Every SINK score is produced by the same formula, using the same rubric, applied to publicly available data. No exceptions. No special treatment. This page explains exactly how it works so you can verify any score yourself.
SINK is a physics-first environmental impact score. We measure what the planet physically experiences — absolute emissions, ecosystem damage, resource depletion, water impact — not reporting maturity or corporate process. Scores are independent assessments open to challenge and correction by anyone with evidence.
Transparent. Reproducible. Open to challenge.
SINK = (0.3 × Base + 0.7 × Performance) × ScaleIndustry sustainability ceiling. Oil & Gas: 20. SaaS: 75. Fixed per sector — it caps how high a company in that industry can score.
Ten questions, same rubric for everyone. Emissions, targets, governance, offsets, lobbying. Where real effort shows.
Total emissions volume. 50M+ tonnes triggers a 0.60× multiplier. Physics doesn't negotiate — size is part of the score.
Here's how that formula produces Apple's score of 49.
Electronics / Hardware sector ceiling, derived from lifecycle emissions and recyclability benchmarks.
10 rubric questions: emissions targets, Scope 3 disclosure, governance, offsets, lobbying.
Weighted average: base impact has a 30% floor, performance drives 70% of the result.
Apple's 20M+ tonne Scope 3 footprint triggers the multiplier. See methodology §4.
60.3 × 0.82 ≈ 49. Making progress.
Every company is assessed against these ten questions. The first seven measure physical impact — what the planet actually experiences. The last three measure whether the company is improving and can be held accountable. Performance = sum of all ten scores.
Scores between anchors (0, 3, 6, 10) reflect how closely a company meets the next threshold. Operational evidence (energy bills, supplier records, water bills) is accepted at all levels — formal sustainability reporting is not required to score well.
Each industry gets a base score reflecting the physical environmental impact of its core business activity. Click any row to see the rationale. All scores are open to challenge.
New sectors added as companies are scored. Base scores set by editorial review and open to challenge with evidence.
The planet experiences absolute tonnes. Total emissions volume applies a multiplier between 0.60× and 1.00× to the weighted score.
Theoretical near-maximum. Requires exceptional performance across all dimensions at scale.
Best-in-class. Only a handful of companies in our database have reached this level.
Genuine sustainability leadership backed by verified data and science-based targets.
Meaningful effort with room for improvement.
Some action but significant gaps remain.
Major disclosure or performance deficiencies.
Minimal effort or actively harmful practices.
We don't grade on a curve. We grade against the planet. Scores above 75 are exceptionally rare — reflecting how demanding the rubric is. The majority of companies score between 30 and 60. A score of 60+ represents genuine sustainability leadership, the kind backed by verified data, science-based targets, and transparent governance.
A separate designation for companies whose core business demonstrably removes more greenhouse gas than it creates. The badge is displayed alongside the SINK score — it does not change the score itself.
Eligibility requires all three:
Companies cannot pay to receive this designation.
Scored using publicly available data. Awaiting community verification.
At least 5 community verifications across the 10 questions, with fewer than 3 open challenges. Each verification must include a source URL or brief justification.
At least 20 community verifications, fewer than 2 unresolved challenges, and score stable for 30+ days.
We rate companies from publicly available data — sustainability reports, certifications, third-party investigations. This is the right starting point because it's verifiable and contestable. But it has a real limitation: companies that genuinely do good work but don't publish formal reports score lower than companies with strong PR but mediocre practice.
This is what's sometimes called the disclosure gap. Big companies have the budget to write polished sustainability reports. Smaller companies, family businesses, and B-Corps often don't — even when their actual practice is stronger.
SINK addresses this through Enhanced Assessment: companies can submit evidence directly to factor it into the rubric. Same 10 questions, same scoring rules. Bad actors can't pay for a higher score. Good actors with limited public disclosure can show their actual work.
Every question on every score has a “Challenge” button. Click it, select the tier you think is correct, provide your evidence — a source URL is required — and submit.
Challenges are published publicly. When community evidence supports a more accurate assessment, the score is updated, the challenger is credited, and the change is logged permanently in the score history.
We'd rather be corrected than wrong. That's the point.
New schema across all company pages: source-tracking per question, editorial summaries, per-question evidence paragraphs. Rubric structure unchanged; lobbying remains assessed within Controversies (Q10) as a deduction factor.
Published rationale for every base impact score. SaaS revised 75→70, Electronics 45→40, Apparel (Durable) 25→30. Added interpolation note and verification source requirements.
Formula, 10-question rubric, base impact table, scale penalties, scoring bands, verification tiers, and challenge process.
Every score on the leaderboard shows its full breakdown — base, performance, scale penalty, and the 10 question scores with evidence and sources.