Protect Our Winters is a climate advocacy nonprofit with a negligible operational footprint but no formal sustainability disclosure. Its strength lies in aggressive pro-climate lobbying and public lands advocacy. Core weakness: complete absence of operational emissions reporting, energy strategy, or science-based targets for its own organisation—despite being a climate organisation.
Same formula for every company. No curve. No private weighting.
SINK = (0.3 × Base + 0.7 × Performance) × ScaleStrongest on Controversies & Red Flags and Transparency & Accountability (9/10, 6/10). Weakest on Energy Source and Emissions Trajectory (3/10, 3/10).
12 sources used in this assessment. All publicly available. Each row shows which rubric questions it informed.
6 of 12 sources are third-party verified or public record.
If you believe a source has been misread or a newer version exists, submit a challenge.
Among the 8 major consulting / professional services brands we've scored, Protect Our Winters is tied =6th of 8, with 2 others.
Score history begins 9 April 2026.
As Protect Our Winters's score updates, the trajectory will appear here.
We're backfilling historical scores for FTSE 100 and S&P 100 companies over the coming weeks.
Every challenge is published. We'd rather be corrected than wrong — that's the whole point.
No challenges submitted yet. If you have evidence that contradicts this score, you can challenge any question above — cite a public source and we'll review it.
Protect Our Winters is a US-based nonprofit advocacy organisation founded in 2007, headquartered in Boulder, Colorado. It mobilises athletes, outdoor enthusiasts, and communities to lobby for climate action, clean energy, and public lands protection. Operating with ~$6.3M annual revenue and 50–132 staff, POW campaigns on carbon pricing, solar energy, transportation, and Arctic protection through policy advocacy, digital media, and member mobilisation.
Outdoor brand with published climate targets; POW operates in same ecosystem but as pure advocacy
View breakdown →Mission-driven service organisation; similar small operational footprint but Ecosia publishes transparency reports
View breakdown →Nature-focused nonprofit with biodiversity measurement; POW has similar conservation mission but weaker disclosure
View breakdown →Major outdoor industry partner targeted by POW advocacy; comparison of corporate vs. advocacy approach to climate
View breakdown →Email alerts when a rubric question is verified, a challenge is resolved, or the overall score changes.
One email, every Sunday. Score changes, new research, the stories behind the numbers. Free.
No spam. Unsubscribe in one click.
Readers and institutions support our work. Companies can pay to submit evidence we couldn't find. Neither type of payment changes a score.