We scored 500+ companies on sustainability. Here's what we found.
The average SINK score is 38/100. No company has broken 75. Fast fashion is the worst sector. Here are the headline findings from our database.
We built SINK because the sustainability ratings industry is broken. Companies pay to be rated. Methodologies are secret. Results are paywalled behind enterprise contracts costing tens of thousands per year. The result is that ExxonMobil can get an 'A' from one agency and 'below average' from another in the same year.
SINK is the alternative: one formula, public data, open methodology. Anyone can reproduce any score. If they can't, the score is wrong and we fix it.
After scoring 500+ companies across 28 industries, here's what the data tells us.
The average score is 38/100
Most companies fall between 25–55. The rubric is deliberately tough — a score of 60+ represents genuine leadership, and only a handful of companies have achieved it. The median tells a clear story: most companies are doing the minimum, not leading.
No company has broken 75
Ecosia leads the leaderboard at 73/100. The scale penalty means even the best large companies face a ceiling based on absolute emissions — physics doesn't care about efficiency ratios. A company emitting 50 million tonnes of CO₂e gets a 0.60x multiplier no matter how many solar panels it installs.
The worst-performing sectors
Oil & gas and fast fashion dominate the bottom of the leaderboard. Not because we set out to punish them — the formula is the same for everyone — but because the physics of these industries makes high scores structurally difficult. When your core business model involves extracting fossil fuels or producing disposable clothing at massive scale, the maths works against you.
Scores that might surprise you
- Tesla: 26/100 — An EV company with 55.9Mt CO₂e total emissions, no SBTi targets, no net-zero date, and $99M in regulatory fines. The product helps, but the company's own footprint is enormous.
- Microsoft: 43/100 — Claims 'carbon negative' but absolute emissions have risen significantly due to AI data centre expansion. Marketing and reality diverge.
- Patagonia: 52/100 — Good, not great. The scale penalty applies and the supply chain still has significant impacts. Being better than average isn't the same as being sustainable.
- SHEIN: 15/100 — Critical concern. Minimal transparency, no verified emissions data, and a business model built on disposability.
Banking: a sector in denial
Not a single major bank scored above 50/100. JPMorgan: 23. HSBC: 35. Barclays: 39. Goldman Sachs: 36. The reason is simple — financed emissions dwarf operational ones. HSBC's oil & gas lending alone accounts for 35.8Mt CO₂e. Banks can run their offices on 100% renewable energy and it barely moves the needle.
How the scoring works
(0.3 × Base Impact + 0.7 × Performance) × Scale PenaltyBase Impact is a fixed ceiling per industry — oil & gas starts at 20, SaaS at 70. You can't score high if your core business is extracting fossil fuels. Performance is 10 questions scored 0–10, covering emissions, energy, biodiversity, water, targets, transparency, and controversies. Scale Penalty reduces the score for absolute emissions volume. The atmosphere doesn't care about your revenue — it cares about your tonnes.
What happens next
Every score on SINK can be challenged by anyone with evidence. A source URL is required. Challenges are published publicly, and if the evidence supports a correction, the score updates. We'd rather be corrected than wrong.
We're adding new companies every week. If your company isn't in the database yet, you can request a score. Same formula. Same standards. Payment never influences the result.
Browse the full leaderboard at sinkproject.com. Read the full methodology.