Add us as a preferred source
Courtney Soulsby, healthcare development director at BSI, writes that climate action is becoming a business resilience imperative for pharmaceuticals
For pharmaceutical companies, climate change is moving from the sustainability agenda to become a defining business resilience challenge. For years, sustainability was viewed as a long-term corporate ambition. But as climate-related disruption grows, the industry’s ability to manufacture, transport and deliver medicines increasingly depends on how effectively it prepares for a changing world. Leaders increasingly recognise that building resilience is essential to maintaining access to medicines.
Almost nine in ten (87%) pharmaceutical organisations surveyed in BSI’s 2026 G7 Temperature Check expect climate-related disruption to their supply chains to increase in the years ahead. For an industry built on reliability, quality and patient safety, this should serve as a warning.
Pharmaceutical supply chains are among the most complex and tightly regulated in the world, making them particularly exposed to disruption. From sourcing raw materials and active ingredients to manufacturing, storage and distribution, every stage of the value chain depends on stability, predictability and efficiency. Climate change threatens all three.
Significant challenges
Extreme weather events can disrupt manufacturing facilities and critical transport infrastructure, creating significant challenges for supply chains. Access to high-quality water is essential for many manufacturing processes, yet water availability is already under pressure in a growing number of high-risk water basins. Rising temperatures also present new risks to the efficacy and stability of temperature-sensitive medicines during storage and transportation, particularly in low- and middle-income countries experiencing more frequent and severe heat events. Despite these emerging challenges, the impact of climate change on medicine stability has yet to be fully reflected in the eco-design and development of new treatments. Flooding, drought and other severe weather events can further exacerbate existing vulnerabilities, leading to supply delays, disruptions in access to medicines and increased uncertainty for healthcare systems and population health outcomes worldwide.
It is hardly surprising, therefore, that nearly nine in ten pharmaceutical leaders surveyed are concerned about the resilience and cost implications of failing to prepare for climate change. More than three-quarters (78%) say their net zero programmes are critical to future business resilience, while eight in ten (82%) believe the risks of failing to transition outweigh the costs of taking action.
The business case for climate action is increasingly inseparable from the case for resilience. Encouragingly, the industry is responding; ninety-six per cent of leaders remain committed to achieving net zero in line with national targets, and more than a third (37%) expect to increase investment in net zero initiatives over the next year. Perhaps most tellingly, 71% say they will continue their net zero efforts regardless of political conditions because they see sustainable practices as fundamentally good for business.
Customers are already a powerful driver of change. More than four in five respondents (83%) cite customer expectations as a key factor influencing their sustainability strategies, while 82% point to a broader commitment to building a more sustainable future. Other drivers for action include healthcare systems’ procurement requirements, investor expectations and emerging regulation, including environmental risk assessment that is directly connected to market approval.
However, ambition alone is not enough. Organisations need a clear understanding of their environmental impacts and opportunities for improvement. This is where standards play an important role in turning ambition into action. One of the challenges facing the pharmaceutical sector has been the lack of consistency in how environmental impacts are measured, and hotspots are identified.
Organisations increasingly want to assess the footprint of medicines across their entire lifecycle, from raw material extraction and manufacturing through to distribution and disposal. Yet different methodologies can make meaningful comparisons difficult and limit organisations’ ability to make informed decisions.
Consistent methodology
The specification for pharmaceutical products, product category rules for environmental lifecycle assessments (PAS 2090), aims to address this challenge by providing a consistent methodology. Without a common approach to measurement, it becomes harder to identify the greatest opportunities for improvement, benchmark performance or make informed procurement decisions. Importantly, a common framework enables organisations to identify environmental hotspots, benchmark performance and prioritise interventions that can deliver both sustainability and resilience benefits.
Yet measurement is only the first step. Insights from a recent BSI roundtable suggest that many pharmaceutical leaders are now moving beyond identifying climate-related risks and are beginning to focus on how resilience can be embedded operationally. While organisations increasingly understand their climate exposure, adaptation has not yet been consistently integrated into governance structures, investment decisions, supplier management strategies and day-to-day operations. As a result, a significant gap remains between understanding climate risks and translating that understanding into measurable resilience outcomes. Net zero plan are far overshadowing their relatively immature efforts towards adaptation.
Closing that gap will be critical. As climate-related disruption becomes more frequent and severe, organisations that successfully embed adaptation will maintain continuity, protect patient access to medicines and respond to future risks.
