Carlsberg sustainability score: 48/100
Better than 76% of Food & Beverage (non-meat)
Leading practice starts at 60. The highest score on SINK is 71.
Carlsberg is a Danish brewer headquartered in Copenhagen, selling beer and soft drinks after its 2025 acquisition of Britvic; its roots go back to 1847. It had about 37,000 employees and DKK 89 billion revenue in 2025.
Head office Copenhagen, DenmarkStaff ~36,964 (average, 2025)Revenue ~DKK 89.1B (FY2025)Website ↗
Carlsberg reports thorough, assured emissions data, but its reported total rose 9% in 2025 to 9.0 MtCO2e after the Britvic deal, and most of its renewable electricity comes from unbundled certificates. In October 2026 Rajasthan's pollution board revoked its Alwar brewery's consent to operate, and in 2018 it admitted polluting a river in Nepal.
Carlsberg scores 48/100 (Making progress) 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 October 2026.
That places Carlsberg joint 211th of 1,023 companies scored, and joint 10th of 51 in Food & Beverage (non-meat).
What is Carlsberg doing well, and where does it fall short?
Strongest on Carbon Footprint: Operations and Carbon Footprint: Supply Chain (8/10, 8/10). Weakest on Emissions Trajectory and Nature & Biodiversity Impact (4/10, 4/10).
Where Carlsberg 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
- Whether its emissions are fallingShow a year-on-year fall in its total emissions.
- Its effect on natureMeasure its effect on nature and have it independently verified.
- Its record on controversiesDeal with the findings under question 10, in public.
Every question that lost points
- Emissions from its own operations8/10No verified figures published with their method and a falling trend.
- Emissions from its supply chain8/10Its Scope 3 emissions aren't fully verified or falling year on year.
- Whether its emissions are falling4/10No evidence of a year-on-year fall in its total emissions.
- How clean its energy is6/10Less than 90% of its energy shown to be renewable.
- Its effect on nature4/10Its effect on nature isn't measured or independently verified.
- How it uses materials and handles waste6/10No verified figures for reuse and recycling across the business.
- Its effect on water6/10No water stewardship programme or verified fall in water use.
- Its climate targets7/10Its targets aren't validated by the Science Based Targets initiative.
- How openly it reports8/10No mission-locked structure, such as B Corp certification.
- Its record on controversies5/10Points 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 Carlsberg's SINK score calculated?
Same ten questions for every company. No private weighting.
SINK = (0.3 × Base + 0.7 × Performance) × ScaleWhat evidence is Carlsberg's score based on?
13 sources used in this assessment. All publicly available. Each row shows which of the ten questions it informed.
15% of them were published by Carlsberg itself; the rest come from independent sources.
11 of 13 sources are independent of the company.
“Gross Scope 1 GHG emissions 305 331 -8 %”
“Created a bespoke emissions calculator. This can hold rich supplier data to meaningfully track changes in Scope 3 emissions over time.”
“It achieved a 12% reduction in absolute emissions at its production facilities”
“an 8% reduction in absolute near-term value chain emissions since 2024”
“The deals will increase the group’s global contracted PPA coverage from around 10% to 21%.”
“Twenty-three UK arable farmers have signed contracts with brewing giant Carlsberg to grow 7,000t of barley to new regenerative standards this year.”
“Carlsberg has unveiled new supply chain initiatives across Europe to accelerate its shift to using regenerative farming practices”
“In 2025, 95% of Carlsberg's packaging was recyclable, renewable or reusable”
“This company received a CDP Water Security score of A-.”
“Carlsberg Group reduced water consumption by 58.8 percent”
“The Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board (RSPCB) revoked the facility’s consent to operate, citing particulate matter emissions nearly eight times above the prescribed limit.”
“Carlsberg now admits that their brewery has polluted one of Nepal's most important rivers.”
“The board directed the site to shut and instructed the local power utility to disconnect electricity to the facility.”
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 Carlsberg compare with other food & beverage (non-meat) companies?
Where Carlsberg sits among food & beverage (non-meat) peers.
Among the 51 major food & beverage (non-meat) brands we've scored, Carlsberg is tied =10th of 51, with 3 others.
Who scores higher in Food & Beverage (non-meat)?
The 3 companies in the sector scoring nearest above Carlsberg.
Nespresso has credible SBTi-validated net-zero targets and strong renewable energy at factories, but leans heavily on unverified insetting and offsets rather than real emission cuts.
See the breakdown →Tate & Lyle reports comprehensive carbon data and holds SBTi 1.5°C targets, but Scope 1 emissions flatlined year-on-year and water-use intensity worsened.
See the breakdown →Ella's Kitchen has SBTi-validated emissions targets and a genuine biodiversity partnership with the RSPB, but lacks published absolute emissions data to verify progress.
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.