Eat Natural sustainability score: 31/100
Better than 8% of Food & Beverage (non-meat)
Making progress starts at 46. The highest score on SINK is 71.
Eat Natural manufactures cereal and snack bars from a facility in Halstead, UK. Founded in 1976, it sources nuts, seeds, dried fruits, and chocolate globally and exports to 37 countries.
More about Eat Natural
Wholly owned by Ferrero Group since December 2020, it positions itself on natural ingredients and community partnerships but operates outside its parent's formal sustainability reporting.
Founded 1976Head office Halstead, GBStaff ~350Revenue ~£37MWebsite ↗
Eat Natural publishes no emissions data, renewable energy figures, or sustainability targets despite operating a 100-million-bar-per-year food factory. The company is excluded from parent Ferrero's reporting scope. Core weaknesses: zero Scope 1, 2, and 3 disclosure; no decarbonisation trajectory; unverified plastic-offset claim masking actual use.
Eat Natural scores 31/100 (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 Eat Natural joint 698th of 1,023 companies scored, and joint 45th of 51 in Food & Beverage (non-meat).
What is Eat Natural doing well, and where does it fall short?
Strongest on Controversies & Red Flags and Nature & Biodiversity Impact (7/10, 3/10). Weakest on Carbon Footprint: Operations and Carbon Footprint: Supply Chain (1/10, 1/10).
Where Eat Natural 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 own operationsPublish emissions figures for its own operations, even an estimate from energy bills.
- Emissions from its supply chainAssess where its supply-chain emissions come from.
- Whether its emissions are fallingShow its emissions are falling, even from energy bills or mileage.
Every question that lost points
- Emissions from its own operations1/10No emissions figures for its own operations, not even an estimate from energy bills.
- Emissions from its supply chain1/10No assessment of where its supply-chain emissions come from.
- Whether its emissions are falling1/10No evidence its emissions are falling, not even from energy bills or mileage.
- How clean its energy is2/10No renewable energy tariff or major efficiency investment shown.
- Its effect on nature3/10No assessment of its effect on nature, and no basic environmental policy.
- How it uses materials and handles waste3/10No active waste reduction, reuse or repair shown.
- Its effect on water2/10No monitoring of water use, or no measures to reduce it.
- Its climate targets1/10No emissions reduction targets.
- How openly it reports2/10No published sustainability data, or no one named as responsible for it.
- 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 Eat Natural's SINK score calculated?
Same ten questions for every company. No private weighting.
SINK = (0.3 × Base + 0.7 × Performance) × ScaleWhat evidence is Eat Natural's score based on?
8 sources used in this assessment. All publicly available. Each row shows which of the ten questions it informed.
50% of them were published by Eat Natural 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 Eat Natural compare with other food & beverage (non-meat) companies?
Where Eat Natural sits among food & beverage (non-meat) peers.
Among the 51 major food & beverage (non-meat) brands we've scored, Eat Natural is tied =45th of 51, with 2 others.
Who scores higher in Food & Beverage (non-meat)?
The 3 companies in the sector scoring nearest above Eat Natural.
Red Bull has no quantified emissions data, no supply chain transparency, and growing production volumes with zero evidence of absolute emissions decline.
See the breakdown →Candy Kittens has calculated its carbon footprint via ClimatePartner but publishes no emissions figures or reduction targets.
See the breakdown →Monster's emissions are rising 17% year-on-year while absolute reduction targets remain unvalidated.
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.