Advancing Net Zero with ‘Net Healthy’: The Case for Health Metrics in Corporate Sustainability
- Jan 19
- 4 min read
A 2021 thought-provoking video by Our Changing Climate (OCC)1 poses a daring yet relevant question: Why is net zero a scam?. This video argues that net-zero targets have become a ‘buzz phrase’. According to the gold standard for net-zero by Potts & Miltenberger (2021), companies should reach a net-zero balance on paper (2). When corporations measure their sustainability success solely by carbon reductions, they create a systemic blind spot that overlooks other critical impact metrics. Factors such as health, equity and the stability of natural ecosystems determine whether net-zero efforts can deliver real long-term value. After all, paper-based net-zero targets with long timelines fuel procrastination (1) and leave loopholes through which companies can avoid responsibility and fall short of addressing the lived impacts of climate change on workers, communities and even markets. If we perceive that there will be benefits to reducing emissions by 2050, why are we not equally emphasising the benefits of reducing emissions now? The anthropogenic impacts of business operations affect both current and future generations; therefore, instead of taking the long road to success by a specific deadline, let us prioritise the victories along the way. Human well-being is one factor that allows us to see tangible results of climate action in a few months- not 2050. Health must be a central pillar of sustainability because it amplifies the effectiveness of carbon mitigation (7). Hence, I propose 'net-healthy' alongside net-zero.
Indeed, many companies monitor health and well-being, although mostly as HR or compliance indicators (6,7). Several ESG standards-setting organisations have begun integrating health metrics into their frameworks, but there is a need for standardised measures (6,7). Elevating health metrics will allow businesses to recognise how health impacts across their value chain shape climate vulnerability, productivity and long-term resilience. The health impacts of climate change are no longer a future prediction but a lived reality (8). Equally, the health benefits of sustainable transitions are immediate and measurable when meaningful changes are implemented. For example, in the automotive and manufacturing sectors, reducing particulate emissions lowers the burden of respiratory illness among workers and communities (3). Consider an indirect angle, supply chain reforms that reduce pesticides and endocrine-disrupting chemicals in products can improve reproductive health outcomes among consumers and employees, particularly women, while simultaneously supporting broader environmental sustainability goals (4).
The net-healthy framework
This approach measures sustainability impacts not only by carbon impact but also by health impact. For many people, the climate tipping points are a point of reference in the future; however, current patterns and extent of water and air pollution, heatwaves, vector-borne diseases, droughts and even occupational hazards reveal to us that our health has already reached a tipping point (5). The three pillars of the net-healthy framework would be:
(i) Healthy people: workers, customers and communities
(ii) Healthy operations: safe materials, low pollution and equitable design
(iii) Healthy innovation: products that reduce disease burden, promote prevention of diseases, injuries and increase well-being.
These three pillars form a foundation that complements, strengthens and accelerates net-zero goals. Corporations can embed the net-healthy pillars by improving workforce health, integrating preventive care into ESG, redesigning operations to reduce health impacts, investing in clean buildings, and partnering with those in the public health sector to create environments that protect current and future generations (7). Lastly, they can account for and report on the health benefits of their climate actions. This way, net-healthy serves to ensure tangible gains on the road to 2050. Nevertheless, the important question is what strategic value does a net-healthy approach create for corporations today?
Why should companies care? The business case (7)
For decades, corporate sustainability has been framed around future emissions targets, yet the health impacts of corporate activities are neither abstract, distant, nor optional. They are happening and clearly affecting today’s workforce, today’s customers and today’s economic performance (6). While carbon neutrality timelines stretch to 2050, health benefits begin immediately once emissions, pollutants and unsafe processed foods are reduced (3,4,9). This is the missing bridge that makes net zero feel like a scam. Net-healthy protects today, not only as a moral responsibility but also as a business strategy (7).
Firstly, a healthy workforce is a profitable workforce. Poor health in the workplace can be worsened by pollution, heat stress, and toxins in the work environment. These directly influence sick leave requests, health insurance payouts, productivity and employee turnover (7). Companies that will invest in health resilience will see measurable returns within a few months- not 2050 (9). Secondly, climate-related weather changes, such as increasing temperatures, are already affecting productivity in factories (7). Climate-related health disruptions in supply chains can expose companies to penalties, lawsuits, higher insurance and operational setbacks. Thirdly, the market is clearly shifting. As awareness of sustainability grows, communities and families increasingly favour brands that protect their health. Prioritising their well-being can yield more immediate returns than focusing solely on carbon metrics, given the universal importance of health (6, 9). For many, a net-healthy brand will signal: low toxicity, responsible sourcing, clean manufacturing, and commitment to community, much faster than a net-zero-only brand. This will not only ensure trust and long-term loyalty in the journey towards 2050 but will also encourage companies to commit to their net-zero promises. Lastly, adopting a net-healthy approach also strengthens the S in ESG. Investors want companies that are minimised in litigation risk, prepared for climate-health regulations and can avoid workforce instability. A net-healthy approach thus signals lower long-term risk.
In conclusion, a business cannot be sustainable if the people sustaining it are not healthy. Climate and human health are interconnected, thus making human well-being the foundation of sustainable practices. Future generations can only thrive if today’s generation is healthy. While both net-zero and net-healthy approaches aim at sustainability, net-healthy provides a way to measure the immediate human impacts of net-zero efforts. Net-healthy is transformative as it centres health in sustainability, driving meaningful change beyond carbon metrics and demonstrating progress through health metrics long before 2050.
References / Used Sources
3 Xing, Y.-F. et al. (2016) “The impact of PM2.5 on the human respiratory system.” PubMed Central https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4740125/
9 Carnell, et al. (2019) “Modelling public health improvements as a result of air pollution control policies in the UK over four decades—1970 to 2010” Environmental Research Letters https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ab1542/pdf
Author: Geogina Martin, Student of MBA Sustainability Management Class 3 (2025-2027)