Freddie Mac sustainability score: 22/100
Better than 7% of Financial Services / Banking
Below expectations starts at 31. The highest score on SINK is 71.
Freddie Mac is a US government-sponsored enterprise, chartered by Congress in 1970, that buys residential mortgages from lenders and packages them into mortgage-backed securities. It is headquartered in McLean, Virginia, and had about 7,355 employees and $23.3 billion in FY2025 net revenues.
Founded 1970Head office McLean, Virginia, United StatesStaff ~7,355 (FY2025)Revenue $23,271M net revenues (FY2025)Website ↗
Freddie Mac publishes no emissions data for its operations or its mortgage book, and no reduction targets; its last sustainability report covered 2023 and its ESG web page was removed in 2025. Members of Congress and NGOs have criticised the government-sponsored enterprises' limited climate-risk action, and the Richmond Fed estimates more than 23 million Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac loans sit in ZIP codes at risk of future flooding.
Freddie Mac scores 22/100 (Significant gaps) 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 Freddie Mac joint 945th of 1,023 companies scored, and joint 56th of 61 in Financial Services / Banking.
What is Freddie Mac doing well, and where does it fall short?
Strongest on Controversies & Red Flags and Transparency & Accountability (6/10, 4/10). Weakest on Carbon Footprint: Operations and Carbon Footprint: Supply Chain (1/10, 1/10).
Where Freddie Mac 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 nature2/10No 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 water3/10No monitoring of water use, or no measures to reduce it.
- Its climate targets1/10No emissions reduction targets.
- How openly it reports4/10No dedicated sustainability role, board oversight or public report.
- Its record on controversies6/10Points 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 Freddie Mac's SINK score calculated?
Same ten questions for every company. No private weighting.
SINK = (0.3 × Base + 0.7 × Performance) × ScaleWhat evidence is Freddie Mac's score based on?
11 sources used in this assessment. All publicly available. Each row shows which of the ten questions it informed.
18% of them were published by Freddie Mac itself; the rest come from independent sources.
“Disclose Scope 1, Scope 2, and, if appropriate, Scope 3 GHG emissions, and the related risks Not disclosed”
“regulatory requirements related to operational resiliency, climate risk disclosure, or stress testing”
“we estimated the total financed emissions for the three mortgage agencies — Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Ginnie Mae”
“Recent ESG Report: 2023”
“more than 23 million loans, with a total outstanding balance of more than $2 trillion dollars”
“we write to request information on the monitoring and management of the climate risk associated with the mortgages purchased and held by Freddie Mac.”
“sent letters to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac questioning the Enterprises on how they assess and manage climate-related risks”
“Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have taken minimal steps to shield themselves and taxpayers from potential financial fallout.”
“ending a requirement for the government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) to engage in joint discussions and share information related to energy building code standards”
“Our Corporate Sustainability Office, established in 2020, is charged with leading the development”
“rescission of its Advisory Bulletin on Climate-Related Risk Management (Climate Risk AB) and waiver of Equitable Housing Finance Plan (EHFP) requirements”
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 Freddie Mac compare with other financial services / banking companies?
Where Freddie Mac sits among financial services / banking peers.
Among the 61 major financial services / banking brands we've scored, Freddie Mac is tied =56th of 61, with 1 other.
Who scores higher in Financial Services / Banking?
The 3 companies in the sector scoring nearest above Freddie Mac.
Alliance Witan discloses portfolio climate metrics but publishes no operational emissions data and has not quantified its financed emissions footprint across £5.1bn in assets.
See the breakdown →Polar Capital Technology Trust discloses minimal climate data despite managing £3.8bn in semiconductors and tech hardware.
See the breakdown →Pershing Square publishes no emissions data—operational or financed—despite $16B in assets and concentrated holdings in mid-to-high-emission businesses.
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.