Johnson & Johnson scores 2 points higher than Pfizer on SINK's sustainability index.
Johnson & Johnson is more sustainable according to SINK's open sustainability index, scoring 41/100 vs Pfizer's 39/100 — a difference of 2 points.
Johnson & Johnson scores 41/100 on the SINK sustainability index (Below expectations). Johnson & Johnson reports comprehensive climate data with third-party verification but stalls on emissions reduction where it matters most: Scope 3 emissions are flat year-on-year despite revenue growth, and net-zero validation lapsed without revalidation. Nature and biodiversity impact remains largely unquantified. Systemic governance failures evident in 90,000+ talc litigation cases and deforestation-linked palm sourcing.
Pfizer scores 39/100 on the SINK sustainability index (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.
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 — 500+ companies ranked.
View full leaderboard →