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). J&J reports comprehensive emissions data with third-party verification, but Scope 3 stagnation undermines climate trajectory. Nature and biodiversity disclosure is minimal despite sourcing palm oil linked to deforestation. Systemic governance failures—90,000+ talc lawsuits, $25B+ in penalties—reflect institutional weakness that extends beyond environmental claims.
Pfizer scores 39/100 on the SINK sustainability index (Below expectations). Pfizer has disclosed detailed carbon data and joined science-based initiatives early, but execution is failing. Renewable energy adoption is stuck at 14% despite RE100 membership. Emissions trajectory lags 46% 2030 target by two-thirds. Critically, Pfizer funds trade groups actively lobbying against climate policy, undermining its public commitments.
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 →