McKesson sustainability score: 33/100
Better than 0% of Healthcare / Pharmaceuticals
Making progress starts at 46. The highest score on SINK is 71.
McKesson is a US pharmaceutical and medical-supply distributor headquartered in Irving, Texas, sitting between drug manufacturers and pharmacies, hospitals and clinics. Incorporated in Delaware in 1994, it had about 43,000 employees and $403.4 billion in FY2026 revenue.
Founded 1994Head office Irving, Texas, United StatesStaff ~43,000 (FY2026)Revenue $403,430M revenues (FY2026)Website ↗
McKesson's Scope 1 and 2 emissions are falling with Deloitte assurance, but its stated Scope 3, about 99% of its footprint, rose 38% from FY2020 to 35.2 Mt in FY2026. It has SBTi-approved near-term targets but no net-zero target, no biodiversity or nature-risk disclosure, and no water target although about 91% of its water is drawn in water-stressed states. It is a liable party at 12 Superfund sites.
McKesson scores 33/100 (Below expectations) on SINK's independent climate assessment, scored from public data only. Scores are free. Nobody can pay to change a score, speed it up or hide it. Last verified October 2026.
That places McKesson joint 629th of 1,023 companies scored, and joint 20th of 21 in Healthcare / Pharmaceuticals.
What is McKesson doing well, and where does it fall short?
Strongest on Carbon Footprint: Operations and Carbon Footprint: Supply Chain (8/10, 7/10). Weakest on Nature & Biodiversity Impact and Emissions Trajectory (2/10, 3/10).
Where McKesson lost points
For each question that lost points, the evidence our public rubric looks for that we didn't find.
What would raise this score
- Its effect on natureAssess its effect on nature and publish a basic environmental policy.
- Whether its emissions are fallingShow its emissions are falling.
- Its effect on waterMonitor its water use and take measures to reduce it.
Every question that lost points
- Emissions from its own operations8/10No verified figures published with their method and a falling trend.
- Emissions from its supply chain7/10No full value-chain map or supplier engagement programme.
- Whether its emissions are falling3/10No evidence its emissions are falling.
- How clean its energy is4/10Less than half its energy shown to be renewable, or no transition plan.
- Its effect on nature2/10No assessment of its effect on nature, and no basic environmental policy.
- How it uses materials and handles waste4/10No measurable waste or recycling targets reported publicly.
- Its effect on water3/10No monitoring of water use, or no measures to reduce it.
- Its climate targets7/10No validated long-term net zero target.
- How openly it reports6/10No mission-locked structure, such as B Corp certification.
- Its record on controversies5/10Points deducted for controversies or its business model. The finding is under question 10.
A score changes when the evidence does. We use new published evidence at the next rescore. Anyone can send us new evidence, free. How to send it.
How is McKesson's SINK score calculated?
Same ten questions for every company. No private weighting.
SINK = (0.3 × Base + 0.7 × Performance) × ScaleHas McKesson's score changed?
McKesson's score has been reviewed 2 times and currently stands where it started, at 33.
- 33 → 337 November 2026
Correction, 7 November 2026: removed a related-company note naming a customer, supplier or partner without a source. Score unchanged.
- Scored 3321 October 2026
Initial public score 33 (publish-draft)
What evidence is McKesson's score based on?
11 sources used in this assessment. All publicly available. Each row shows which of the ten questions it informed.
45% of them were published by McKesson itself; the rest come from independent sources.
“Direct (Scope 1) GHG emissions 88,219 72,223 68,287”
“Direct (Scope 1) GHG emissions 88,219 72,223 68,287”
“renewable electricity procurement and use, and transportation efficiency improvements.”
“McKesson requires suppliers to align with its greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction targets”
“Reduce absolute scope one and two GHG emissions 50.4% by FY 2032 from a FY 2020 base year”
“Ensure 70% of McKesson suppliers, by spend covering purchased goods and services, will have their own SBTi-approved GHG reduction targets by FY 2027.”
“has received approval by the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) for its near-term climate change targets”
“periodically reviews its memberships in trade associations who may engage in policy advocacy”
“Such policies and laws may necessitate reductions in greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions”
“Brian S. Tyler, Ph.D. is chief executive officer of McKesson Corporation.”
“a roughly 3 MW solar facility on McKesson’s distribution center in Robbinsville, N.J.”
If you believe a source has been misread or a newer version exists, submit a challenge.
Is this your company? Claim this profile (free)
Use this score in tenders
Send the link, or the one-page score sheet. It links back to this page and every source. Free.
Open the score sheet →Send new evidence, free
Scored low because little is published? Publish what you do and send us the link, free. If it holds up, your score changes, and the change is logged on your page.
How to send evidence →Put your score on your website, free
It shows the current band, sector rank and score, and links to this page, so it changes when the score does.
Track this score
Bidding for a public contract? Check if you need a Carbon Reduction Plan, free →
Want your own page like this?
Free, independent, every source shown. Send it to any buyer who asks about your sustainability.
How does McKesson compare with other healthcare / pharmaceuticals companies?
McKesson is tied at the bottom of the healthcare / pharmaceuticals pack.
Among the 21 major healthcare / pharmaceuticals brands we've scored, McKesson is tied =20th of 21, with 1 other.
Who scores higher in Healthcare / Pharmaceuticals?
The 3 companies in the sector scoring nearest above McKesson.
AbbVie has quantified Scope 1 and 2 emissions with third-party assurance, but Scope 3 remains unmeasured across a global pharmaceutical supply chain.
See the breakdown →CVS Health's Scope 1 and 2 emissions are down 43% since 2019 with reasonable assurance, though Scope 1 rose in 2025, and its Scope 3 total of 26.3 Mt has not fallen steadily.
See the breakdown →Cardinal Health reports Scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions with third-party assurance, but its Scope 1 and 2 are only 17% below FY2019 against a 50% cut targeted for FY2030.
See the breakdown →Which companies moved this week, and why.
One email, every Sunday. Score changes, new research, the stories behind the numbers. Free.
We'll send one email to confirm. No spam. Unsubscribe in one click.
Checking a company?
Search free →Asked to prove you're sustainable?
Get your business scored, free →Been scored?
Find your page and claim it, free →Scores are free. Nobody can pay to change a score, speed it up or hide it.