIs, excipients and process chemicals-account for 70 percent of emissions,<\/strong> equivalent to about 35 percent of the total. The remaining 30% is mainly attributable to packaging materials.<\/p>\n GSK and AstraZeneca<\/strong> (whose Scope 3 emissions account for more than 90% of the total) have initiated programs to replace the climate-impactful gas normally used in inhalers with more sustainable alternatives (such as HFO-1234ze propellant) that can reduce emissions by 99.9%.<\/strong><\/p>\n Eli Lilly<\/strong>, on the other hand, has introduced an ESG rating system for suppliers, tying 30% of purchases to sustainability criteria<\/strong> by 2025. A similar system is being applied by Chiesi<\/strong>: the Italian big pharma also evaluates its suppliers on environmental and social criteria (e.g., through the EcoVadis platform),guaranteeing that 95 percent of purchases are from partners subject to this assessment<\/strong>. It was awarded the EcoVadis Platinum Award in 2023, placing it in the top 1% of the most virtuous companies globally.<\/p>\n Cleanrooms represent a major source of energy consumption<\/strong> in pharmaceutical plants, contributing up to 67% of a plant’s total energy consumption<\/strong>. The main cause is the HVAC (Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning) systems required to maintain the controlled environmental conditions required by GMP regulations.<\/p>\n To address this challenge, many companies are adopting innovative solutions, such as implementing intelligent airflow control systems<\/strong> that can halve the energy consumption of fans by dynamically adapting the air exchange rate. Roche<\/strong>, for example, has undertaken such a project since 2004 reducing greenhouse gas emissions<\/strong> by 59% (while revenues more than doubled over the same period).<\/p>\n According to Accenture<\/strong>, however, there is still room for improvement:only 9 percent of the largest companies globally use advanced tools<\/strong> (such as artificial intelligence) to track the carbon footprint of second- and third-tier suppliers. Not surprisingly, the percentage of companies active in life sciences in line with the net zero operating goal by 2050 stands at 23 percent.<\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Despite the progress made in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, there is still plenty of room for improvement for companies committed to the transition to net-zero.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":23103,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[792],"tags":[695],"class_list":{"0":"post-23104","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-esg-en","8":"tag-sustainability"},"yoast_head":"\nClean Energy<\/h2>\n
The Scope 3 Challenge<\/h2>\n
\nMore than 90 percent of emissions, however, are not emitted directly by the company<\/strong> but are part of what is known as Scope 3, a term for the complex of GHGs generated throughout a company’s supply chain, outside of its direct control: they include upstream (production of raw materials, transportation of suppliers, etc.) and downstream (use of products by customers, disposal) activities. Managing these emissions is a complex challenge, but not impossible.<\/p>\nSustainable Ingredients<\/h2>\n
Involving suppliers<\/h2>\n
Energy efficiency in cleanrooms<\/h2>\n
There is still room for improvement<\/h2>\n