Crayola sustainability score: 25/100

Joint 42nd of 57 in FMCG / Consumer Goods on this question

Crayola's sustainability page claims an 82% reduction in CO2e from company-owned facilities' direct and indirect energy sources since 2019, attributable to on-site solar and PPAs. However, no quantified absolute tonnage figures (Scope 1 or Scope 2 in tonnes CO2e) are published in any standalone GHG report, CDP submission, or mandatory registry filing. No Scope 1 or Scope 2 tonnage figures were found on crayola.com, CDP or SBTi as of 27 September 2026. The reduction claim is plausible given the documented 20-acre on-site solar farm and PPAs, but remains unverified and without a stated baseline in tonnes. Mark based on what it discloses (solar generation capacity, manufacturing scale), with no formal GHG calculation published.

Joint 49th of 57 in FMCG / Consumer Goods on this question

No Scope 3 data has been published by Crayola; no Scope 3 quantification was found on crayola.com, corporate.hallmark.com, CDP or SBTi as of 27 September 2026. The company manufactures hundreds of millions of physical consumer products annually — crayons (wax, pigments), markers (mixed plastics, ink), colored pencils (wood from Brazil), paint, and clay — with factories in the US, Mexico, and Asia. This is a global, materials-intensive supply chain with significant upstream emissions from raw material extraction and processing. Hallmark's CARE Supplier Programme (launched 2022) encourages top suppliers to measure and reduce emissions, but no Crayola-specific supplier coverage data or Scope 3 quantification is disclosed. The pencil wood supply from a 8,288-ha Brazilian pine farm represents some awareness of supply chain nature impacts, but no emissions quantification is attached. Scores 2: global complex supply chain with no formal Scope 3 data; basic awareness of key supply chain elements only.

Joint 16th of 57 in FMCG / Consumer Goods on this question

Crayola claims an 82% reduction in facility-level CO2e (Scope 1 and 2) since 2019, which — if accurate — represents a meaningful absolute reduction at the operational level, driven by the on-site solar farm and PPAs. Multiple independent sources (PennEnvironment, Lehigh Valley Public Media, Hallmark corporate site) corroborate that US manufacturing is now 100% renewable, providing a credible mechanistic basis for the claim. However, the reduction is unverified by any third party, no absolute baseline or endpoint figure in tonnes is disclosed, and Scope 3 trajectory is entirely unknown. Scores 4: can show reduction through proxy evidence (documented shift to 100% renewable energy at main manufacturing site), but no formally verified multi-year absolute trajectory exists.

Joint 4th of 57 in FMCG / Consumer Goods on this question

Crayola operates a 20-acre, 3.53 MW on-site solar farm with over 33,000 panels at its Pennsylvania headquarters, built in 2010. Through a combination of this solar farm and additional PPAs (including biofuel and other renewable sources), Crayola achieved 100% renewable energy for US manufacturing by 2020, confirmed by independent sources including PennEnvironment and Lehigh Valley Public Media. The CEO also stated solar farms exist on factory roofs in China, Vietnam, and Indonesia, though scope and coverage of international renewable energy are not formally quantified. The renewable energy claim for US operations is substantiated by multiple independent corroborating sources and represents genuine on-site generation plus market instruments. Deduct from 8 to 7: international facility renewable coverage unverified and biofuel component in the mix raises minor additionality questions; no formal RE100 membership found.

Joint 32nd of 57 in FMCG / Consumer Goods on this question

Crayola sources colored pencil wood from a 8,288-hectare reforested pine farm in Brazil where 300,000 seedlings are planted annually — a positive supply chain nature initiative, though the pine monoculture model raises biodiversity questions compared to mixed forest restoration and no FSC certification is confirmed on these sources. Beyond the pencil wood, the company's supply chain includes pigments, waxes, synthetic dyes, and plastics, with no disclosed nature or biodiversity risk assessment for these categories. No TNFD disclosure, no deforestation-free commitment, no biodiversity policy published. No nature-related controversies identified. Scores 3: one documented positive sourcing initiative for a key raw material, but no broader nature risk assessment, no certification, and no TNFD framework engagement.

Joint 52nd of 57 in FMCG / Consumer Goods on this question

Crayola redesigned its broad line markers over 10 years to save an estimated 2 million pounds of plastic versus the previous design, and shifted marker Classpack packaging to 100% recycled cardboard. Natural (unbleached) cardboard for packaging from 2023 is estimated to reduce CO2e by approximately 100 metric tonnes per year. However, Crayola's own ColorCycle programme — its primary end-of-life product initiative — was permanently discontinued after challenges with incineration-routed markers and contaminated shipments. Markers remain mixed-plastic and are acknowledged as unrecyclable; the company states it continues to explore 'end of product life' initiatives but has no replacement programme. No circularity targets are set. Scores 3: active waste minimisation and packaging improvements evident, but core product (marker) remains non-recyclable with no credible end-of-life solution and no formal circular targets.

Joint 47th of 57 in FMCG / Consumer Goods on this question

No water consumption, discharge, or stewardship data is published by Crayola in any public document; none was found on crayola.com, CDP or SBTi as of 27 September 2026. The company manufactures pigment-based products including inks, dyes, and paints, processes that typically involve water use and require careful management of dye/pigment-laden effluents. No water-related incidents or regulatory violations were found in searches, but the absence of disclosure from a dye-and-pigment manufacturer means the planet's experience of Crayola's water footprint is unknown. No water stewardship programme, no water targets, and no reduction data. Scores 2: can demonstrate water bills exist (manufacturing facility operator) but no formal water accounting or risk management programme disclosed.

Joint 40th of 57 in FMCG / Consumer Goods on this question

Hallmark (Crayola's parent) received SBTi target approval in 2022, confirmed on the Hallmark corporate site. Crayola's own website states the company 'through our parent company Hallmark, joined the Science Based Target initiative' with a commitment to 'significantly reduce emissions by 2030.' However, no quantified absolute reduction percentage or baseline emissions figure is publicly disclosed for the Crayola entity. The SBTi target dashboard does not list Crayola LLC independently. The language 'significantly reduce' without a specific number is not a science-based target as understood under the GHG Protocol and SBTi criteria — it is an aspiration. No net-zero pathway is described. No offsets are used (consistent with small footprint). Scores 3: parent SBTi commitment exists and is confirmed, but Crayola-specific quantified absolute targets are not disclosed; scores above 2 only because of the documented parent-level SBTi approval.

Joint 50th of 57 in FMCG / Consumer Goods on this question

Crayola publishes sustainability information on its website covering renewable energy, reforestation, and packaging, but there is no formal sustainability report (impact report, ESG report, or GRI-aligned document) published under the Crayola name. No TCFD disclosure, no third-party assurance of any data, no GHG methodology published, no Board-level governance structure for sustainability identified publicly. The company's FAQ page indicates it does not publish an annual report. Hallmark corporate provides somewhat more detail but still at a high level of generality. No dedicated sustainability role or team is identified in public communications. Scores 3: sustainability is a documented business priority with some public data on website, but no formal reporting framework, no assurance, and no governance transparency.

Joint 19th of 57 in FMCG / Consumer Goods on this question

Start at 8. Energy Justice Network published a credible environmental criticism of the ColorCycle programme, arguing that routing markers to trash incinerators and pyrolysis plants constitutes incineration rather than recycling, releases toxic pollutants, and misleads consumers and schools — a credible NGO source raising a legitimate environmental concern (deduct 1). Crayola has since ended the ColorCycle programme. A March 2026 product-labelling class action (non-toxic label on markers, glue, chalk) is pending in California federal court; this concerns product safety claims rather than environmental conduct and Crayola is defending vigorously — insufficient basis for additional deduction at this stage (dismissed/pending, 0 deduction). No upheld regulatory environmental actions, no lobbying activity, no InfluenceMap listing, no structural fossil-sector exposure found. Final score: 7.