Imperial Brands sustainability score: 44/100
Making progress starts at 46. The highest score on SINK is 71.
Imperial Brands is a British tobacco and nicotine company headquartered in Bristol. It manufactures cigarettes, fine-cut and cigar products, vaping and heated-tobacco products, and oral nicotine.
More about Imperial Brands
A major global cigarette producer, it operates across 160+ countries with a significant supply-chain footprint in agriculture-dependent regions.
Head office GBStaff ~25,100Revenue ~£32.4BWebsite ↗
Imperial Brands discloses substantial carbon reductions in operations (72% S1+S2) and has SBTi-validated net-zero targets, but structural harms persist: tobacco farming drives deforestation and water contamination, 4.5 trillion cigarette butts remain unaddressed, and the company actively lobbies against tobacco regulation while greenwashing via ESG awards.
Imperial Brands scores 44/100 (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 August 2026.
That places Imperial Brands joint 306th of 1,023 companies scored, and joint 9th of 57 in FMCG / Consumer Goods.
What is Imperial Brands doing well, and where does it fall short?
Strongest on Carbon Footprint: Operations and Targets & Commitments (8/10, 8/10). Weakest on Nature & Biodiversity Impact and Water Impact (3/10, 5/10).
Where Imperial Brands 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
- Its effect on natureAssess its effect on nature and publish a basic environmental policy.
- Its effect on waterMeasure its water footprint and set reduction targets.
- 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 chain7/10No full value-chain map or supplier engagement programme.
- Whether its emissions are falling6/10No consistent fall over several years across its operations and supply chain.
- How clean its energy is7/10Less than 90% of its energy shown to be renewable.
- Its effect on nature3/10No assessment of its effect on nature, and no basic environmental policy.
- How it uses materials and handles waste6/10No verified figures for reuse and recycling across the business.
- Its effect on water5/10No measured water footprint with reduction targets.
- Its climate targets8/10No validated long-term net zero target.
- 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 Imperial Brands's SINK score calculated?
Same ten questions for every company. No private weighting.
SINK = (0.3 × Base + 0.7 × Performance) × ScaleHas Imperial Brands's score changed?
Imperial Brands's score has been reviewed 2 times and currently stands where it started, at 44.
- 44 → 447 November 2026
Sources replaced with the company's own or independent reports. Score unchanged.
- Scored 4410 August 2026
Initial public score 44 (publish-draft)
What evidence is Imperial Brands's score based on?
9 sources used in this assessment. All publicly available. Each row shows which of the ten questions it informed.
11% of them were published by Imperial Brands itself; the rest come from independent sources.
“Every stage of the tobacco supply chain poses serious environmental consequences, including deforestation, the use of fossil fuels and the dumping or leaking of waste”
“the tobacco industry... cuts 600 million trees, 200,000 hectares of land, 22 billion tonnes of water, and emits 84 million tonnes of CO2”
“In 2021, Imperial Brands consumed 1.11 million cubic meters of water, a decrease of 7% over 2020”
“CDP corporate scores register; Imperial Brands historically CDP A-rated”
“These organisations include PMI, British American Tobacco, Japan Tobacco International, and Imperial Brands as major tobacco producers”
“All of the 'big four' TTCs (BAT, PMI, Japan Tobacco International and Imperial Brands) and Altria have been rated 'A', the highest possible rating, across various indices by the Carbon Disclosure Project”
“The Guardian reported tobacco industry lobbying activities to attempt to derail the bill... Imperial Brands also reportedly engaged with MPs and government officials”
“Imperial Brands supports net-zero by 2050; assessed as minimal substantive climate-policy engagement”
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 Imperial Brands compare with other fmcg / consumer goods companies?
Where Imperial Brands sits among fmcg / consumer goods peers.
Among the 57 major fmcg / consumer goods brands we've scored, Imperial Brands is tied =9th of 57, with 2 others.
Who scores higher in FMCG / Consumer Goods?
The 3 companies in the sector scoring nearest above Imperial Brands.
L'Oréal has cut operational emissions 51% since 2019 and reached 97% renewable energy, but total emissions rose above 2019 baseline due to Scope 3 increases.
See the breakdown →Natura &Co demonstrates strong biodiversity leadership and transparent climate accountability, having exceeded its 2030 Scope 1&2 target early.
See the breakdown →Chopard has published its first formal sustainability report and committed to SBTi-aligned targets, but lacks verified emissions data across all scopes.
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.