Becoming more energy- and carbon-efficient are essential ways we can improve our impact on the planet while maintaining cost-effective manufacturing and supply for our patients, consumers and customers around the world.
We have a long history of innovation and leadership in energy management, and have taken sustained, long-term action to reduce our greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Guided by our Climate Policy, our approach is multi-faceted, and includes:
- Understanding and managing our carbon footprint in direct operations and across the value chain;
- Setting science-based targets for our operations to reduce carbon footprint;
- Measuring and publicly reporting progress in reducing our carbon footprint;
- Working with suppliers to encourage emissions reductions across our value chain;
- Partnering with governments, advocacy groups and partners in the healthcare industry to unite efforts and create impact at scale; and
- Supporting responsible climate and energy policy around the world.
We focus our energy and carbon efficiency work on three main areas: reducing energy demand and maximizing energy efficiency in our operations; shifting to low-carbon and renewable energy sources to meet the remaining demand; and improving our influence over emissions in our value chain.
Johnson & Johnson participates in coalitions that support actions to promote a low-carbon economy and mitigate climate change, including:
- The World Wildlife Fund’s Climate Savers Program
- The Climate Group’s RE100 Program
- We Are Still In Initiative
- Climate Leadership Council
- C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group
Energy Efficiency & Renewables in Direct Operations
Our science-based Scope 1 and Scope 2 absolute CO2 emission reduction targets are a key part of our Health for Humanity 2020 Goals, and commit us to ambitious reductions through 2050. In addition to this Report, we disclose our performance against these public commitments in the CDP Climate Change Report. In 2018, we have been recognized as a global leader on corporate climate action by inclusion in the CDP “Climate Change A list.”
We use ISO 50001 as a guide in our energy management strategy, focusing our efforts on the most energy-intensive equipment and creating goals and programs to address it.
Energy efficiency programs
Energy efficiency programs at our most energy-intensive manufacturing and R&D sites remain a priority with up to $40 million per year in capital relief for energy projects through the Johnson & Johnson CO2 Capital Relief Program. To be eligible for funding, projects must demonstrate potential CO2 savings and should provide a financial return of 15% or higher. In 2018, we approved 12 new projects and spent a total of $26.5 million. Key focus areas included chilled water system optimization, HVAC system optimization, steam generation and distribution, compressed air system, and LED lighting. Since its inception, the Capital Relief Program has funded 249 projects, with 16 of those completed in 2018.
• 249 projects approved
• 217 projects completed
• $412 million total spend on completed projects
• $76 million annual energy cost savings*
• 2,109 TJ annual energy savings*
• 276,196 MT CO2 annual GHG emissions avoided*
* Results from completed projects. The types of energy included in the total energy use reduction are fuel and electricity. Reductions in energy consumption and GHG emissions avoided are calculated by comparing energy consumption before project implementation and expected consumption after implementation. Our project data are based on engineering estimates at the time the projects are approved.
Increasing renewable energy
To continue toward our public aspiration of powering 100% of our facilities with renewable energy by 2050, we have been strategically increasing our proportion of renewable energy, both through renewable electricity procurement and through on-site renewable energy technology including solar PV and wind. In 2017, we started benefiting from electricity from a wind farm in Texas through our long-term power purchase agreement with E.ON Climate & Renewables. We are exploring additional power purchase agreements globally to support low-carbon operations in other countries as well as seeking new opportunities to invest in on-site renewable energy installations.
In 2018, we executed our first long-term “Green Tariff” agreement to power a portion of our manufacturing operations in the U.S. State of Georgia from a new utility-scale solar installation. We also expanded our on-site renewable energy generation capacity with the commissioning of the fourth wind turbine in Ireland. In Florida, U.S., we installed an 8,000-square-foot solar panel array at our Jacksonville distribution center. The new solar panels have a capacity of 115 kilowatts, providing up to 100% of the operations and contributing renewable electricity for additional material handling for approximately 10,000 orders a day that go through the distribution center.
Leader in renewable energy
In January 2018, Johnson & Johnson was named number 28 on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) National Top 100 List of the largest green power users from the Green Power Partnership. The Partnership currently has more than 1,600 partners—including companies, governments and universities—voluntarily using more than 45 billion kilowatt hours of green power annually. The EPA defines green power as electricity produced from solar, wind, geothermal, biogas, eligible biomass, and low-impact small hydroelectric sources.
We believe that green buildings are healthy not only for the environment but also for our employees. Our goal is to have all new Johnson & Johnson buildings and renovations with a cost of $5 million or more certified under Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED), the most widely used green building protocol in the world.
Our Xi’an Janssen Peak Project in China received LEED Gold Certification for its outstanding performance in water resources utilization, energy efficiency, and use of environmentally friendly materials. Xi’an Peak is the first certified new construction LEED Gold-level manufacturing facility in Johnson & Johnson.
Our new nine-floor office in Bogota, Colombia, achieved Platinum certification—the highest possible rating from LEED.
Reducing Value Chain Footprint
Like many companies of our size, tracking and reporting Scope 3 GHG emissions is a challenge because of the scale of our supply chain, measurement accuracy and limited availability of third-party data. In 2018, we enhanced our modeling methodology of various Scope 3 emissions categories and for the first time are able to report data for all 11 categories relevant to our business for the period from 2016 – 2018. This assessment confirmed that our largest source of emissions is from the upstream goods and services that we purchase, so we will continue to focus on improvements in this area.
Our EHS&S organization partners closely with our Global Procurement teams to advance supplier engagement on environmental matters. For example, through our Sustainable Procurement Program, we encourage our suppliers to set, and to report on, the progress of public environmental goals, including targets related to energy use and carbon emissions reduction. For more information, see Responsible Supply Base section.
We work with our transportation providers to optimize our distribution network, using multi-compartment trailers, consolidating shipments and optimizing transportation routes. Johnson & Johnson participates in the U.S. EPA's SmartWay program, which helps companies voluntarily increase transportation energy efficiency while decreasing GHG emissions and air pollution. At the same time, the SmartWay Transport Partnership helps freight companies improve fuel efficiency, increase environmental performance, and increase supply chain sustainability. For the past three years (2016 – 2018), Johnson & Johnson has been recognized with the U.S. EPA’s SmartWay Excellence Award in recognition of our environmental performance and additional actions to reduce freight emissions through collaboration, operational practices, robust validating and reporting systems, communications and public outreach.
We also provide incentives for customers to place orders in quantities that optimize the use of space on trailers, which reduces the number of deliveries and makes it more efficient to schedule, load and unload goods. Similarly, we work with customers to achieve idle-time reduction and faster turnaround times at distribution centers through delivery scheduling and, where available, offering electrical connections for truck charging.
Healthier and more sustainable cities
In 2018, we were proud to partner with the @c40cities Climate Leadership Group on research on the health co-benefits of cities acting on climate change. The interim results of our work with the C40 cities were published to highlight the health benefits that cities can achieve if they pursue efficient buildings and clean transport and industry, all supported by a clean energy grid. The research, co-funded by Johnson & Johnson, indicates that actions by cities in these areas could not only yield an 87% reduction in GHG emissions, a 49% reduction in air pollution measured by PM2.5 levels, and up to $583 billion in economic benefit, but also prevent 223,000 premature deaths annually. For more about sustainable cities and to download the research, see here.
|Total energy use (TJ)||13,208||12,685||12,811|
|From renewable sources||2,246||1,816||174|
|From non-renewable sources||10,962||10,869||12,637|
|Energy intensity ratio (TJ/billion USD)2||162||164||176|
|Percent change in energy intensity compared
to 2010 baseline (TJ/billion USD)2
Purchased Energy Use by Type (TJ)1
|Total purchased energy||12,507||12,512||12,639|
On-Site Generated Energy Use by Type (TJ)1
|Total on-site generated energy||701||778||825|
Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions3
|Scope 1 GHG emissions, total (MT CO2e)4||445,054||458,573||467,959|
|Scope 1 GHG emissions, by source (MT CO2e)4|
|Scope 2 GHG emissions, facilities (MT CO2e)1, 4|
|Scope 3 GHG emissions, by source (MT CO2e)4, 14|
|Purchased goods and services6||8,826,462||8,117,919||9,336,787|
|Upstream transportation and distribution6||2,039,872||1,893,440||2,083,011|
|Business travel6, 7||775,747||692,914||764,080|
|Fuel- and energy-related activities9||50,821||46,524||52,815|
|Upstream leased assets10||39,981||45,702||30,693|
|Waste generated in operations11||2,983||4,141||12,785|
|Downstream transportation and distribution12||Available 12/2019||45,850||48,561|
|Use of sold products13|
|End-of-life treatment of sold products13||222,404||211,531||235,803|
|GHG emissions intensity ratio (Scope 1 and Scope 2) per revenue (MT CO2e/million USD)||12||14||16|
|Percent decrease in GHG emissions intensity (Scope 1 and Scope 2) per revenue compared to 2010 baseline (MT CO2e /million USD)||45%||37%||10.4%|
Air Emissions by Category15
|Hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions (MT)16||30.25||50.14||54.00|
|Volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions (MT)16||414.05||607.99||501.00|
|Particulate matter (PM) emissions (MT)17||247.14||205.22||182.00|
|Refrigerant emissions (MT)||7.85||6.12||12.91|
|Ozone-depleting substances emissions (MT)||1.53||2.35||3.61|
|Sulfur oxide (SO2) emissions (MT)16||64||99||68|
|Mono-nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions (MT)||288||290||292|
2 Our diverse product portfolio makes it difficult to track an organization-specific metric, therefore we use revenue as denominator for energy intensity. Energy intensity ratio includes electricity, stationary fuels and district heating and cooling.
3 Selected year 2018 global GHG emissions inventory including Scope 1, Scope 2 (location- and market-based) emissions, Scope 3 emission categories 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, the percentage of electricity use generated by renewable energy sources, and NOx and SOx emissions (from combustion sources) were third-party assured by ERM Certification and Verification Services Inc. Please see this page for Independent GHG Assurance Statement.
4 In accordance with guidance from World Resources Institute Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard, we restated the 2016 - 2017 values to reflect newly released electricity grid emission factors as well as addition or removal of acquisitions and divestitures. We do not currently use purchases, sales or transfers of offsets in our GHG accounting. Gases covered in these calculations include CO2, CH4, and N2O. Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) are disclosed in EHS&S Governance. Perfluorinated chemicals, sulfur hexafluoride and nitrogen trifluoride do not result from our operations. We do not calculate or report biogenic CO2 emissions in MT CO2e separately from the gross direct (Scope 1) GHG emissions. Electricity emission factors are obtained from the International Energy Agency’s CO2 Emissions from Fuel Combustion Report and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's eGRID publication for location-based Scope 2 reporting, and from supply contracts and residual emission factors, where available, for market-based Scope 2 reporting. Fuel emission factors are obtained from the EPA Climate Leaders publication. Global Warming Potentials are obtained from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fifth Assessment Report. The chosen consolidation approach for emissions is operational control.
5 We did not report Scope 2 emissions using the market-based method prior to 2017. Starting from 2017, we are reporting Scope 2 emissions using both location-based and market-based methods, based on the latest Scope 2 guidance from the World Resources Institute in the Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard.
6 Emissions were calculated using company spend in the reporting year paired with appropriate economic input/output (IO) emission factors from Carnegie Melon’s 2002 dataset. Where more specific primary data were able to be obtained, they were used in place of the IO calculation methodology
7 Business Travel emissions for reporting year 2016 and 2017 are being restated due to the availability of spend data in categories that were not previously available.
8 Emissions from Employee Commuting were calculated using survey data from several properties and extrapolated for global operations. It should be noted that due to the assumptions that were made, Johnson & Johnson did not receive third-party limited assurance for this scope, but will work to improve these assumptions in the coming years.
9 Emissions from Fuel-and Energy-related Activities were calculated for emissions from transportation and distribution losses from purchased electricity. Emissions were calculated by combining purchased electricity with an appropriate emissions factor and percentage grid loss for each location.
10 Emissions from Upstream Leased Assets were calculated by applying the energy intensity from office locations in our Scope 1 and 2 footprint to the building area of leased assets less than 50,000 SqFt, which are excluded from Scope 1 and 2 reporting.
11 Emissions from Waste Generated in Operations were calculated for non-hazardous waste for our global operations using the U.S. EPA’s Waste Reduction Model (WARM).
12 Emissions from Downstream Transportation and Distribution were calculated using the U.S. EPA’s SmartWay Program, and are provided for U.S. shippers only.
13 Emissions from the Use of Sold Products and the End-of-Life Treatment of Sold Products were calculated using sales volumes for all Johnson & Johnson products combined with lifecycle assessment (LCA) models where sales volumes could be obtained, and where they could not be obtained, sales revenues and average unit prices were used to estimate volumes. Due to the size of our product portfolio, LCA’s were not performed for every Johnson & Johnson product, so products were placed into LCA categories and a representative product LCA was applied. It should be noted that due to the assumptions that were made, Johnson & Johnson did not receive third-party limited assurance for these scopes, but will work to improve these assumptions in the coming years.
14 Emissions from the Processing of Sold Products, Downstream Leased Assets, Franchises, and Investments are not applicable to Johnson & Johnson operations.
15 Where relevant, prior year data have been restated, reflecting improvements in data quality over time.
16 HAP, VOC and SOx emissions decreased in 2018 significantly compared to 2017, due to emergency generators operating for an extended time during the Hurricane Maria in 2017.
17 PM emissions increase was mainly driven by a significant use of diesel at one of the European sites when old sulphur-rich diesel was replaced by new sulphur-poor diesel.