SCOPE Summit 2026: Making ESG a Core Measure of Clinical Research Quality

In a video interview with Applied Clinical Trials at the 2026 SCOPE Summit, Otis Johnson, PhD, MPA, founder and principal consultant at Vantix Operations, discussed how expectations around environmental, social, and governance (ESG) performance are evolving across the clinical trial vendor ecosystem. Johnson explained why ESG is no longer treated as a supplemental reporting exercise but increasingly viewed by sponsors as a readiness and reliability indicator. He also highlighted growing supplier frustration with inconsistent ESG questionnaires and outlined why integrating ESG assessments into existing vendor qualification and control systems may be the most effective path forward.

Editor's note: This transcript is a lightly edited rendering of the original audio/video content. It may contain errors, informal language, or omissions as spoken in the original recording.

ACT: What best practices would you recommend to companies in clinical development who are looking to implement or increase their ESG efforts?

Johnson: I would recommend a mindset shift. Most companies are already doing activities that would qualify as ESG. The problem is that they don’t have a clean way to show the evidence in a way sponsors can easily understand.

I suggest starting with a baseline assessment—looking at where you’re already strong and where you may be exposed or carrying risk. From there, conduct a full inventory across environmental, social, and governance activities. Once you understand what’s already in place, the next step is to put a wrapper around it by assigning clear ownership and accountability. You need champions responsible for those different processes.

The final consideration is alignment. Companies should align their ESG efforts with frameworks and initiatives that sponsors already recognize and value—things like SBTi, the Science Based Targets initiative, CDP, and EcoVadis. These are core components of the pharmaceutical supply chain initiatives that sponsors rely on for ESG and sustainability assessments.

In most cases, suppliers already have ESG activity underway. The real issue is that they don’t yet have decision-grade evidence to demonstrate it.

ACT: Looking forward in five years, what are your hopes for sustainability in clinical trials?

Johnson: My hope is simple. I’d like to see sustainability become part of how we define clinical research quality. It should be embedded directly into that definition.

In five years, I expect we’ll see more robust control and monitoring systems in place. More importantly, I’d like to see sponsors actively rewarding credibility and evidence. Suppliers that take ESG and sustainability seriously—and have strong control mechanisms to support those efforts—should be rewarded with better opportunities. Those are the organizations that should win more business.