Candy Kittens sustainability score: 32/100
Better than 14% of Food & Beverage (non-meat)
Making progress starts at 46. The highest score on SINK is 71.
Candy Kittens is a UK confectionery brand founded in 2012 and based in London. It manufactures gummy sweets through contract manufacturers, operates as asset-light with no owned production, and positions itself as a conscious consumer brand.
More about Candy Kittens
The company has ~22 employees and £14.8M revenue.
Founded 2012Head office London, GBStaff ~22Revenue ~£14.8MWebsite ↗
Candy Kittens has calculated its carbon footprint via ClimatePartner but publishes no emissions figures or reduction targets. Its carbon neutral claim relies on offsets, not cuts, and was flagged by the Changing Markets Foundation as greenwashing. Packaging waste reduction and palm oil avoidance are substantive, but absolute emissions trajectory remains opaque.
Candy Kittens scores 32/100 (Below expectations) on SINK's independent climate assessment, scored from public data only. Scores are free. Nobody can pay to change a score, speed it up or hide it. Last verified May 2026.
That places Candy Kittens joint 658th of 1,023 companies scored, and joint 42nd of 51 in Food & Beverage (non-meat).
What is Candy Kittens doing well, and where does it fall short?
Strongest on Controversies & Red Flags and Nature & Biodiversity Impact (7/10, 6/10). Weakest on Carbon Footprint: Supply Chain and Emissions Trajectory (3/10, 3/10).
Where Candy Kittens lost points
For each question that lost points, the evidence our public rubric looks for that we didn't find.
What would raise this score
- Emissions from its supply chainAssess where its supply-chain emissions come from.
- Whether its emissions are fallingShow its emissions are falling.
- How clean its energy isMove to a renewable energy tariff or make a major efficiency investment.
Every question that lost points
- Emissions from its own operations4/10No full Scope 1 and 2 figures worked out to the GHG Protocol.
- Emissions from its supply chain3/10No assessment of where its supply-chain emissions come from.
- Whether its emissions are falling3/10No evidence its emissions are falling.
- How clean its energy is3/10No renewable energy tariff or major efficiency investment shown.
- Its effect on nature6/10No verified restoration beyond its own footprint, or supply chain not mapped for nature risk.
- How it uses materials and handles waste5/10No measurable waste or recycling targets reported publicly.
- Its effect on water4/10No measured water footprint with reduction targets.
- Its climate targets3/10No specific targets with dates.
- How openly it reports6/10No shareholder vote on climate, or not everything publicly verifiable.
- Its record on controversies7/10Points deducted for controversies or its business model. The finding is under question 10.
A score changes when the evidence does. We use new published evidence at the next rescore. Anyone can send us new evidence, free. How to send it.
How is Candy Kittens's SINK score calculated?
Same ten questions for every company. No private weighting.
SINK = (0.3 × Base + 0.7 × Performance) × ScaleHas Candy Kittens's score changed?
Candy Kittens's score has moved from 46 to 32 across 2 recorded reviews, down 14 points.
- 46 → 32-147 November 2026
The small-company exception no longer applies: its parent group, Katjes International, files group accounts showing €503.0m revenue. With no published emissions figure, the 0.70x size step now applies.
- Scored 467 November 2026
Correction, 7 November 2026: removed an unsourced emissions figure. Score unchanged.
What evidence is Candy Kittens's score based on?
9 sources used in this assessment. All publicly available. Each row shows which of the ten questions it informed.
11% of them were published by Candy Kittens itself; the rest come from independent sources.
If you believe a source has been misread or a newer version exists, submit a challenge.
Is this your company? Claim this profile (free)
Use this score in tenders
Send the link, or the one-page score sheet. It links back to this page and every source. Free.
Open the score sheet →Send new evidence, free
Scored low because little is published? Publish what you do and send us the link, free. If it holds up, your score changes, and the change is logged on your page.
How to send evidence →Put your score on your website, free
It shows the current band, sector rank and score, and links to this page, so it changes when the score does.
Track this score
Bidding for a public contract? Check if you need a Carbon Reduction Plan, free →
Want your own page like this?
Free, independent, every source shown. Send it to any buyer who asks about your sustainability.
How does Candy Kittens compare with other food & beverage (non-meat) companies?
Where Candy Kittens sits among food & beverage (non-meat) peers.
Among the 51 major food & beverage (non-meat) brands we've scored, Candy Kittens is tied =42nd of 51, with 2 others.
Who scores higher in Food & Beverage (non-meat)?
The 3 companies in the sector scoring nearest above Candy Kittens.
PepsiCo reports 8% absolute emissions reductions and 96% renewable electricity, but masks slow progress with accounting instruments.
See the breakdown →Coca-Cola cut Scope 1 and 2 emissions by 14% in 2025 but publishes only fragmented Scope 3 data, omitting packaging and ingredients.
See the breakdown →Riverford's own footprint was 12,812 tCO2e in its year to May 2025, up 8%, and it leaves out the food it buys in, the largest source for a food business, so the size deduction for an incomplete footprint applies.
See the breakdown →Which companies moved this week, and why.
One email, every Sunday. Score changes, new research, the stories behind the numbers. Free.
We'll send one email to confirm. No spam. Unsubscribe in one click.
Checking a company?
Search free →Asked to prove you're sustainable?
Get your business scored, free →Been scored?
Find your page and claim it, free →Scores are free. Nobody can pay to change a score, speed it up or hide it.