top of page
Search

Part 3 - ESG Goals - What Leading Companies do to Actually Reduce Impacts

Updated: 2 days ago


What Leading Companies Do to Reduce Their Impacts

Around the world, Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) practices are shifting from marketing language to operational reality. Investors, regulators, and communities are asking a simple but demanding question:

What are you actually doing to reduce your impacts – not just talk about them?

This article looks at five organizations in five different sectors that have become reference points in the ESG conversation:

  • Energy: Ørsted

  • Healthcare: Novo Nordisk

  • Technology: Microsoft

  • Education: Pearson

  • Air Travel: United Airlines


Each of them publishes sustainability or ESG reports and has made public commitments to reducing – or in some cases, removing – the harms associated with their operations. None of them are perfect. But each shows what it looks like to move from intention to action.


How I Chose These Examples

These are not the only leaders in their sectors, and including them here is not an endorsement of everything they do. I chose them because they:

  • Publish detailed, recurring sustainability or ESG reports

  • Have clear, time-bound climate and social targets

  • Tie ESG work to their core business model, not just side projects

  • Are transparent enough that we can see both progress and tension

In other words: they give us something real to evaluate.


1. Energy: Ørsted – From Fossil Utility to Renewable Leader


Sector: Energy

Headquarters: Denmark

Key documents: Annual report and sustainability statements; ESG reporting and ratings. orsted.com+1

Ørsted is one of the clearest case studies of a traditional fossil-fuel company transforming itself into a renewable energy leader.


What they publish

Ørsted combines financial and sustainability reporting, along with dedicated pages for its ESG ratings and reporting history, going back nearly two decades. orsted.com+1


What they’re actually doing

  • Full green transition: Ørsted has phased out coal, closing its last coal-fired combined heat and power plant in 2024, and aims for virtually all power and heat generation to come from renewable sources, primarily offshore wind. orsted.com+1

  • Net-zero value chain by 2040: The company’s greenhouse-gas reduction targets, including value-chain (Scope 3) emissions, are validated by the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi), with net-zero across the value chain targeted for 2040. orsted.com+1

  • Decarbonising customers: As a major builder of offshore wind farms, Ørsted’s core business helps other companies and utilities reduce their own emissions.

  • Nature and communities: Their sustainability priorities include biodiversity, just transition principles, and community engagement near large infrastructure projects. orsted.tw


Why it matters: Ørsted shows that the energy sector can move from fossil-based generation to a renewables-led model at scale, while still being honest about the challenges of supply chain, grid integration, and marine ecosystems.


2. Healthcare: Novo Nordisk – Health, Climate, and Supply Chains

Sector: Healthcare / Pharmaceuticals

Headquarters: Denmark

Key documents: ESG Portal, Sustainability Statement under CSRD, Sustainability Essentials brief, and Annual Report with integrated sustainability section. novonordisk.com+3novonordisk.com+3novonordisk.com+3


Novo Nordisk is best known for diabetes and obesity treatments, but it has also become a prominent ESG actor in healthcare.


What they publish

  • A dedicated ESG portal with environmental, social, and governance reporting. novonordisk.com+1

  • A Sustainability Statement aligned with the EU’s Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) and based on a double-materiality assessment. novonordisk.com+1

Their “sustainability essentials” documents highlight key topics: patient protection and quality of life, climate change, resource use and circularity, and nature. novonordisk.com+2Novo Nordisk Annual Report+2


What they’re actually doing

  • Net-zero ambition: Novo Nordisk has set a goal of net-zero emissions by 2045, with an interim target to cut Scope 3 emissions by 33% by 2033 from a 2024 baseline. Reuters

  • Decarbonising production and supply: They are pushing suppliers toward renewable energy and lower-carbon materials and redesigning products and packaging to reduce resource use and waste. novonordisk.com+2Novo Nordisk Annual Report+2

  • Patient access and equity: A core social priority is expanding access to essential medicines and preventive health efforts, particularly for vulnerable populations—linking health outcomes directly to sustainability. Novo Nordisk Annual Report+1


The tension

Because of surging demand for its obesity drug Wegovy, Novo Nordisk’s total emissions have actually risen—up about 23% in 2024, with Scope 3 representing roughly 96% of the total. Reuters


This makes Novo Nordisk a useful real-world example: a company can be ambitious and transparent, and still struggle to bend the curve in a fast-growing, high-impact industry. It highlights why supply-chain decarbonisation and product design are critical in healthcare.


3. Technology: Microsoft – Carbon Negative, Water Positive, Zero Waste

Sector: Technology / Cloud & SoftwareHeadquarters: United StatesKey documents: Annual environmental sustainability report; ongoing “sustainability journey” and progress pages. Microsoft+5Microsoft+5The Official Microsoft Blog+5

Microsoft is one of the most visible tech companies in climate and ESG discussions, partly because its operations – especially cloud and AI data centers – are both energy-intensive and globally distributed.


What they publish

  • An annual Environmental Sustainability Report, documenting progress toward 2030 goals and the growing demands of data and AI. Microsoft+2The Official Microsoft Blog+2

  • Ongoing updates on its sustainability journey, including carbon, water, waste, ecosystems, and customer sustainability support. Microsoft+2Microsoft+2


What they’re actually doing

Microsoft has four flagship 2030 goals:

  1. Carbon negative: Reduce Scope 1 and 2 emissions to near zero, cut Scope 3 by more than half from 2020 levels, and remove more CO₂ than they emit, using verified carbon removal. The Wall Street Journal+3The Official Microsoft Blog+3Microsoft+3

  2. Water positive: Replenish more water than they consume in water-stressed regions. Microsoft+3Microsoft+3The Official Microsoft Blog+3

  3. Zero waste: Eliminate waste across data centers, campuses, and devices through reuse, recycling, and circular design. Microsoft+2Microsoft+2

  4. Protect more land than they use: Support conservation and restoration projects to offset their physical footprint. Microsoft+3The Official Microsoft Blog+3Microsoft+3


To pursue these, Microsoft is:

  • Contracting large volumes of high-quality carbon removal (including direct air capture and other durable removals), becoming one of the largest buyers globally. The Wall Street Journal

  • Engaging suppliers to require 100% carbon-free electricity and lower-carbon materials, like green steel and low-carbon cement. The Wall Street Journal+1

  • Designing more efficient data centers and shifting workloads toward cleaner power sources.


The tension

Despite these commitments, Microsoft’s Scope 3 emissions have risen significantly (around 26% since 2020) due to rapid expansion of cloud and AI infrastructure. The Wall Street Journal


Like Novo Nordisk, they are a good example of what it looks like to pursue aggressive ESG action in a sector where demand for services (and therefore infrastructure) is exploding.


4. Education: Pearson – Learning, SDGs, and Social Bonds

Sector: Education / Learning & Publishing

Headquarters: United Kingdom

Key documents: Sustainability section and reports, “Learning for Impact” sustainability performance report, climate action plan, social bond reporting. Pearson plc+4Pearson plc+4Pearson plc+4

Pearson positions itself as “the world’s lifelong learning company,” and has been integrating ESG into how it finances and delivers education. Pearson plc


What they publish

  • A dedicated sustainability site outlining their “Responsible Business Strategy” and learning-driven sustainability vision. Pearson plc

  • A detailed sustainability performance report describing progress on social and environmental goals, plus preparation for CSRD and a double-materiality assessment. Pearson plc

  • A climate action plan, health and safety statements, and impact reporting on their social bond framework focused on SDG 4 (Quality Education). Pearson plc+2Pearson plc+2


What they’re actually doing

  • Quality education as core impact: Pearson’s social bond framework channels capital into projects that expand access to education (e.g., digital platforms like Connections Academy), explicitly targeting SDG 4. Pearson plc+1

  • Decarbonising operations: Their sustainability performance reports highlight reductions in Scope 1 and 2 emissions and growing use of renewable electricity (e.g., securing a majority of purchased electricity from renewables and achieving double-digit percentage reductions in emissions vs. 2020). Contentful+1

  • Responsible digital transition: As learning becomes more digital, they are integrating AI and online platforms while considering inclusion, accessibility, and data responsibility. Pearson plc+1


Why it matters: Education companies are often overlooked in ESG discussions, but they sit at the intersection of human capital, digital access, and climate literacy. Pearson’s use of social bonds and SDG-linked reporting shows how finance and education can be aligned.


5. Air Travel: United Airlines – Betting Big on SAF and Carbon Removal

Sector: Air Travel / Aviation

Headquarters: United States

Key documents: Corporate Impact Report, environmental data and sustainability pages, sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) disclosures. United Airlines+4United Airlines Impact Report 2024+4United Airlines Impact Report 2024+4

Aviation is one of the hardest sectors to decarbonise. United Airlines is notable because it has set ambitious commitments and is investing heavily in new climate technologies.


What they publish


What they’re actually doing

  • Net-zero by 2050 without traditional offsets: United has stated a goal to fully reduce greenhouse-gas emissions by 2050, leaning on operational changes, SAF, and carbon removal rather than conventional carbon offsets. Axios+4United Airlines Impact Report 2024+4United Airlines+4

  • Sustainable aviation fuel (SAF): United is one of the most active airlines in SAF procurement and partnerships, using fuels that can reduce lifecycle emissions by up to around 85% compared to conventional jet fuel, depending on feedstock and process. Reuters+3United Airlines+3United Airlines Impact Report 2024+3

  • Carbon removal investments: Through its Sustainable Flight Fund, United invests in carbon removal companies like Heirloom (direct air capture) and technologies that convert captured CO₂ into cleaner jet fuel, securing rights to hundreds of thousands of tons of CO₂ removal for future use. Axios+1

  • Fleet and efficiency innovation: United also invests in more efficient aircraft concepts (like blended-wing designs) to reduce fuel burn per passenger mile alongside SAF and removals. The Wall Street Journal+1


The reality check: Even with these efforts, SAF remains a tiny fraction of total aviation fuel globally (IATA estimates it will be well under 1% of total fuel in 2025), and costs are much higher than conventional fuel. Reuters

That’s exactly why United’s early-stage investments and long-term contracts matter: they’re trying to help create the market that doesn’t yet exist at scale.


Cross-Cutting Lessons from These ESG Leaders

Across these five very different sectors, a few common themes emerge:

  1. Transparency is non-negotiable.All of these organizations publish detailed, recurring ESG or sustainability reports, often aligned with emerging regulations like CSRD and backed by assurance or external ratings.

  2. Scope 3 is the real frontier.For Novo Nordisk, Microsoft, Pearson, and United, the majority of impacts sit in their supply chains, product use, or fuel supply. Leading companies are now treating Scope 3 as a design constraint, not a footnote.

  3. Innovation and partnerships matter as much as internal efficiency.From Ørsted’s offshore wind and United’s SAF/carbon removal deals, to Microsoft’s push for new carbon removal technologies and Pearson’s social bonds, serious ESG work is increasingly about transforming the ecosystem, not just tweaking internal operations.

  4. Growth and sustainability are in tension – and that’s okay to admit.Novo Nordisk’s and Microsoft’s rising emissions due to surging demand show that being a “leader” doesn’t mean having a perfect downward emissions curve. It means being honest about the trade-offs and continually raising the bar on what is possible.

  5. ESG is becoming infrastructure, not a side project.In all five cases, sustainability is increasingly part of core strategy, finance structures, and product decisions – not just a separate CSR team.


How You Can Use These Examples

If you’re working on ESG strategy or advising others, you can use these companies as benchmarks and conversation starters:

  • Compare your own reporting transparency and data depth to theirs.

  • Look at how they’ve framed targets, timelines, and trade-offs.

  • Study their approach to Scope 3, innovation, and partnerships, then adapt those ideas to your scale and sector.

No single company has the perfect model. But together, they show what leading practice looks like when ESG is treated as real work, not just a label.




BONUS Content: Double Materiality and the Geography of Sacrifice: The Hidden Trade-Offs of Sustainability


Sustainability promises a future where people and the planet thrive together — a world where environmental quality supports human well-being, and human innovation restores ecological balance. This vision is real, achievable, and already unfolding in many parts of the world.


But the path toward this future is not smooth. It requires acknowledging an uncomfortable truth: environmental protection is not evenly distributed, and progress in one place often depends on sacrifice in another. Understanding this reality is central to the concept of double materiality.


What Double Materiality Actually Means

Double materiality recognizes two questions:

  1. How do environmental and social conditions impact a business?

  2. How does the business impact environmental and social conditions?

Most ESG frameworks historically focused on the first question (financial materiality). But the second question — the company’s real-world impact — is equally important, especially as we enter an age of climate constraints, global supply chains, and resource competition.


To understand impact, we must examine not only what improves, but what is displaced, redirected, or sacrificed to make that improvement possible.


The Hidden Geography of Sustainability

Environmental progress is never zero-sum in intent, but it often becomes zero-sum in practice.

When a city preserves wetlands, the land that would’ve supported development must shift elsewhere. When a nation protects an old-growth forest, timber demand moves toward another region. When a company electrifies its fleet, mining for copper, lithium, and rare earth elements intensifies in countries half a world away.


This is not an argument against sustainability. It’s an argument for facing the full picture.

Environmental quality for one community often requires environmental burden somewhere else — unless the system is redesigned with global fairness and long-term thinking in mind.


This is the central challenge of sustainable development: How do we improve quality of life without simply outsourcing harm?


Time, Proximity, and the Cost of Stewardship

Three forms of sacrifice shape this balance:

1. Time

Protecting an ecosystem today means limiting certain economic activities in the short term in exchange for long-term, compounding benefits — healthier soil, cleaner water, stable climate, biodiversity resilience. But people must live through the short-term constraints to reach the long-term rewards.

2. Proximity

Communities who steward land — preserving forests, protecting coastlines, maintaining watershed health — often shoulder restrictions that benefit people far away. The value created is real, but unevenly visible. A healthy wetland reduces flood risks for downstream cities that may contribute nothing to its maintenance.

3. Property Selection

Deciding where to conserve and where to develop is inherently political. Every land use choice carries winners and losers: homes built here mean habitat lost there; habitat protected here means housing pressure grows somewhere else.


Sustainability is as much about making equitable decisions as it is about making ecological decisions.


A More Honest Model of Progress

To build a sustainable world that is both fair and effective, we must embrace transparency around the trade-offs:

  • Environmental protection must be paired with economic pathways for communities affected by conservation boundaries.

  • Global supply chains must account for their full impacts, not just the impacts within national borders.

  • Businesses must adopt double materiality analysis not as a reporting exercise, but as a decision-making lens.

  • Policies must prioritize restoration and circularity, reducing the need for extractive “offset geographies” in the first place.

Quality of life and environmental quality can rise together — but only when we plan with foresight, solidarity, and realism.


The Future: Regenerative Design Instead of Displaced Impact

The true promise of sustainability is not simply minimizing harm; it is designing systems that regenerate more than they consume.

Regenerative agriculture, circular production, decentralized energy, compact urban design, and ecosystem restoration all point toward a future where progress in one place does not require degradation in another.

Double materiality, when embraced fully, pushes organizations to ask:

Are we improving the world here by worsening it somewhere else? If so, how do we redesign the system so progress becomes holistic, not displaced?

It is a challenging question — but answering it honestly is what separates responsible sustainability from feel-good sustainability.


Thank you for reading!

Please note: This post was compiled and composed with the assistance of ChatGPT.


Sources:



 
 
 

Comments

bottom of page