Environmental commitment of large US publicly traded companies producing healthcare equipment: a cross-sectional comparative study.

Abstract

The environmental commitment of healthcare stakeholders is poorly described despite the sector pollution and the social needs of more sustainable behaviors. A cross-sectional study comparing the environment commitment of US publicly traded companies producing healthcare equipment (HE), healthcare companies (H), and large capitalization corporates (LC) was designed. Using a financial database, the 20 largest US publicly traded companies by market capitalization were selected for each cohort. The last available sustainability report was investigated, aiming to assess (1) the year and the method of dissemination of the last report; (2) the adhesion to environmental standards; (3) the presence of environmental policies, quantitative targets, and tracking; (4) the third-party evaluations about company environmental sustainability. HE companies published sustainability reports in time (p = 0.048), usually as standalone reports (p < 0.001). Half of HE companies adhered to standards, less than the control groups (p < 0.001). HE companies had an acceptable environmental policy, improving over the time and posing targets, similarly to control groups (p > 0.05). The number of companies reporting quantitative targets/tracking about carbon footprint, water, and renewable energy managements differed among the three cohorts (p = 0.013, p = 0.013, and p < 0.001, respectively), with HE cohort achieving the lowest rates (70%, 70%, and 50%, respectively). Carbon neutrality and all renewable energy statements were rare among HE companies (10% and 5% of companies, p < 0.007). In HE, CDP (The Carbon Disclosure Project) scores were lower than controls (p < 0.001). US publicly traded companies producing healthcare equipment demonstrated to be far less committed to environmental sustainability than healthcare companies and large capitalization corporates. Level of evidence: IV.