In the first quarter of 2025, pharmaceutical giants Novartis and AstraZeneca posted impressive financial results. Both were driven by strong drug performance and strategic investments.
At the same time, each firm made notable strides in reducing carbon emissions and pushing toward ambitious sustainability targets. This head-to-head comparison looks at their Q1 2025 financial performance and environmental impact to see which company came out on top.
Novartis Sales Jump in Q1 2025
Novartis delivered a strong start to 2025, reporting first-quarter sales of $13.2 billion—up 15% in constant currency. This surpassed analysts’ estimates of $13.12 billion. As a result, the company raised its full-year outlook. It now expects high single-digit sales growth and low double-digit growth in core operating income.
Operating income surged 44% to $4.7 billion, while net income rose 37% to $3.6 billion. Core operating income reached $5.6 billion, driven by solid sales and disciplined spending.
Blockbuster Drugs Power Growth
Several key medicines fueled this strong performance:
- Entresto: $2.26 billion (+22%)
- Cosentyx: $1.53 billion (+18%)
- Kisqali: $956 million (+56%)
- Leqvio: $257 million (+72%)
Moreover, Novartis continued to focus on four high-impact areas like cardiovascular, immunology, neuroscience, and oncology. At the same time, it increased investments in cutting-edge platforms like gene therapy, radioligand therapy, and xRNA. The company also pushed for deeper market penetration in the US, China, Germany, and Japan.
Cash Flow Up, But Debt Grows
Free cash flow jumped 66% to $3.4 billion. However, net debt rose to $22.3 billion. This increase was mainly due to a $5.3 billion dividend payout, share repurchases, and investments in intangible assets.
Growth Outlook Remains Strong
Looking ahead, Novartis plans to accelerate growth through innovation and new product launches. It remains committed to R&D, digital technologies, and global expansion. Backed by strong cash generation and solid credit ratings, the company remains well-positioned for the rest of the year.
Vas Narasimhan, CEO of Novartis commented,
“Novartis has had a strong start to the year, delivering a +15% cc increase in sales and a +27% cc rise in core operating income in Q1. Our priority brands, including Kisqali, Kesimpta and Leqvio, continue to show strong momentum, which we anticipate will drive our growth through 2030 and beyond. We also achieved significant innovation milestones in the quarter, with new approvals for Pluvicto in the pre-taxane setting, Vanrafia for IgA nephropathy, and Fabhalta for C3G. Additionally, we completed global submissions for remibrutinib in CSU, the first indication for this promising pipeline-in-a-pill. We remain focused on advancing our leading pipeline and confident in achieving our growth outlook.”
Novartis on Track to Meet 2025 Sustainability Goals
Novartis is making steady progress toward its environmental goals. The company has already met its 2025 targets for reducing water use and waste. The Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures (TNFD) framework guides its broader sustainability efforts, showing a deep commitment to protecting the planet.
Big Cuts in Carbon Emissions
Novartis is cutting its carbon footprint aggressively. It plans to reach carbon neutrality in Scope 1 and 2 emissions by 2025. It follows the Science-Based Targets initiative and supports global efforts to limit climate change to 1.5°C.
By 2030, it aims to slash emissions by 90% from 2022 levels. The company also targets a 42% cut in Scope 3 emissions from suppliers and product use.
Scope Emissions
- In 2023, Scope 1 and 2 emissions totaled 298 tCO₂e, and Scope 3 emissions were 4,529 tCO₂e.
Most of the company’s environmental impact, about 95%, comes from direct operations such as land use, water use, and upstream emissions.
- Novartis intends to achieve net-zero emissions across its entire value chain by 2040.
Clean Energy Initiatives
The pharma giant plans to switch to 100% renewable electricity by 2025. To meet this goal, it’s investing in clean energy projects like biomass steam systems, electric boilers, solar thermal energy, and electric vehicles for its fleet.
The company also works closely with suppliers to add environmental standards to its contracts.
Water and Waste Goals Achieved
Novartis has reduced water usage at key sites, especially in water-stressed regions. It ensures no harmful impacts on water quality from its factories, labs, or suppliers.
On the waste front, the company plans to reduce disposal by 30%, making its operations cleaner and more efficient.
New Focus on Nature and Raw Materials
The company is expanding its efforts to protect nature and improve raw material sourcing. Some measures include biodiversity assessments at sites near sensitive ecosystems and creating nature management plans where needed.
Additionally, it’s shifting to more sustainable materials, starting with paper-based packaging.
Novartis is building a greener future through innovation, strong partnerships, and responsible action. From carbon cuts to water savings, the company is proving that environmental progress and business growth can go hand in hand.
- ALSO READ: Pfizer Plans to Reach Net Zero by 2040
AstraZeneca’s Q1 2025: Sales and Profit Soar on Strong Drug Performance
AstraZeneca posted a 10% rise in revenue at constant exchange rates, reaching $13.59 billion in Q1 2025, up from $12.68 billion last year. This growth came from strong demand for cancer and biopharma drugs across all key markets. The company’s net profit grew by 34% to $2.92 billion.
Tagrisso Leads the Pack
Tagrisso, AstraZeneca’s top lung cancer drug, generated $1.68 billion in sales. It was the company’s highest-selling medicine and the biggest driver of growth this quarter.
Furthermore, AstraZeneca saw strong R&D progress with five positive Phase III trials and 13 new drug approvals in major regions. Key oncology trials included DESTINY-Breast09, SERENA-6, and MATTERHORN.
Smart Deals to Fuel Long-Term Growth
In the first quarter of 2025, AstraZeneca made several smart business moves to strengthen its pipeline and technology base. It is heavily investing in cutting-edge technologies and expanding its global research and development (R&D) presence. These moves are aimed at driving long-term growth and staying ahead in the biopharma space.
JV for Vaccine Launch
- Launched a vaccine joint venture in China with BioKangtai and entered research partnerships with Syneron Bio and Tempus AI to boost innovation in cancer treatment.
Advancing Cell Therapy
- Proposed to acquire EsoBiotec to enter the in-vivo cell therapy space. EsoBiotec’s technology allows for “off-the-shelf” cell therapies, meaning ready-to-use treatments that don’t require custom patient cells.
Exploring Novel Drug Technologies
- Partnered with Harbour BioMed to develop multi-specific biologics, which can target multiple disease pathways at once.
- Teamed up with Syneron to create macro-cyclic peptides, a new type of molecule that could improve how drugs work in the body.
Improving Drug Delivery Methods
- Gained exclusive rights to ALT-B4 from Alteogen. This technology helps deliver drugs under the skin instead of by IV.
- Working on subcutaneous (under-the-skin) versions of several cancer drugs, making treatment faster and more comfortable for patients.
AstraZeneca’s Q1 2025 results show a strong push toward future-ready healthcare solutions. With new partnerships, acquisitions, and delivery tech, the company is setting itself up for long-term success in global markets.
Pascal Soriot, Chief Executive Officer, AstraZeneca, commented on the results:
“Our strong growth momentum has continued into 2025 and we have now entered an unprecedented catalyst-rich period for our company.
Already this year we have announced five positive Phase III study readouts, including most recently the highly anticipated DESTINYBreast09 for Enhertu, as well as SERENA-6 for camizestrant and MATTERHORN for Imfinzi; the latter two of these will feature in the ASCO 2025 plenary sessions, reflecting the significance of these data to the oncology community.
Our company is firmly committed to investing and growing in the US and we continue to benefit from our broad-based source of revenue and global manufacturing footprint, including eleven production sites in the US covering small molecules, biologics as well as cell therapy. Additionally, we have even greater US investment in manufacturing and R&D planned, leveraging our two large R&D sites in Gaithersburg MD and Cambridge MA. Overall, we are making excellent progress toward our ambition of eighty billion dollars in Total Revenue by 2030.”
AstraZeneca is Driving Sustainability with Science and Action
AstraZeneca is making major progress on its journey to a net-zero future. Through its ambitious “Ambition Zero Carbon” strategy, the company is investing $1 billion to cut emissions, switch to clean energy, and lead the healthcare sector toward a more sustainable model.
- AstraZeneca plans to go carbon negative by 2030.
Scope 1 and 2 Emissions
The company has significantly reduced its direct emissions. Gross Scope 1 and 2 GHG emissions (market-based) dropped from 200,838 tonnes in 2023 to 139,594 tonnes in 2024, highlighting substantial progress in cutting emissions across its operations.
Since 2015, AstraZeneca has reduced its Scope 1 and 2 greenhouse gas emissions by an impressive 77.5%. The company remains firmly on track to meet its ambitious target of a 98% reduction in these direct emissions by 2026.
Scope 3 Emissions
In 2024, AstraZeneca reported 5,897,822 tonnes of Scope 3 emissions, slightly down from 5,917,160 tonnes in 2023, showing a small but steady reduction in indirect emissions.
This progress reflects AstraZeneca’s strong commitment to climate action through clean energy use and operational efficiency.
Electric Fleets and Smarter Energy Use
- 63% of company vehicles are now fully electric; the goal is 100% by 2025
- 97% of the electricity used at company sites comes from renewable sources
- Energy consumption has dropped 20% since 2015
- Energy productivity has jumped 147%, showing better efficiency with less energy use
AstraZeneca’s progress shows how innovation, science, and sustainability can work hand-in-hand to build a healthier planet.
Clean Heat for Global Sites
AstraZeneca is replacing fossil fuels with clean, renewable heat at its sites around the world:
- US: Partnered with Vanguard Renewables to turn food and farm waste into renewable natural gas. Will heat all US R&D and manufacturing sites by 2026.
- UK: Working with Future Biogas to supply green gas to major UK sites (Macclesfield, Cambridge, Luton, Speke).
- China: Partnering with China Resources Gas to bring clean heat to its Wuxi plant, aiming to cut emissions in China by up to 80%. This is the first clean heat deal of its kind in the Chinese healthcare industry.
A Focus on Circular Solutions
AstraZeneca is cutting waste and reusing more materials. Instead of throwing things away, it focuses on recycling and the smarter use of resources.
The company is reducing single-use plastics. It’s also improving packaging to be more eco-friendly. In addition, AstraZeneca is working closely with suppliers to make greener choices.
Its factories now reuse materials and recycle more. As a result, operations are cleaner and more efficient. These efforts help protect the planet and inspire change across the healthcare industry.
So, Who Won the Profit and Net-Zero Game?
Novartis outperformed financially due to blockbuster drugs and strong cost discipline, while AstraZeneca led the way on sustainability, with steeper carbon cuts and near-complete renewable energy use.
The post Big Pharma Showdown: Novartis vs. AstraZeneca in Q1 2025 Profits and Emissions Cuts appeared first on Carbon Credits.
The accounting differences that decide whether your nature investment shows up in inventory, in BVCM, or nowhere at all.
The question reaches a procurement team about three weeks before the next sustainability committee meeting. Someone has read about insetting. Someone else has just signed off on an offset purchase. The CSO wants to know if the two are interchangeable. The answer is no, and the GHG Protocol Land Sector and Removals Standard is the reason why.
This article walks through what each term means at audit-grade specificity, what the standards actually say about how each gets counted, and how to decide which tool fits which target. The insetting vs offsetting question is one of the most-searched in corporate climate strategy, and one of the most poorly answered. By the end of this piece, you should be able to brief a committee on the difference without notes.
The two definitions, in plain English
Offsetting means buying carbon credits generated outside your value chain and retiring them against your residual emissions. The reduction happens somewhere else, financed by you, and the credit is the receipt.
Insetting means investing in emission reductions or removals inside your own value chain, typically with suppliers, where the reduction is directly linked to the products and services you buy. The reduction happens inside the boundary of your Scope 3 inventory, and the accounting treatment is fundamentally different.
The shorthand from the University of Oxford’s Nature-based Insetting Initiative is useful: insetting is what you do with the supply chain you have; offsetting is what you do with the supply chain you do not have.
What the GHG Protocol Land Sector Standard actually says
The GHG Protocol Land Sector and Removals Standard, finalised in 2024 after a multi-year pilot, sets the rules for how land-based emission reductions and removals enter corporate inventories. The Standard distinguishes between inventory accounting (Scope 1, 2, and 3) and project or intervention accounting (a separate methodology for crediting).
For insetting, the practical implication is that supplier-level interventions, when properly measured and attributed, can reduce your Scope 3 category 1 (purchased goods and services) emissions in your inventory. The reduction is not a credit retired against the inventory; it is a lower inventory number, period.
For offsetting, the credit is retired separately. It can be reported as a contribution toward a net-zero claim under the SBTi Beyond Value Chain Mitigation framework or as part of a VCMI Carbon Integrity claim, but it does not lower the inventory number.
A practical consequence: if your Science Based Target requires a 50% absolute reduction in Scope 3 emissions by 2030, insetting moves you toward the target. Offsetting does not. This single point of difference reshapes the procurement decision.
When insetting counts toward Scope 3 (and when it does not)
Insetting counts toward Scope 3 only when several conditions are met:
- The intervention must occur with an entity in your value chain.
- The emissions reduction or removal must be measured against a defensible baseline.
- The reduction must be attributed to your share of that supplier’s output, not double-counted with other buyers.
- It must follow the inventory accounting rules in the GHG Protocol Land Sector Standard, not the project accounting rules used to generate credits.
The most common failure mode is double counting. If your supplier sells the same reduction as a credit on the voluntary market and also reports it to you as a Scope 3 reduction, the math breaks. The Standard requires you to address this risk, typically by purchasing and retiring the supplier-issued credit as part of your inventory or by contractual provisions that prevent the supplier from selling the reduction twice.
When insetting does not count toward Scope 3: when the intervention sits with a supplier you do not buy from, when the baseline is not defensible, when the attribution is unclear, or when the documentation does not survive audit. Those cases default to Beyond Value Chain Mitigation, which is still useful but operates on a different ledger.
The procurement and supplier engagement question
Insetting is harder than offsetting. That is the unfashionable truth most buyers eventually confront. Offsetting is a transaction; insetting is a relationship.
To run an insetting program, you need supplier mapping precise enough to know which farms or facilities sit at which Scope 3 boundary. You need an engagement model that gets suppliers to participate, which usually requires multi-year commitments and shared economics. You need an MRV architecture that measures the right things and produces audit-ready documentation. And you need a contractual structure that prevents double counting and protects both sides.
The trade-off you receive in return is significant. Reductions count against your inventory rather than your residual. Supplier relationships deepen, which protects sourcing continuity. Yield and quality improvements often follow regenerative interventions, which reduces your input cost over time. And the regulatory file, under CSRD, CSDDD, EUDR, and the SBTi FLAG Guidance, is materially stronger.
Choosing the right tool for the right target
A practical decision rule. If your target is a science-based Scope 3 reduction and you operate in a FLAG sector or source FLAG commodities, insetting is the structurally correct tool. If your target is a net-zero claim that includes neutralising hard-to-abate residual emissions outside your value chain, BVCM via high-integrity offsets is the structurally correct tool. Most companies with material Scope 3 exposure need both, in different proportions, sequenced over time.
The sequencing matters. Insetting takes longer to stand up but produces a permanent reduction in the inventory. Offsetting can be transacted faster but does not change the inventory and now sits under tighter claim restrictions. Treat them as complementary tools with different jobs, not as substitutes. The Accountability Framework Initiative and the IUCN Global Standard for Nature-based Solutions both provide useful guardrails for the insetting side, with biodiversity, human rights, and benefit-sharing requirements that go beyond carbon math.
If you are mapping a Scope 3 reduction roadmap and need to scope which interventions count toward your inventory versus which sit in Beyond Value Chain Mitigation, the carbon and sustainability experts at Carbon Credit Capital can help you structure a nature-based supply chain investment program that fits your FLAG exposure, your target architecture, and your audit horizon. Schedule a consultation.
Net zero is often described as a balancing act: cut what you can, account for the rest, and reach zero on the ledger. That framing is useful, but it leaves something out. It treats every tonne of carbon as interchangeable and every route to zero as equally sound, while the science tells a more specific story.
Malawi has lost a striking share of its forests over the past three decades. Woodlands that once covered well over a third of the country now cover less than a quarter, and the pressure on what remains is increasing. Behind those figures sit two practical questions: what is driving the loss, and what reverses it?
-
Climate Change1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Renewable Energy10 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
嘉宾来稿：探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits