Pharma buyers ask a carbon platform for the same five outcomes: be audit-ready, keep estimates defensible, clear the security review, answer every request from one set of numbers, and meet disclosure deadlines.
What differs by position is the starting point: the data you already hold, where your emissions sit and who is asking.
In the originator RFP we answered, the inventory already existed and the gap was modelling and integration. Companies that outsource manufacturing usually need supplier data and product estimates first.
CROs facing a first climate disclosure, mandatory in some markets, often have no sustainability specialist; wholesalers need to focus effort across thousands of suppliers; contract manufacturers are judged by what they can hand to a customer.
Each checklist starts from one real buyer's requirements at that position (anonymised), so treat it as a starting point: your priorities may differ.
Pharma companies buy carbon accounting software for one of four reasons: a law requires them to publish their emissions, a large customer has asked for them, an investor has, or they need to put a number on a target. Which reason applies, and what data they already hold, depends on where they sit in the value chain. An originator with its own plants, a consumer health company that outsources its manufacturing, a clinical research organisation, a wholesaler and a contract manufacturer face different deadlines and different gaps.
This page draws on what pharma buyers have asked Terrascope for between 2024 and 2026: global request for proposals (RFPs), clinical research security reviews, and calls with consumer health and wholesale companies. Each checklist starts from one real buyer's requirements, anonymised, since priorities differ: many originators, for example, put supplier data and product footprints first. The page starts with the five outcomes these buyers ask for, explains why the route to them differs by position, and then gives a checklist for each position.
The documents differ in wording. The outcomes they describe are the same five.
Every position wants the same five outcomes. What differs is which data a company already holds, where its emissions sit and who is asking. An originator usually has an inventory already and needs to model a path to a target. A company that outsources its manufacturing has little primary data for most of its footprint, because that footprint sits with contract manufacturers. A clinical research organisation has small emissions and, in some markets, a first disclosure deadline. A wholesaler has thousands of suppliers and little room to negotiate on regulated prices. A contract manufacturer is judged by what it can hand to a customer.
| Position | What you already hold | The gap in front of you | Evaluate first | Then |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Originator with its own plants | Scope 1 and 2 from an EHS system; Scope 3 calculated in your own data warehouse; a published net zero target | A path from baseline to target, by site and business unit, that you can defend to the board and to regulators | Scenario modelling: a business-as-usual forecast, reduction levers mapped to emissions, and targets at company, country and site level | Batch integration with your ERP and data warehouse |
| Consumer health, OTC or generics company with contract manufacturers | Supplier site totals gathered once a year by spreadsheet survey; little at product level | Most of your footprint sits with contract manufacturers who can share site totals but not product figures | A supplier portal that sends, collects and scores the questionnaire, replacing manual review | Product footprints modelled from the bill of materials where suppliers cannot supply them |
| Clinical research organisation (CRO) | Office and travel data across many small sites; often a finance team with no sustainability specialist | A disclosure due on a fixed date, and an owner asking whether the numbers are or will be assured | Disclosure support: gap analysis, a draft report and a pre-assurance review | Centralised upload for small offices with no utility bills |
| Wholesaler or distributor | Scope 1 and 2 across business units, sometimes already assured; a Scope 3 boundary still being set | Thousands of suppliers, regulated product prices, and almost all emissions in goods you resell | Supplier segmentation by emissions exposure | Freight emissions modelled where you choose the route |
| Contract manufacturer (CDMO) or active ingredient (API) supplier | Site energy, wastewater and refrigerant data for multi-product plants | Large pharma customers asking for primary data on your processes, compatible with PAS 2090 clause 5.1.1, so they can build their product footprints by 2028 | Site energy allocated to each product with a documented key, exported in PACT format | One record that answers SMI, PSCI, EcoVadis and CDP questionnaires |
Who you are. You run your own manufacturing sites across several regions. You already measure Scope 1 and 2 in an environmental, health and safety (EHS) system and calculate Scope 3 in your own data warehouse. You have published a net zero target and now have to show a path to it, by site and by business unit, to your board and, where disclosure laws such as CSRD, SB 253 or AASB S2 apply, to regulators.
What you ask for. The originator RFP we answered marked supplier surveys, disclosure templates and product footprints out of scope. It wanted one tool to model the path from baseline to target. Its must-haves:
What this means. At this position the inventory usually exists, so the evaluation is about modelling depth, integration and governance. Buyers that already subscribe to CDP, EcoVadis or similar services for supplier data may rule supplier modules out of scope.
Who you are. You own brands, formulations and distribution. Third parties make your products. Scope 3 is almost your whole footprint, and most of it sits with manufacturers who can give you their site totals and little at product level. You sell in several countries and face packaging and reporting rules in each. Often a quality or supply chain manager does the sustainability work alongside their main job, and the annual supplier survey is a spreadsheet reviewed by hand.
iNova Pharmaceuticals is a public example. It manages more than 1,100 SKUs and partners with third-party manufacturers to supply over 75 markets. Scope 3 is 99 percent of its footprint. Before Terrascope, it relied on spend-based estimates and static datasets, which gave only high-level insight.
What helps at this position.
What matters less here. Scenario tools built around owned energy and fleet decisions. Companies at this position often lease their offices and outsource their plants. The levers that matter are supplier choices, packaging formats and transport; for iNova, the platform modelled a cost-benefit analysis of decarbonisation levers on its FY23 baseline.
Who you are. A clinical research organisation (CRO) runs trials for pharma companies. Your emissions are small and mostly from offices and travel. Your problem is often the calendar: a climate disclosure is due, mandatory under AASB S2 in Australia or comply-or-explain under UK SRS for UK-listed companies from 2027, your finance team owns it, you have no sustainability specialist, and a private equity owner asks for the same numbers every year.
What you ask for. One CRO preparing for its first mandatory disclosure, reporting through its group financial controller, set out these requirements in its purchase and in its owner's questionnaire:
What this means. For this buyer, the software is the smaller half of the purchase. The buyer pays for the report, the pre-assurance review and a team to run it with.
Who you are. You buy medicines from manufacturers and resell them to pharmacies and hospitals. Almost all your emissions are in the products you resell. Governments set many of the prices, so you have little room to negotiate on product and little influence over the manufacturer's emissions. You may already report under a national climate standard with assurance on Scope 1 and 2. One ANZ pharmaceutical wholesaler's FY25 climate statement says many of its products carry a regulated price, that it has limited control and influence over the emissions of goods for resale, and that it is still establishing its Scope 3 boundary.
What you need.
Who you are. You make drug substance, finished product or packaging for larger pharma companies. Nine of them (AstraZeneca, Chiesi, GSK, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Roche, Samsung Biologics, Sanofi and UCB) wrote to their suppliers on 21 November 2025 asking them to align with shared targets. For contract manufacturers and materials suppliers, that means primary data on your processes, compatible with standards such as PAS 2090 clause 5.1.1, so your customers can build footprints for their top 10 products by 2028. Your customer's LCA team will judge your platform by what it can hand over.
What you need.
Terrascope is a platform with experts built in. Customers get the software and a team of carbon specialists who stay until the outcome is reached: the audit passed, the deadline met, the customer's request answered. Dyno Nobel completed its first external global greenhouse gas audit a year ahead of its Australian reporting deadline. iNova Pharmaceuticals moved from spend-based estimates to its first complete, audit-ready baseline.
Tell us where your company sits in the pharma value chain and which deadline or customer request is driving the evaluation. Book a demo, and a Terrascope sustainability specialist will walk through the matching checklist against your current data.
Sources: requirements from one global originator RFP (2025), a CRO's supplier security assessment and its owner's investor questionnaire, and calls with consumer health companies, 2024 to 2026 (anonymised); a public FY25 climate statement from an ANZ pharmaceutical wholesaler; SMI Health Systems Task Force CPO letter and supplier targets toolkit; Pharmaceutical LCA Consortium Supplier FAQ; SBTi Corporate Net-Zero Standard V2.0; Terrascope case studies for iNova Pharmaceuticals and Dyno Nobel.