CPHI Americas: The Business Case for Product Carbon Footprints in Pharma

Requests for carbon emissions data from customers or procurement teams may have once seemed peripheral to the core business. That is changing rapidly. At CPHI Americas 2026, sustainability consultant David Vázquez, climate principal consultant, Nexius Projects, laid out a clear picture of why product carbon footprints (PCFs), the emissions associated with a product across its entire lifecycle, are moving from voluntary best practice to a baseline commercial and regulatory expectation.

The distinction between corporate-level emissions reporting and product-level carbon accounting matters significantly for suppliers in the pharmaceutical value chain, noted Vázquez. Corporate reporting captures the emissions associated with running operations, energy use, fleets, and facilities. A product carbon footprint, by contrast, traces emissions from raw material extraction through to end-of-life waste management. For a packaging supplier to a pharmaceutical manufacturer, for example, that means accounting for every stage from the sourcing of raw materials through to how the packaging is ultimately disposed of. As Vázquez put it, “A product carbon footprint helps us to understand the impacts on climate of that specific product and understand exactly at which stage of the value chain the impact is higher, so that we can use them to make decisions."

When a pharmaceutical company has committed to science-based emissions targets or must comply with frameworks such as the European Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive or California's climate disclosure regulation, the data gaps almost always sit in what is classified as Scope 3, indirect emissions generated across the value chain, including purchased goods and services.

AstraZeneca's release of a supplier guide in April requiring carbon data from its supply base is one visible example of how this expectation is being operationalized, according to Vázquez. The National Health Service in the UK has similarly introduced supplier emissions reporting requirements, and France is set to implement regulation mandating that companies supplying medicines to hospitals provide detailed, high-quality product carbon footprints. "This is not something that is done just to tick a box," Vázquez noted. "It is something that is currently growing and has large focus from regulators and also from other stakeholders."

What Do These Data Say?

Vázquez made the argument that a PCF was not about regulatory obligation, but about operational value. PCFs, when calculated rigorously, function as a diagnostic tool for manufacturing processes. Emissions intensity often tracks closely with process inefficiencies like energy-heavy steps, suboptimal raw material choices, or process routes that have not been scrutinized through a resource lens. Understanding where emissions are concentrated in a production process can surface opportunities to reduce costs and improve yields that might not have been visible through conventional operational review alone. "Something that is sometimes forgotten when we talk about sustainability is that it is not only about climate," Vázquez said. "It is also about being more efficient and reducing costs. That is why product carbon footprints have huge potential; they also uncover inefficiencies that maybe we are not aware of."

This reframing is practically important for professionals tasked with making the internal case for investing in data collection. Approaching operations leadership with a proposal framed around climate action is a harder sell in the current environment than presenting the same exercise as a tool for identifying production inefficiencies, maintaining customer relationships, and keeping pace with regulatory requirements across global markets.

The methodology for calculating PCFs is well-established. Standards including ISO 14067 and the Greenhouse Gas Protocol provide step-by-step guidance, and software tooling has matured considerably. Vázquez’s advice for organizations starting out was to resist the pressure to do everything at once, selecting a single product, defining the appropriate system boundary based on what a specific customer or regulator is asking for, and building from there is a workable approach. Vázquez framed the broader shift as "understanding your product emissions is the next stage in your climate journey. The first stage was understanding your corporate emissions, but now you need to put more emphasis on these things."

The window in which this can be treated as a niche sustainability concern is closing. The organizations building data collection and carbon accounting capabilities now are likely to find themselves better positioned, commercially and operationally, as requirements from both customers and regulators continue to tighten.