D2L sustainability score: 33/100

Joint 31st of 69 in SaaS / Digital Services on this question

D2L launched its first greenhouse gas emissions inventory in FY24 (reported April 2024), and the FY26 Sustainability Report (June 2026) confirms continued tracking of Scope 1, 2, and 3 per GHG Protocol. However, no specific tonnes figures are publicly disclosed in accessible documents — the report references tracking but no granular Scope 1 and 2 data (in tCO₂e) was retrievable from any independent or primary source including SEDAR filings, CDP, or the company's own accessible web pages. Mark based on what it discloses. The inventory exists (partial credit for operational data conversion), but without publicly accessible numerical results, this scores at the low end of the 4-band. No third-party verification of emissions data was found.

Joint 30th of 69 in SaaS / Digital Services on this question

D2L states it tracks Scope 3 as part of its GHG inventory (confirmed in both FY24 and FY26 Sustainability Reports), and reports are aligned with SASB Software & IT Services standard, which requires disclosure of supply chain-relevant categories. However, no specific Scope 3 figures by category in tonnes were found in any accessible public source. For a cloud-based SaaS company of this size, the primary Scope 3 sources are cloud infrastructure (purchased goods and services), business travel, and employee commuting — a relatively short and low-impact supply chain compared to physical goods companies. The company has awareness of supply chain emissions and has included them in its inventory framework, but quantified data is not publicly accessible. This warrants a score of 3 rather than 2, given that Scope 3 categories are identified and tracked even if not published in accessible detail.

Joint 30th of 69 in SaaS / Digital Services on this question

D2L only launched its first emissions inventory in FY24 (fiscal year ending January 2024), meaning there is insufficient multi-year absolute emissions data to establish a trajectory. The FY26 Sustainability Report confirms continued tracking across Scopes 1, 2, and 3, suggesting a baseline is now being built, but no year-on-year comparison of absolute figures was found in any accessible source. No reduction targets (absolute or intensity) were identified. The company is small and stable (~1,200 employees, modest revenue growth), so it is reasonable to infer emissions are not growing dramatically, but this cannot be confirmed from evidence. A score of 2 reflects a small/stable company with no evidence of emissions growth but no demonstrable trajectory data.

Joint 36th of 69 in SaaS / Digital Services on this question

No evidence of RE100 membership, power purchase agreements, on-site renewable generation, or a published renewable energy percentage was found for D2L. The company operates from leased offices globally and uses cloud infrastructure (third-party data centres such as AWS or Azure, whose own renewable energy programmes may reduce associated emissions). No green tariff or renewable energy certificate purchases were identified. As a ~1,200-person SaaS company with leased offices and no owned data centres, energy consumption is minimal relative to industrial companies. The score of 3 reflects a minimal energy consumer with no formal renewable energy strategy identified — there is no evidence of a significant energy problem, but also no documented action on energy sourcing.

Joint 13th of 69 in SaaS / Digital Services on this question

D2L is a pure SaaS company with no physical manufacturing, no land use, no supply of physical goods, and no significant procurement of forest-risk commodities. Its primary nature exposure is through hardware procurement (employee laptops, office equipment) and the physical infrastructure of third-party cloud data centres. No TNFD disclosure was found, and no explicit biodiversity policy was identified. However, the inherently low nature impact of a software company, combined with the company's alignment with UN SDGs (as stated in reports), justifies a score of 4 — awareness of own negligible nature impact and no evidence of worst practices. The score does not rise above 4 because no formal nature assessment or policy was documented.

Joint 31st of 69 in SaaS / Digital Services on this question

No specific waste reduction data, circular economy metrics, or hardware lifecycle management policies were found in publicly accessible sources. The FY26 report references employee-led sustainability initiatives including 'sustainable food education and community gardening,' which suggests awareness at the operational level but does not constitute a measurable waste reduction programme. As a SaaS company, resource use centres on office waste, IT hardware procurement, and digital infrastructure. No supplier sustainability requirements or waste quantification data were publicly disclosed. A score of 3 reflects basic awareness without formal reporting or targets.

Joint 17th of 69 in SaaS / Digital Services on this question

D2L is a cloud-based SaaS company operating from leased offices. Water consumption is confined to office sanitation and kitchen use — a genuinely negligible physical footprint. No water-intensive processes, no chemical discharge, and no operations in water-stressed manufacturing environments exist. No specific water consumption data or stewardship programmes were found, but the inherent physical reality of an office-based software company means this is not a material risk. The score of 4 reflects genuinely minimal water impact and awareness of own low-risk status, consistent with rubric guidance for service companies. It does not rise higher because no formal water monitoring or reduction targets were documented.

Joint 38th of 69 in SaaS / Digital Services on this question

No SBTi commitment or validation was found on the SBTi Target Dashboard. No specific, measurable, time-bound absolute reduction targets were identified in any publicly accessible source. D2L's sustainability reports reference alignment with UN SDGs and GHG Protocol tracking, but these are frameworks for measurement rather than commitments to specific outcomes. The FY24 report describes launching an emissions inventory as a milestone, suggesting the company is at an early stage of the climate commitment journey. The FY26 first EcoVadis score indicates engagement with sustainability management standards, but the score level and whether it indicates a formal reduction commitment is not disclosed. The lack of any formal targets, SBTi commitment, or science-aligned pathway keeps this at 2 — informal goals without specifics.

Joint 22nd of 69 in SaaS / Digital Services on this question

D2L has published four consecutive annual sustainability reports (FY23–FY26), aligned with SASB Software & IT Services standard and GRI, and included a TCFD-aligned report from FY24. The FY26 report is the fourth iteration, demonstrating a growing reporting structure. Reports are publicly available. The company achieved its first EcoVadis rating in FY26. However, no board-level sustainability committee, no executive compensation linked to sustainability targets, and no third-party verification of emissions data were found. The reporting framework is in place and improving year-on-year, but governance depth and data verification remain limited. A score of 5 reflects a dedicated sustainability role/reporting function with some public disclosure but falling short of TCFD-level governance integration or assured data.

Joint 3rd of 69 in SaaS / Digital Services on this question

No environmental controversies, regulatory fines, greenwashing complaints, or adverse NGO findings were found for D2L Inc. No InfluenceMap profile exists for the company, indicating it has no material climate lobbying footprint. No trade association memberships with misaligned climate positions were identified. The company's business model — providing learning management software to educational institutions and corporates — has no structural enablement of fossil-sector commerce and does not meet any of the four infrastructure criteria. D2L does not process fossil-fuel transactions, distribute fossil-sector advertising, provide audit or consulting to fossil companies at scale, or operate in a relevant oligopoly. Starting at 8 with no deductions applies. The score does not reach 9–10 because no proactive climate advocacy or lobbying audit was found.