How GSK is embedding sustainability and driving climate progress

GSK targets pharmaceutical supply chain to cut emissions by 80%

GSK has set the pharmaceutical industry’s most aggressive climate target. The company aims to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 80% before 2030. Adele Cheli, who takes up the role of Global Vice President of Sustainability in March 2026, describes the approach as one of brutal prioritisation. This means focusing resources on the interventions that will deliver the largest emissions reductions rather than spreading effort across dozens of smaller initiatives.

The company faces a particular challenge. Its Ventolin asthma inhaler accounts for approximately half of total emissions. GSK is waiting for UK government approval to launch a low-emission replacement. Without regulatory clearance, the 2030 target becomes significantly harder to achieve. This single product decision will determine whether the company meets its climate commitment or falls short.

For UK businesses watching pharmaceutical sector sustainability, this case study offers useful lessons. It demonstrates how product design can outweigh operational efficiency when it comes to carbon footprint. It also shows the role that regulatory processes play in enabling or blocking emissions reductions. Many SMEs face similar barriers when trying to introduce lower-carbon alternatives to established products or processes.

Cheli replaces decade-long sustainability lead as strategy enters delivery phase

Adele Cheli joined GSK in 2013 and has worked across procurement, product innovation, and global health. She moved into the sustainability team in 2021. Her appointment as Global Vice President of Sustainability takes effect in March 2026. She succeeds Claire Lund, who led the function for over a decade before stepping away from the company.

Cheli’s background spans operational and commercial functions. This gives her insight into how sustainability decisions affect manufacturing costs, supplier relationships, and product development timelines. Her promotion signals a shift from setting targets to implementing them. GSK has published its goals and secured early wins on renewable electricity. Now the focus turns to delivery across the supply chain.

The phrase “brutal prioritisation” reflects a conscious decision to concentrate effort on a small number of high-impact projects. In practice, this means directing investment toward interventions that reduce emissions at scale rather than pursuing marginal gains across every site or process. For a company operating globally with complex supply chains, this approach avoids diluting resources and helps maintain momentum toward 2030 deadlines.

2030 and 2045 targets include renewable energy and electric vehicle fleet

GSK has committed to an 80% absolute reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030, measured against a 2020 baseline. The company also aims to source 100% of its electricity from renewable sources, whether imported or generated on site. By 2030, it intends to achieve net-zero impact on climate. This means offsetting the remaining 20% of emissions through nature-based carbon removal projects.

Looking further ahead, GSK has set a 2045 target for net-zero emissions across its full value chain. This includes a 90% reduction in total emissions, with the final 10% addressed through carbon credits. The company has stated that by 2045, it will only use carbon removal credits rather than avoidance or reduction credits. All carbon credits required to meet the 2030 target will be secured through nature investments by 2028.

The targets cover Scopes 1, 2, and most of Scope 3 emissions. A small portion, around 2% of 2020 emissions, sits outside the scope. GSK plans to transition its global sales representative fleet to 100% electric vehicles. It also aims to source all materials from deforestation-free supply chains by 2030. Meanwhile, the company is targeting a net-positive impact on nature by the same date, meaning it will restore more than it extracts from natural systems.

GSK met its 2025 target for 100% renewable imported electricity on schedule. By 2025, the company reached the midpoint of its sustainability programme and achieved all short-term goals set for that year. Progress reports confirm that renewable energy procurement is on track. However, the deeper emissions cuts required to meet the 80% reduction target depend on changes to products and supply chains rather than energy procurement alone.

Wind turbines and solar farms reduce operational emissions at manufacturing sites

Between 2024 and 2025, GSK activated two wind turbines and a 56-acre solar farm at its Irvine facility in Scotland. These installations provide more than half of the site’s energy needs. On-site generation reduces reliance on grid electricity and insulates the facility from energy price volatility. It also cuts Scope 2 emissions directly.

In addition, GSK signed a 12-year virtual power purchase agreement with IGNIS. Starting in mid-2026, this deal will supply 200 gigawatt-hours of renewable electricity per year. The power comes from two solar projects in Spain. This contract covers approximately 50% of GSK’s electricity demand across mainland Europe. Virtual power purchase agreements allow companies to support new renewable energy capacity without owning or operating generation assets.

The company is also shifting logistics from airfreight to sea freight where possible. Air transport accounts for around 4% of GSK’s indirect emissions footprint. Sea freight generates significantly lower emissions per tonne of cargo moved. However, longer transit times can affect supply chain planning, particularly for temperature-sensitive pharmaceutical products. This trade-off requires careful management to maintain product quality while reducing carbon intensity.

These operational changes deliver measurable emissions reductions. Nevertheless, they address only a portion of GSK’s total footprint. The largest emissions sources sit within products and upstream supply chains. This is where brutal prioritisation becomes necessary. Resources must go toward the interventions that shift the overall footprint rather than incremental improvements to facilities that represent a smaller share of total emissions.

Ventolin inhaler accounts for half of total emissions and awaits regulatory approval

GSK’s Ventolin asthma inhaler uses a propellant that contributes around 50% of the company’s total greenhouse gas emissions. The company has developed a low-emission alternative. However, it cannot bring this product to market without approval from UK regulators. The regulatory process for medical devices and pharmaceuticals includes rigorous safety and efficacy testing. Changes to inhaler formulations require extensive clinical evidence before approval.

This regulatory bottleneck creates a dependency. If approval is granted, GSK can eliminate roughly half of its emissions in a relatively short timeframe. If approval is delayed or denied, the company will need to rely more heavily on carbon credits to meet its 2030 net-zero impact commitment. This introduces uncertainty into the delivery plan and highlights the external dependencies that can affect corporate climate strategies.

For UK businesses, this case illustrates a broader point. Product carbon footprint often exceeds operational emissions, particularly in manufacturing and distribution sectors. Reducing emissions at the product level requires design changes, material substitutions, or reformulations. These changes often face regulatory, technical, or market acceptance hurdles. Companies that identify and address these barriers early are better positioned to meet climate commitments without relying on offsets.

GSK is developing new medicines designed to align patient outcomes with reduced environmental impact. The company’s innovation strategy aims to avoid trade-offs between clinical effectiveness and sustainability. This approach recognises that long-term market success depends on products that meet both patient needs and environmental expectations. As procurement criteria increasingly include carbon footprint assessments, particularly in public sector tenders, product-level emissions will influence competitiveness.

Energize initiative brings pharmaceutical companies together to support supplier decarbonisation

In 2021, GSK and six other pharmaceutical companies formed the Energize initiative. This collaborative programme helps suppliers reduce energy consumption and switch to renewable electricity. The initiative provides technical support, shares best practices, and creates collective purchasing power for renewable energy contracts. It addresses a common barrier: many suppliers lack the internal expertise or resources to implement energy efficiency measures independently.

GSK’s Sustainable Procurement Programme sets specific requirements for suppliers. They must disclose their emissions, set carbon reduction targets aligned with limiting global warming to 1.5°C, and transition to renewable power and heat sources. These requirements are increasingly common across corporate supply chains. However, enforcement varies. Some companies embed compliance into contract terms, while others use disclosure as a starting point for engagement rather than a binding obligation.

For UK SMEs that supply larger corporations, these trends have direct implications. Many buyers now require carbon footprint data as part of tender submissions. Businesses that cannot provide this information risk losing contracts or failing to qualify for preferred supplier lists. Similarly, companies without credible carbon reduction targets may find themselves excluded from supply chains where buyers have committed to Scope 3 emissions reductions.

The Energize model demonstrates how large companies can support suppliers through the transition rather than simply imposing requirements. Technical assistance, shared resources, and collective procurement reduce the cost and complexity of decarbonisation for smaller businesses. UK SMEs should assess whether similar support programmes exist within their own customer bases. Where they do not, companies can propose collaborative approaches that distribute the cost of emissions reductions across the supply chain.

Carbon credits strategy prioritises removal over avoidance to address residual emissions

GSK plans to use carbon credits to address the 20% of emissions that remain after implementing all feasible reduction measures by 2030. The company has stated a preference for carbon removal credits over avoidance or reduction credits. Carbon removal refers to projects that actively extract carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, such as afforestation or direct air capture. Avoidance credits come from projects that prevent emissions, such as renewable energy installations that displace fossil fuel generation.

By 2045, GSK intends to use only carbon removal credits to offset the final 10% of emissions after achieving a 90% reduction. This shift reflects evolving standards around carbon neutrality. Many sustainability frameworks now treat removal credits as more credible than avoidance credits because they address atmospheric carbon concentrations directly rather than preventing future emissions. However, removal credits are typically more expensive and less available than avoidance credits.

GSK aims to secure all carbon credits needed to meet its 2030 commitment by 2028. This timeline allows for due diligence, contract negotiations, and verification processes. The company invests in nature protection and restoration projects that deliver co-benefits to human health. This includes projects that improve air quality, water availability, or biodiversity in communities where GSK operates or sources materials.

For UK businesses considering carbon credits as part of their net-zero strategies, several principles apply. Credits should be additional, meaning the project would not have occurred without the revenue from credit sales. They should be permanent, with carbon stored for a significant period. They must be verified by a credible third party. Finally, companies should prioritise emissions reductions over offsets. Carbon credits address residual emissions after all practical reduction measures have been implemented, not as a substitute for operational improvements.

Pharmaceutical sector faces unique decarbonisation challenges compared to other industries

GSK’s 80% emissions reduction target is the deepest commitment in the pharmaceutical sector. Most competitors have set less aggressive targets or longer timelines. This reflects the specific challenges pharmaceutical companies face. Products are subject to strict regulatory oversight. Manufacturing processes require precise environmental controls. Supply chains are global and include specialised chemical inputs. Temperature-controlled logistics add complexity and emissions intensity.

Product emissions dominate the footprint for pharmaceutical companies in ways that differ from other sectors. In manufacturing or retail, operational emissions from buildings, transport, and energy use often represent the largest share. For pharmaceutical companies, the chemical composition of products and their packaging can outweigh operational impacts. This requires a different approach to decarbonisation, focusing on product innovation rather than facility efficiency alone.

GSK’s strategy demonstrates how product-led decarbonisation can deliver greater impact than operational improvements. However, it also introduces dependencies on factors outside the company’s direct control. Regulatory approval timelines, customer acceptance of reformulated products, and supplier capacity to adopt new processes all influence delivery. Companies pursuing similar strategies must account for these external variables when setting timelines and communicating commitments.

UK businesses in regulated sectors face comparable challenges. Changes to product formulations, manufacturing processes, or materials often require approval from industry regulators or certification bodies. These processes take time and involve costs. Companies should identify regulatory pathways early and engage with relevant authorities to understand approval criteria. This reduces the risk of delays that could undermine climate commitments or create competitive disadvantages.

Five essential points for UK businesses tracking pharmaceutical sector sustainability

• GSK aims to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by 2030, the pharmaceutical industry’s most ambitious target, with full value chain net-zero emissions by 2045.
• Adele Cheli becomes Global Vice President of Sustainability in March 2026, bringing experience from procurement, product innovation, and global health to lead delivery of climate commitments.
• The Ventolin asthma inhaler accounts for approximately 50% of GSK’s total emissions, and regulatory approval for a low-emission replacement will determine whether the company meets its 2030 target.
• GSK requires suppliers to disclose emissions, set 1.5°C-aligned reduction targets, and switch to renewable energy, reflecting wider trends in supply chain decarbonisation that affect UK SMEs across sectors.
• The company will secure all carbon credits needed for its 2030 net-zero impact commitment by 2028, prioritising removal credits over avoidance credits and investing in nature-based projects with health co-benefits.

Product design and regulatory processes determine pharmaceutical emissions trajectories

GSK’s experience shows that the largest emissions reductions often come from product changes rather than operational efficiency. For pharmaceutical companies, this means reformulating products, changing packaging materials, or redesigning delivery mechanisms. These changes require extensive testing and regulatory approval. The timeline from concept to market can span years. Companies must balance the urgency of climate targets with the rigour of safety and efficacy requirements.

This creates a strategic challenge. Climate commitments require certainty and deadlines. Regulatory processes introduce uncertainty and variable timelines. Companies that acknowledge these tensions publicly and build contingency plans maintain credibility. Those that present product-dependent strategies as guaranteed outcomes risk reputational damage if approvals are delayed or denied. Transparency about dependencies and external factors strengthens stakeholder confidence.

For UK SMEs, particularly those in manufacturing, the lesson applies broadly. Product carbon footprint matters more than operational emissions for many businesses. Reducing it requires changes to design, materials, or production methods. These changes often face technical, regulatory, or market barriers. Companies should assess which emissions sources lie within their control and which depend on external factors. This informs realistic target-setting and helps allocate resources where they will have the greatest impact.

GSK’s brutal prioritisation approach offers a useful framework. Instead of pursuing dozens of small initiatives, focus on the few interventions that will deliver the majority of emissions reductions. This might mean investing in a single product redesign rather than optimising energy use across every facility. It might mean working intensively with a small number of high-emissions suppliers rather than engaging the entire supply base. Concentration of effort accelerates progress and maintains momentum.

Supply chain engagement requires technical support alongside requirements

The Energize initiative demonstrates an important principle: setting requirements for suppliers is not enough. Many businesses lack the expertise, capital, or time to implement emissions reductions independently. Large companies that want suppliers to decarbonise must provide support. This can include technical guidance, training, shared resources, or financial assistance. It can also involve collective procurement arrangements that give smaller businesses access to renewable energy contracts or energy efficiency technologies they could not secure alone.

GSK’s Sustainable Procurement Programme combines requirements with enablement. Suppliers must disclose emissions and set targets, but they receive support through the Energize initiative to meet those expectations. This approach recognises that supply chain decarbonisation is a partnership rather than a compliance exercise. It also reduces the risk that smaller suppliers will be excluded from contracts because they cannot meet sustainability criteria without assistance.

For UK SMEs on the receiving end of these requirements, the implication is clear. Buyers increasingly expect carbon footprint data and reduction commitments. Businesses that prepare early will find it easier to meet these expectations. However, companies should also ask buyers what support is available. Many large corporations have established programmes to help suppliers with emissions measurement, target-setting, or renewable energy procurement. Taking advantage of these resources reduces the cost and complexity of compliance.

Businesses that supply public sector organisations face additional pressure. Procurement Policy Note 06/21 requires suppliers bidding for central government contracts above certain thresholds to publish a Carbon Reduction Plan. This plan must include a commitment to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050 and set out the steps the business will take to reach that goal. Similar requirements are spreading to local government and other public bodies. SMEs that work on carbon reporting and net-zero planning now will be better positioned to compete for public sector contracts.

Virtual power purchase agreements provide renewable electricity without capital investment

GSK’s 12-year virtual power purchase agreement with IGNIS illustrates a procurement model that allows companies to secure renewable electricity without building or operating generation assets. Under this arrangement, GSK agrees to purchase a fixed volume of renewable electricity at a set price. The electricity is generated by solar projects in Spain and fed into the grid. GSK receives renewable energy certificates that count toward its renewable electricity targets.

Virtual power purchase agreements offer several advantages. They provide price certainty over long contract periods, insulating buyers from energy market volatility. They support the development of new renewable generation capacity, contributing to grid decarbonisation. They allow companies to claim renewable electricity use without the capital investment required to build on-site generation. However, they require long-term commitments and involve some financial risk if energy prices fall below the contracted rate.

For UK businesses, on-site generation and virtual power purchase agreements represent two pathways to renewable electricity. On-site solar or wind installations reduce energy costs and provide direct control over generation. They require upfront capital but deliver long-term savings. Virtual power purchase agreements avoid capital costs but involve contract negotiations and long-term financial commitments. The right choice depends on available capital, site characteristics, and energy consumption patterns.

Smaller businesses may find that renewable electricity tariffs from suppliers offer a simpler starting point. Many UK energy suppliers now offer tariffs backed by renewable generation. These tariffs provide renewable electricity without long-term contracts or capital investment. They may cost slightly more than standard tariffs, but the premium has narrowed in recent years. Businesses can switch to renewable tariffs and secure immediate emissions reductions from Scope 2 electricity use.

Carbon removal credits face higher costs and verification challenges than avoidance credits

GSK’s preference for carbon removal credits over avoidance credits reflects a shift in how companies approach offsetting. Removal credits come from projects that extract carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. This includes afforestation, reforestation, soil carbon sequestration, and direct air capture. Avoidance credits come from projects that prevent emissions, such as renewable energy installations that displace fossil fuel generation or cookstove programmes that reduce deforestation.

Removal credits are generally considered more credible because they address the stock of atmospheric carbon rather than the flow of new emissions. However, they are more expensive and less widely available. They also face challenges around permanence. Forests can burn or be logged. Soil carbon can be released through changes in land management. Verification requires long-term monitoring and robust contracts that ensure carbon remains stored.

For UK businesses, the choice between removal and avoidance credits involves trade-offs. Removal credits align with emerging best practices and regulatory expectations. They may be necessary to meet net-zero commitments under frameworks like the Science Based Targets initiative. However, their higher cost and limited availability may require businesses to delay offset purchases or reduce the volume of emissions they plan to offset. This reinforces the principle that emissions reductions should take priority over offsets.

Businesses should also consider the co-benefits of offset projects. GSK invests in nature projects that deliver health benefits to local communities. This aligns with the company’s core mission and strengthens the social licence for its offsetting strategy. UK SMEs can apply similar thinking. Offset projects that deliver biodiversity gains, water quality improvements, or community benefits create value beyond carbon. This makes offsetting a more defensible component of a net-zero strategy and may resonate with customers or investors who scrutinise offset quality.

Government sources provide regulatory updates and carbon reporting guidance

The UK government publishes guidance on carbon reporting, net-zero planning, and environmental regulations through several channels. The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero oversees energy and climate policy. Its website provides updates on legislation, consultations, and support programmes for businesses. The Environment Agency regulates emissions and provides guidance on environmental permits and reporting obligations.

Businesses subject to the Streamlined Energy and Carbon Reporting requirements can find technical guidance on the gov.uk website. This includes details on scope, calculation methodologies, and disclosure formats. Companies bidding for public sector contracts should review Procurement Policy Note 06/21, which sets out the Carbon Reduction Plan requirements. The guidance explains what must be included in the plan and how it will be assessed.

For pharmaceutical companies and other regulated sectors, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency provides information on approval processes for product changes. Understanding regulatory pathways early helps companies plan timelines and allocate resources. Engaging with regulators during product development can identify potential barriers and inform design decisions that reduce the risk of delays.

Industry bodies also publish resources on sustainability standards and best practices. The British Standards Institution develops standards for carbon management, environmental management systems, and greenhouse gas accounting. The Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment provides professional guidance and training for environmental practitioners. These resources help businesses implement sustainability programmes that meet recognised standards and withstand external scrutiny.