COVID-19 vaccine providers score highly in the sustainability game, but not without a few blemishes
Learn a bit more about the companies behind the vaccines in your arms.
We look at the sustainability credentials of 5 top vaccine providers through our sustainability data analysis tool to see what insights we could glean about the companies we are putting so much trust in
COVID-19 vaccine providers score highly in the sustainability game
My 30 year old younger sister is getting the COVID jab before me. She lives in the UK, and simply booked an appointment with her GP to get the vaccine this coming week. I asked her if she knew what she was getting, AstraZeneca, Pfizer or Moderna.
She said she won’t know until she is sitting in the chair. She seems pretty relaxed about what she gets, which is surprising to me given the Australian Government's advised preference for Pfizer for her age bracket. She is just grateful to be getting vaccinated full stop.
Back home it’s hard not to be influenced by the Pfizer vs. AstraZeneca debates around side-effects and efficacy. The confusion about increased blood clotting risk in AstraZeneca is fuelling vaccine hesitancy across the country.
I don't have a medical background, and cannot make an informed call on whether I prefer a mRNA jab over a vector vaccine. I have to trust that the Australian government, directed by experts, knows what is best.
But to trust is not to blindly follow. Whatever jab you end up getting, if indeed you do get a jab, it’s good to know a bit more about the companies behind the vaccines.
We ran the top vaccine makers through our sustainability data analysis tool to see what insights we could glean about the companies we are putting so much trust in.
A sustainability analysis of the top COVID -19 vaccine providers
It turns out that saving lives, or at least making the vaccines that save lives, is pretty much as sustainable as you can get.
All of the 5 top vaccine providers analysed scored well above the Sustainable Platform database average (over 18,000+ companies listed globally), with a group average score of 84. The leader in the group, US-based Moderna, actually scored an astounding 99/100.
Following Moderna is the German biotechnology company BioNTech, which of course partnered with Pfizer to roll-out its mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccination. BioNTech scores a very high 96/100, while it’s partner Pfizer Inc, lags somewhat at 72. Why such a low score for a company that is in other respects, applaudably sustainable?
Pfizer
The SDG score represents the NET contribution of a company towards the UN Sustainable Development Goals.
It is measured by positive SDG product & service sales minus the controversial industry exposure (in this case there is none).
It also subtracts a proportion for each fine or equivalent violation the company has received. And there’s the rub. Pfizer has had A LOT of violations in the last 5 years, all with pretty hefty fines.
Take for example the $784 million fine Pfizer had to pay because of the fraudulent behaviour of a company it acquired, Wyeth. Talk about poor due diligence.
But remember that Pfizer’s 72 SDG Score is still a very good score and above the database average (of 50). They have made good sustainability strides in many areas.
You can read all about Pfizer’s ‘green journey’; and how they have met their targets for reducing their of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, waste and water three years running.
They are also signatory to several charters designed to support international EHS and sustainability principles, like the UN Global Compact for example, which we are also a participant of.
AstraZeneca
AstraZeneca actually scores higher than Pfizer, at 88, but they too have had several corporate violations.
Some of these violations resulted in fines which ranged from $110 million for false claims in 2018 to $4 million for kickbacks and bribery in 2016.
But again, that is only one side of the picture. AstraZeneca have done other good things - last year committing to become zero carbon by 2025 across operational sites and fleet without carbon credits, and carbon negative in their value chain by 2030.
So those activities, along with its provision of health needs, contribute to its positive sustainable impact.
Johnson & Johnson
Bringing up the rear with an SDG score of 63 is Johnson & Johnson, another culprit of corporate violations.
Their violations range in theme from drug and medical equipment safety violations, false claims act violations to workplace safety, and wage and hour violations.
At the same time, Johnson & Johnson may also take away from sustainable development targets to a minor extent as it has some exposure to Opioids (estimated at 2.6%) in its value chain.
*All SDG score and data are provided by Sustainable Platform based on data as at 23 June 2021.
Top contributing goals
Of all the 17 SDGs, the listed recruitment companies analysed contribute most to these below goals:
SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being
SDG 5: Gender Equality
SDG 9: Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure
Find out more about the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).
Sustainable Platform is a sustainability information service only to institutional investors and doesn’t provide general or personal financial advice.