Why This Matters Heading Into SCOPE 2026 

As leaders gather in Orlando for SCOPE 2026 (February 2-5), the conversations will center on speed, patient access, data quality, and technology-enabled execution. ESG rarely shows up as a featured track in the same way. Yet the operational reality is that ESG outcomes increasingly live inside the same workflows, vendor relationships, and trial decisions that SCOPE attendees manage every day. 

The most important shift is not philosophical. It is structural. 

For most sponsors, the majority of ESG exposure is Scope 3, and clinical trials are a meaningful contributor through the supplier ecosystem: technology platforms, specialty logistics, home health and nursing networks, central labs, imaging, packaging, depots, travel, and site support services. ESG can no longer be treated as something owned by corporate sustainability teams and managed by procurement through questionnaires. If sponsors want operational credibility, they need operational governance. 

The Uncomfortable Truth About ESG In The Trial Supply Chain 

Many ESG programs fail in the clinical supply chain for a simple reason: they were designed as reporting systems, not operating systems. 

Reporting systems optimize for completeness of documentation, consistency of narratives, and aggregate scoring. Operating systems optimize for decisions: who we select, how we manage performance, what we change, and what trade-offs we accept. 

When ESG remains trapped in reporting mode, it creates three predictable outcomes: 

1. ESG becomes a compliance tax. Suppliers spend time filling out surveys, translating data into formats sponsors can accept, and responding to repetitive requests that do not materially change behavior. Sponsors feel progress because they have coverage, but the trial footprint does not meaningfully shift.
   
2. Sponsors unintentionally push risk downstream. Mandates arrive without segmentation, enablement, or proportionality. Mid-sized suppliers, often the ones doing the most hands-on work in trial execution, absorb the burden. The result can be cost inflation, strained relationships, or hidden performance risk.
   
3. Clinical delivery and ESG drift into conflict. When sustainability is bolted on late, it competes with timelines, changes orders, and quality management. Teams treat it as a nice-to-have that must yield when delivery pressure mounts. 

This is the exact opposite of what leaders want. ESG should reduce risk, not introduce it. It should strengthen resilience, not distract from execution. But that only happens when ESG is designed like an operational capability. 

The Emerging Reality: Sustainability Performance is Performance 

The most forward-leaning sponsors and suppliers are reaching the same conclusion: sustainability is increasingly correlated with operational maturity. 

Not always, and not perfectly, but often enough to matter. Consider a few examples that will feel familiar to anyone in clinical operations: 

• A supplier that can produce credible, auditable emissions data typically has stronger data governance overall. That often translates into fewer surprises, cleaner change control, and better readiness for audits beyond ESG.
  
• A supplier that has mapped its logistics footprint and optimized routes often improves on-time delivery and reduces temperature excursion risk.
  
• A supplier that has implemented waste reduction and materials controls frequently has tighter process discipline, which supports quality consistency. 

The point is not that green equals good. The point is that the same management discipline required for credible sustainability performance tends to correlate with execution reliability. Leaders should treat that as a signal. 

Moving From ESG Scorecards To Decision-Grade ESG 

To make ESG operational, sponsors need to stop asking, "Do we have ESG data?" and start asking, "Is our ESG data good enough to make decisions?" 

Decision-grade ESG has three characteristics: 

1. It is material. It focuses on the few categories where the trial ecosystem has outsized impact: logistics, energy-intensive lab operations, technology infrastructure, travel and site support, and waste streams tied to trial execution.
   
2. It is comparable. Not every supplier can provide the same level of detail, but sponsors can still standardize key metrics, boundaries, and assumptions so performance can be interpreted consistently.
   
3. It is actionable. Data should directly inform choices: vendor selection, network design, packaging specifications, shipment strategy, site support models, and ongoing performance management. 

This is where many organizations get stuck. They collect data that is not comparable, not auditable, and not tied to decisions. When that happens, ESG becomes a document repository rather than a lever. 

The Supplier Perspective Sponsors Need To Hear 

Suppliers are not resisting sustainability. Most are navigating three constraints that sponsors often underestimate: 

1. Capacity constraints are real. Many clinical suppliers operate lean. Asking for multiple bespoke ESG submissions per sponsor diverts time from delivery. This is especially acute for mid-sized vendors that do not have dedicated sustainability teams.
   
2. Data maturity varies for legitimate reasons. Suppliers can only measure what they can see. In complex service networks, data is distributed across subcontractors, partners, and legacy systems. Progress requires investment and time, not just pressure.
   
3. One-size ESG requirements create perverse incentives. If sponsors penalize vendors for imperfect data rather than rewarding improvement, suppliers may resort to conservative estimates, minimal disclosure, or box-checking behavior. That does not help anyone. 

Sponsors can address these constraints without lowering standards. The answer is not to reduce expectations. The answer is to make expectations practical, proportional, and aligned to what drives impact. 

Across the sponsor landscape, a more pragmatic model is emerging. It has five moves. 

1. Segment suppliers by influence and risk, not by spend alone. Spend is a crude proxy. A smaller vendor may drive disproportionate emissions or waste depending on the service. Segment based on footprint drivers and operational criticality.
   
2. Standardize the asks and reduce noise. Suppliers do not need ten versions of the same questionnaire. Sponsors can converge on common data definitions and request cycles, especially in categories where vendors support multiple sponsors.
   
3. Build improvement pathways, not just requirements. If a supplier is not at the desired maturity level, define an improvement plan with milestones: baseline measurement, third-party verification where appropriate, and targeted reduction initiatives. Make progress visible and rewarded.
   
4. Embed ESG in vendor governance, not side programs. Treat sustainability performance like quality performance: regular reviews, accountability, corrective action where needed, and escalation when material risk is identified.
   
5. Treat sustainability, quality, cost, and speed as interdependent. The old mindset is that sustainability competes with speed and cost. The more accurate view is that poor sustainability design often signals poor process design. The goal is not trade-off avoidance. It is integrated optimization. 

This approach changes the internal operating model. ESG stops being an annual reporting cycle and becomes part of how the trial ecosystem is run. 

What This Means For CROs, Technology Vendors, And Trial Suppliers 

For suppliers, the competitive landscape is shifting. Buyers are looking for partners who can offer proof, not promises. Three implications stand out. Audit readiness will extend beyond quality. ESG data credibility, boundary definitions, and assurance practices will increasingly matter in vendor selection and renewals. Enablement will become a differentiator. Suppliers that can help sponsors reduce footprint through smarter operational design will win, even when their sticker price is not the lowest. Transparency will become table stakes. Not perfect data on day one, but a credible baseline, an improvement roadmap, and consistent reporting. 

This is a strategic opportunity, especially for mid-sized suppliers. The winners will be those who can turn sustainability execution into trust, and trust into long-term partnership. 

A Practical Challenge For SCOPE 2026 Leaders 

If ESG is becoming a clinical operations accountability, the leadership question is straightforward: Are you governing sustainability performance across your trial supplier ecosystem with the same discipline you apply to quality, patient safety, and delivery? 

If the answer is "not yet," the path forward does not require a massive transformation program. It requires clarity on what is material, standardization of what you ask for, and operational integration of what you do with the results. 

SCOPE 2026 will be full of talk about modernizing trial execution. The next wave of modernization is not only digital. It is operational. And sustainability is now part of operational excellence, whether organizations label it that way or not. 

Dr. Otis Johnson is co-founder and principal consultant at Vantix Operations and a recognized authority in clinical trial strategy, patient-centered research innovation, and ESG-driven operating models. With two decades in pharma, including 13 years at Merck and executive leadership roles at Syneos Health, ICON, and Clario, he bridges scientific rigor with trial execution and supplier ecosystem performance. He helped scale Clario’s Trial Oversight analytics platform into a $30M business and previously served as chief sustainability officer, strengthening ESG performance and operational accountability. Otis is the 2024 HBA Honorable Mentor Award recipient and a PharmaVoice 100 Most Inspiring Industry Leader. He can be reached at otis.johnson@vantixoperations.com.