AstraZeneca scores 9 points higher than Pfizer on SINK.
AstraZeneca is more sustainable according to SINK's scores, scoring 48/100 vs Pfizer's 39/100, a difference of 9 points.
Pfizer scores 39/100 on SINK (Below expectations). Pfizer discloses robust climate data with GHG Protocol alignment and SBTi validation, but progress is dire: only 15% of its 46% emissions reduction target achieved by 2024, renewable energy stuck at 14% despite RE100 membership, and hazardous waste flat since 2022. Critically, Pfizer's climate messaging is undermined by active membership in trade associations (US Chamber, NAM) that lobby against climate policy.
AstraZeneca scores 48/100 on SINK (Making progress). AstraZeneca has cut operational emissions 88% since 2015, but Scope 3 has risen 24% above baseline and now comprises 99% of total footprint. Supply-chain engagement targets were missed, near-term climate goals were weakened in July 2026, and nature restoration is substantially off track. Transparency and third-party assurance are solid; the core problem is physics—absolute emissions are rising.
Both companies are rated on the same 10-question SINK rubric: Scope 1/2/3 carbon footprint, energy source, nature and biodiversity, resource use, water, emissions trajectory, science-based targets, transparency, and controversies. Scores are 0–100, based on public data, and fully reproducible.
See the full leaderboard: 1,023 companies ranked.
View the full leaderboard →