澳大利亚十大制药公司碳减排计划中的责任、雄心和可量化行动:横截面分析。

IF 8.5 2区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL Medical Journal of Australia Pub Date : 2025-03-04 DOI:10.5694/mja2.52621
Hayden Burch, Georgia Brown, Oliver Adler, Jason Wong, Kenneth D Winkel
{"title":"澳大利亚十大制药公司碳减排计划中的责任、雄心和可量化行动:横截面分析。","authors":"Hayden Burch,&nbsp;Georgia Brown,&nbsp;Oliver Adler,&nbsp;Jason Wong,&nbsp;Kenneth D Winkel","doi":"10.5694/mja2.52621","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objectives</h3>\n \n <p>To assess the commitment of the ten largest pharmaceutical companies operating in Australia to achieving net zero emissions by evaluating their accountability metrics, ambitions, and quantifiable actions taken.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Study design</h3>\n \n <p>Cross-sectional study; analysis of publicly available company reports published during 12 December 2015 – 31 December 2023.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Setting, participants</h3>\n \n <p>Ten largest pharmaceutical companies operating in Australia, defined by total pharmaceutical costs (to patients and Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme) for PBS-subsidised medications, as reported in PBS expenditure and prescriptions reports for 2020–21 and 2022–23.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Main outcome measures</h3>\n \n <p>Content analysis of publicly available documents for the ten companies using modified criteria from the PricewaterhouseCoopers <i>Building blocks for net zero transformation framework</i>, with three domains: accountability, ambition, and action; the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) grading; the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) approval system. We focused on measurement, target setting, and achievement of emission reductions, and ranked the environmental sustainability of companies using a points and colour coding system.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Three groups could be defined by evidence of their commitment to emissions reductions. The first — companies leading emissions reduction efforts, with SBTi-approved near term targets, consistent emissions monitoring, well defined commitments, and quantified evidence of action — includes AstraZeneca, Novartis, Johnson &amp; Johnson, Bayer, and Merck &amp; Co. The second group — companies that had made commitments to SBTi-approved targets but their disclosure records are limited — includes AbbVie and Roche. The third group — without public commitments to achieving net zero emissions, minimal or no SBTi-approved targets, and minimal disclosure or monitoring of emissions — includes Viatris, Vertex, and Arrotex.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>The ten largest pharmaceutical companies in Australia are moving towards net zero greenhouse gas emissions at different rates. Gaps in standardised reporting processes should be closed, and further qualitative research on industry-wide environmental sustainability policy and practice is needed.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":18214,"journal":{"name":"Medical Journal of Australia","volume":"222 6","pages":"305-312"},"PeriodicalIF":8.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.5694/mja2.52621","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Accountability, ambition, and quantifiable action in the carbon emission reduction plans of the ten largest pharmaceutical companies in Australia: a cross-sectional analysis\",\"authors\":\"Hayden Burch,&nbsp;Georgia Brown,&nbsp;Oliver Adler,&nbsp;Jason Wong,&nbsp;Kenneth D Winkel\",\"doi\":\"10.5694/mja2.52621\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Objectives</h3>\\n \\n <p>To assess the commitment of the ten largest pharmaceutical companies operating in Australia to achieving net zero emissions by evaluating their accountability metrics, ambitions, and quantifiable actions taken.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Study design</h3>\\n \\n <p>Cross-sectional study; analysis of publicly available company reports published during 12 December 2015 – 31 December 2023.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Setting, participants</h3>\\n \\n <p>Ten largest pharmaceutical companies operating in Australia, defined by total pharmaceutical costs (to patients and Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme) for PBS-subsidised medications, as reported in PBS expenditure and prescriptions reports for 2020–21 and 2022–23.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Main outcome measures</h3>\\n \\n <p>Content analysis of publicly available documents for the ten companies using modified criteria from the PricewaterhouseCoopers <i>Building blocks for net zero transformation framework</i>, with three domains: accountability, ambition, and action; the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) grading; the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) approval system. We focused on measurement, target setting, and achievement of emission reductions, and ranked the environmental sustainability of companies using a points and colour coding system.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>Three groups could be defined by evidence of their commitment to emissions reductions. The first — companies leading emissions reduction efforts, with SBTi-approved near term targets, consistent emissions monitoring, well defined commitments, and quantified evidence of action — includes AstraZeneca, Novartis, Johnson &amp; Johnson, Bayer, and Merck &amp; Co. The second group — companies that had made commitments to SBTi-approved targets but their disclosure records are limited — includes AbbVie and Roche. The third group — without public commitments to achieving net zero emissions, minimal or no SBTi-approved targets, and minimal disclosure or monitoring of emissions — includes Viatris, Vertex, and Arrotex.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\\n \\n <p>The ten largest pharmaceutical companies in Australia are moving towards net zero greenhouse gas emissions at different rates. Gaps in standardised reporting processes should be closed, and further qualitative research on industry-wide environmental sustainability policy and practice is needed.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":18214,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Medical Journal of Australia\",\"volume\":\"222 6\",\"pages\":\"305-312\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":8.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.5694/mja2.52621\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Medical Journal of Australia\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.5694/mja2.52621\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Journal of Australia","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.5694/mja2.52621","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目标:通过评估在澳大利亚运营的十大制药公司的问责制指标、目标和采取的可量化行动,评估其实现净零排放的承诺。研究设计:横断面研究;对2015年12月12日至2023年12月31日期间发布的公开公司报告进行分析。环境,参与者:澳大利亚10家最大的制药公司,根据PBS补贴药物的总制药成本(对患者和药物福利计划)定义,如PBS支出和处方报告中报告的2020-21和2022-23。主要成果衡量标准:使用普华永道净零转型框架构建模块的修改标准,对10家公司的公开文件进行内容分析,包括三个领域:问责制、雄心和行动;碳披露项目(CDP)分级;科学减排倡议(SBTi)审批制度。我们专注于测量、目标设定和减排成果,并使用分数和颜色编码系统对公司的环境可持续性进行排名。结果:根据他们对减排承诺的证据,可以定义为三个群体。第一类是领导减排努力的公司,它们拥有sbti批准的近期目标、一致的排放监测、明确的承诺和量化的行动证据,包括阿斯利康、诺华、强生、拜耳和默克公司。第二类是承诺实现sbti批准的目标,但披露记录有限的公司,包括艾伯维和罗氏。第三类企业包括Viatris、Vertex和Arrotex,它们没有公开承诺实现净零排放,很少或没有sbti批准的目标,也很少披露或监测排放。结论:澳大利亚最大的10家制药公司正以不同的速度朝着温室气体净零排放迈进。应消除标准化报告程序中的差距,并需要对全行业环境可持续性政策和做法进行进一步的定性研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Accountability, ambition, and quantifiable action in the carbon emission reduction plans of the ten largest pharmaceutical companies in Australia: a cross-sectional analysis

Objectives

To assess the commitment of the ten largest pharmaceutical companies operating in Australia to achieving net zero emissions by evaluating their accountability metrics, ambitions, and quantifiable actions taken.

Study design

Cross-sectional study; analysis of publicly available company reports published during 12 December 2015 – 31 December 2023.

Setting, participants

Ten largest pharmaceutical companies operating in Australia, defined by total pharmaceutical costs (to patients and Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme) for PBS-subsidised medications, as reported in PBS expenditure and prescriptions reports for 2020–21 and 2022–23.

Main outcome measures

Content analysis of publicly available documents for the ten companies using modified criteria from the PricewaterhouseCoopers Building blocks for net zero transformation framework, with three domains: accountability, ambition, and action; the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) grading; the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) approval system. We focused on measurement, target setting, and achievement of emission reductions, and ranked the environmental sustainability of companies using a points and colour coding system.

Results

Three groups could be defined by evidence of their commitment to emissions reductions. The first — companies leading emissions reduction efforts, with SBTi-approved near term targets, consistent emissions monitoring, well defined commitments, and quantified evidence of action — includes AstraZeneca, Novartis, Johnson & Johnson, Bayer, and Merck & Co. The second group — companies that had made commitments to SBTi-approved targets but their disclosure records are limited — includes AbbVie and Roche. The third group — without public commitments to achieving net zero emissions, minimal or no SBTi-approved targets, and minimal disclosure or monitoring of emissions — includes Viatris, Vertex, and Arrotex.

Conclusions

The ten largest pharmaceutical companies in Australia are moving towards net zero greenhouse gas emissions at different rates. Gaps in standardised reporting processes should be closed, and further qualitative research on industry-wide environmental sustainability policy and practice is needed.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Medical Journal of Australia
Medical Journal of Australia 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
9.40
自引率
5.30%
发文量
410
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Medical Journal of Australia (MJA) stands as Australia's foremost general medical journal, leading the dissemination of high-quality research and commentary to shape health policy and influence medical practices within the country. Under the leadership of Professor Virginia Barbour, the expert editorial team at MJA is dedicated to providing authors with a constructive and collaborative peer-review and publication process. Established in 1914, the MJA has evolved into a modern journal that upholds its founding values, maintaining a commitment to supporting the medical profession by delivering high-quality and pertinent information essential to medical practice.
期刊最新文献
Australian Consensus Statement on the Prevention and Management of Frailty Among Community-Dwelling Older Adults: A Modified Delphi Study. Fatty Liver Disease in Australia: A Narrative Review on the Epidemiology, Natural History, Prognostication and Management in People With Metabolic Dysfunction. Erratum. Australian Climate Leadership in 2026: COP-Out or Step-Up for Health? Chronic Kidney Disease and Unmet Needs for Comprehensive Rehabilitation in Australia.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1