It’s not easy
being green

As pharma wakes up to its environmental
responsibilities, which companies will lead the way?

Environmental sustainability is one of the great challenges of our age and healthcare companies, systems and organisations are adapting their operating practices.

This dynamic environment has prompted the Healthcare Communications Association (HCA) Foresight Committee to develop Going Green, a new report sharing insights on six themes exploring progress towards environmental sustainability in our sector.

We interviewed communication leaders in agency (from global network to small start-up) and biopharma (from top ten pharma to smaller biotech).

The report is not a large-scale survey, but gives valuable qualitative insights to inform discussion and support further progress.

The report highlights positive actions on environmental sustainability but a mixed picture on progress overall.

All but one biopharma interviewed had a net zero target, yet less than half of agencies had a target – although they were all working towards this aim.

Interviewees saw an important role for communication professionals internally and externally to help deliver environmental sustainability programmes, and to protect and enhance reputations.

The report also identifies areas for attention.

Opinion was divided on the importance of environmental sustainability to industry reputation. Scores ranged from 9/10 (high) to 2/10 (low) with a median of 5.

Some saw environmental sustainability as critical to industry reputation while others took a more nuanced view, arguing that payers cared but the public and other audiences less so.

Some thought pricing and commercial factors were of greater importance to reputation than environmental sustainability.

Biopharma companies and agencies all said internal management was a key driver of change to more environmentally sustainable practices – a natural part of companies seeking to be responsible corporate citizens.

Biopharma companies noted the influence of investors and healthcare system payers, with one saying investors were the single primary driver. Agencies uniformly referenced the strong pressure from biopharma client procurement teams, with some putting this ahead or equal to other factors.

All referenced pressure from staff as a secondary driver – and saw action as an important part of retaining and attracting talent.

There was significant variation in reported levels of readiness and priority towards environmental sustainability by biopharma companies.

This study is not a detailed operational benchmarking of readiness, and all the biopharma companies interviewed have dedicated expert teams and policies in place.

Nevertheless, it is significant that some leading communicators (speaking anonymously) expressed reservations about readiness and priority within their companies, while others felt very confident.

Biopharma interviewees scored their companies between 9/10 (high) and 4/10 (low) on readiness (median of 6). On the priority being given to sustainability by biopharma, scores ranged from 10/10 to 3/10 (median of 6).

Agencies felt less prepared than biopharma companies. Only two of the five agencies interviewed had a net zero target (a B Corp and a global network).

Some agencies said they had policies in place while others were still developing plans. Even those with policies expressed caution about their level of preparedness, with work still to do on robust evidence development and measurement, for example.

A theme in most agency interviews was the small size of their businesses, the pressure on management time and the capability for non-specialist leaders to handle this complex area.

Agency scores on readiness varied between 7/10 and 3/10 (median of 6). On the level of priority given to environmental sustainability, agencies scored from 8/10 to 4/10 (median of 6).

All but one of the biopharma companies (a smaller biotech) had a net zero target.

Most biopharma interviewees said their companies had progress and performance accreditations globally. Most, but not all, used independent audit for regular ESG reporting.

Programmes were driven at a global level, and some interviewees noted that information on actions and evidence at an affiliate or sub-global level was not yet available.

All agencies interviewed held EcoVadis accreditation. Over half were also involved in other initiatives and accreditations to support policies and measurement, including B Corp status, Science Based Targets Initiative and ISO 14001 Environmental Management System.

One agency challenged the robustness of the measurement, calculations and modelling behind some targets and accreditations – wanting them to be more robust before putting a plan and target around them.

Agency leaders expressed frustration at the different approaches to accreditation from biopharma clients, and the burden this placed on agencies (especially SMEs) to maintain multiple accreditations.

Interviews reported that most, but not all, client companies recognise EcoVadis, and recognition of other accreditations including B Corp and SBTI is variable.

When asked about the implementation of greater environmental sustainability practices, biopharma companies noted operational and technical barriers to achieving goals.

Regarding communications, all biopharma published a report annually on their environmentally sustainability and include environmental messages in corporate narratives and communications materials.

All actively engage with investors and payers on sustainability, but the interviews revealed variation in the level of engagement with other external stakeholders.

About half were proactive with a wider group including prescribers, policymakers, industry forums, NGOs, the general public and other stakeholders – and brought environmental sustainability into product brand messaging where appropriate and relevant.

Those who scored high levels of readiness and priority also said their companies were running campaigns and communication and stakeholder initiatives on environmental sustainability.

Interviewees for biopharma companies with lower scores on readiness and priority recognised that communications were at a minimum. Resistance to change within the company was noted as a barrier by one interviewee.

Another said they celebrate Earth Day but was aware that people internally questioned how sincere the company was – whether it was about being seen to celebrate the day.

When asked about useful tools, some pointed to the need for education about why companies should invest in environmentally sustainable practices and why companies should embed a green mindset internally.

One person from a high readiness and priority biopharma company challenged the sector to fully engage in the agenda and avoid ‘greenwashing’.

Another from a US company explained the company was taking strong action on environmental sustainability but its headquarters was reluctant to communicate the company’s achievements out of fear of being called “woke”.

Agency leaders noted the complexity of the area and the challenge for non-specialist management lacking full-time specialist support.

Only one agency (a global network) had a full-time specialist employee to support environmental sustainability changes. Other agencies used external consultants and some expressed concern at differing advice from consultants.

All agencies reported strong pressure from biopharma client procurement teams to deliver carbon reductions and sign up to targets.

Office buildings and flights were cited as the major cause of emissions in agency footprints. Interviewees argued that many agencies use rented or managed offices and often have little ability to make short- or even medium-term changes.

A comment made by several agencies was that clients continue to require agency teams to fly to international meetings despite the impact on carbon reduction targets and the potential contradiction with procurement requirements.

Agency leaders noted a lack of awareness by day-to-day clients of the environmental sustainability requirements placed upon agencies by their procurement colleagues.
One described this as a parallel universe, and another said the client’s instruction was to ignore the carbon reduction targets from procurement.

Two agency leaders highlighted a potential conflict between meeting client carbon reduction goals and driving substantial future growth of their businesses.

All saw an important role for communicators in driving a more sustainable future.

Externally, it was argued that communication of a company’s environmental sustainability actions builds understanding and trust to better engage corporate stakeholders and customers and attract talent. It was seen by some as a potentially important differentiator for their company.

Internally, two roles were noted. First, to motivate employees and drive change programmes. Second, to support management and specialist teams in ensuring environmental sustainability plans are robust enough to withstand stakeholder scrutiny.

Biopharma companies reported that communications on environmental sustainability are often held globally, with variation in the proactivity of communications from global, the involvement and empowerment of affiliates and the availability of messaging at local levels.

Among the agencies, only the B Corp proactively communicated externally about its environmental sustainability position and initiatives. All other agencies wished to strengthen their data and goals before communicating.

Andrew Harrison is Communications Consultant and member of Healthcare Communications Association’s Foresight Committee.
To view report go to the-hca.org