A Study of Sustainable Growth Strategies in Global Life Sciences Companies: An Environmental Perspective Based on ESG Principles
Abstract
Global life science companies are taking significant steps to become more environmentally friendly by integrating sustainability into their operations and products. For corporate survival, maintaining a sound financial structure is crucial. However, now more than ever, it is essential to also address non-financial risks to ensure sustainable growth, as global protectionism is intensifying and ESG regulations are likely to be used as non-tariff barriers between nations. (1) Background/Purpose: This study focuses on the environmental (E) aspect of ESG, especially for the single-use products issue which is critical in the whole industry, and aims to analyze how leading global life sciences companies manage environmental factors as part of their strategies for sustainable growth. (2) Study Design/Methodology/Approach: This study uses a mixed methods approach combining both qualitative and quantitative research. The qualitative analysis involves case studies and a review of relevant literature, while the quantitative analysis compares sustainability performance data to evaluate results across companies. SASB (Sustainability Accounting Standards Board) indicators are used to provide a consistent and standardized way to measure and evaluate each company's environmental performance. (3) Findings: Global life science companies have introduced innovative ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, save resources, and improve the recyclability of single-use products. Despite achievements, managing the waste from single-use products remains a challenge. All three focal companies—Thermo Fisher, Merck, and Danaher—demonstrate significant progress in Scope 1 and Scope 2 carbon emission reductions but still require improvement in Scope 3 emissions reduction. (4) Originality/Value: By leading in sustainability, these companies not only meet environmental regulations but also stand out in the competitive biopharmaceutical market. Future success will depend on expanding efforts, fostering collaboration, and empowering others to adopt greener practices.
References
- Achleitner, L. (2025). The future of single-use plastics in life science: Sterile printing of PLA reduces greenhouse gas emissions by 80% and enables carbon neutrality. Green Technologies and Sustainability, 3(1).
- Barbaroux, M. (2020). The Green Imperative: Part One – Life-Cycle Assessment and Sustainability for Single-Use Technologies in the Biopharmaceutical Industry. BioProcess International.
- Belkhir, L. (2019). Carbon footprint of the global pharmaceutical industry and relative impact of its major players. Journal of Clean Production, 214.
- Biogen. (2016). 2030 outlook on sustainability in the biopharma industry.
- Budzinski, K. (2015). Toward sustainable engineering practices in biologics manufacturing. BioProcess International, 13.
- Cytiva. (2020). Single-use technology and sustainability: quantifying the environmental impact in biologic manufacturing. GE Life Sciences.
- Cytiva. (2023). Sustainability, 2023 Environmental Impacts.
- Danaher Group. (2023). Sustainability Report 2023.
- GE Healthcare. (2013). White paper: An environmental life cycle assessment comparison of single-use and conventional bioprocessing technology.
- Gherghina, Ş. C. (2024). Corporate Finance and Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) Practices. Journal of Risk and Financial Management.
- Hussain, M. (2024). A review on PLA-based biodegradable materials for biomedical applications. Giant, 18.
- Jolliet, O. (2003). IMPACT 2002+: a new life cycle impact assessment methodology. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess, 8.
- KDB Future Strategy Research Institute. (2022). Current status and implications of domestic and overseas pharmaceutical bio-companies’ ESG response. [Korean]
- KDI Economic Information Center. (2022). ESG started with the birth of capitalism. [Korean]
- Keil, M. (2023). The impact of switching from single-use to reusable healthcare products: a transparency checklist and systematic review of life-cycle assessments. European Journal of Public Health, 33(1).
- Korea Bioindustry Association & Samil PricewaterhouseCoopers. (2022). ESG evaluation and trends of domestic and overseas biopharmaceutical companies. [Korean]
- Korea Health Industry Development Institute. (2021). The rising hot issue, what is ESG? – Introduction to history and content of ESG. [Korean]
- Martiny, A. (2024). Determinants of environmental social and governance (ESG) performance: A systematic literature review. Journal of Cleaner Production.
- Merck Group. (2023). Sustainability Report 2023.
- Mestroni, S. (2023). Decarbonizing the life sciences sector: challenges and progress. Bird&Bird.
- Ottinger, M. (2022). Single-Use Technology in the Biopharmaceutical Industry and Sustainability: A Contradiction? Chemie Ingenieur Technik, 94(12).
- Pietrzykowski, M. (2013). An environmental life cycle assessment comparison of single-use and conventional process technology for the production of monoclonal antibodies. Journal of Cleaner Production, 41.
- Riikonen, S. (2024). Environmental considerations along the life cycle of pharmaceuticals: Interview study on views regarding environmental challenges, concerns, strategies, and prospects within the pharmaceutical industry. European Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences, 196.
- Samil Accounting Corporation. (2024). ESG development and history. [Korean]
- Scott, C. (2011). Sustainability in bioprocessing: not just an afterthought. BioProcess International, 9.
- Simin, C. (2023). Environmental, social, and governance (ESG) performance and financial outcomes: Analyzing the impact of ESG on financial performance. Journal of Environmental Management.
- Thermo Fisher Scientific. (2023). Corporate Social Responsibility Report.
- Urbina, M. A. (2015). Labs should cut plastic waste too (correspondence). Nature, 528.
- Whitford, W. G. (2019). Single-Use Technology in Biopharmaceutical Manufacture (2nd ed.). John Wiley and Sons.
Keywords
Details
| Section | Articles |
| Issue | Vol. 2 No. 6 (2026): Volume 2 Issue 6 (June 2026) Special Issue |
| Published | 2026-06-10 |
License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.