Kimberly-Clark sustainability score: 37/100
Better than 46% of FMCG / Consumer Goods
Making progress starts at 46. The highest score on SINK is 71.
Kimberly-Clark is a US maker of personal care and tissue products, including Huggies, Kleenex, Scott and Kotex. Headquartered in Dallas, it reported $16.4B in net sales for 2025, with approximately 36,000 employees at year end.
More about Kimberly-Clark
It completed its acquisition of Kenvue on 2 November 2026; this record's figures predate that deal.
Head office Dallas, United StatesStaff ~36,000 (2025)Revenue $16,447M net sales, continuing operations (FY2025)Website ↗
Kimberly-Clark has assured emissions data and SBTi-approved absolute targets, but its Scope 3 target covers only purchased goods and end of life, and its core products are single-use. Its water cut at water-stressed sites slipped to 45% in 2025, short of its 50% target. About 90% of products use forest fibre, and the NRDC rates its main tissue brands D.
Kimberly-Clark scores 37/100 (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 November 2026.
That places Kimberly-Clark joint 507th of 1,023 companies scored, and joint 28th of 57 in FMCG / Consumer Goods.
What is Kimberly-Clark doing well, and where does it fall short?
Strongest on Carbon Footprint: Operations and Targets & Commitments (8/10, 8/10). Weakest on Energy Source and Nature & Biodiversity Impact (5/10, 5/10).
Where Kimberly-Clark 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
- How clean its energy isShow at least half its energy is renewable, with a transition plan.
- Its effect on natureMeasure its effect on nature and have it independently verified.
- How it uses materials and handles wasteReport measurable waste or recycling targets publicly.
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 is5/10Less than half its energy shown to be renewable, or no transition plan.
- Its effect on nature5/10Its effect on nature isn't measured or independently verified.
- How it uses materials and handles waste5/10No measurable waste or recycling targets reported publicly.
- Its effect on water6/10No water stewardship programme or verified fall in water use.
- Its climate targets8/10No validated long-term net zero target.
- How openly it reports7/10No mission-locked structure, such as B Corp certification.
- 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 Kimberly-Clark's SINK score calculated?
Same ten questions for every company. No private weighting.
SINK = (0.3 × Base + 0.7 × Performance) × ScaleHas Kimberly-Clark's score changed?
Kimberly-Clark's score has moved from 38 to 37 across 2 recorded reviews, down 1 point.
- 38 → 37-17 November 2026
Water mark corrected from 7 to 6: the company's 2025 report shows a 45% cut at water-stressed sites against its 50% target, so the target is not met in 2025.
- Scored 387 November 2026
Initial public score 38 (publish-draft)
What evidence is Kimberly-Clark's score based on?
21 sources used in this assessment. All publicly available. Each row shows which of the ten questions it informed.
14% of them were published by Kimberly-Clark itself; the rest come from independent sources.
18 of 21 sources are independent of the company.
“Direct GHG Emissions 1,686”
“On November 2, 2026, we completed the Kenvue Acquisition”
“In 2025, we achieved a 45% reduction in water use at our manufacturing sites in water-stressed25 regions compared to the 2015 base year.”
“with goals approved by the Science Based Targets initiative”
“absolute reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of 42%”
“(Scope 1 and 2) GHG emissions of 40.9%”
“Achieved an absolute reduction in operational (Scope 1 and 2) GHG emissions of 43.3 percent”
“natural forest-free status at some unspecified time after 2030”
“CDP Forests score of B”
“Reduce the water used in our manufacturing sites in water-stressed areas by 50% from 2015 base year by 2030.”
“Some of the most egregious examples are the flagship brands of the”
“a 46% reduction in Scope 1 and 2 greenhouse gas emissions in 2025”
“Our 2030 ambition is to reduce our global operational water footprint by 50% versus 2015”
“CDP (formerly Carbon Disclosure Project) 2023 B ranking for Climate Change, Water Security and Forests”
“has filed a class action complaint against Kimberly-Clark Corporation”
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 Kimberly-Clark compare with other fmcg / consumer goods companies?
Where Kimberly-Clark sits among fmcg / consumer goods peers.
Among the 57 major fmcg / consumer goods brands we've scored, Kimberly-Clark is tied =28th of 57, with 3 others.
Who scores higher in FMCG / Consumer Goods?
The 3 companies in the sector scoring nearest above Kimberly-Clark.
Louis Vuitton, reported via parent LVMH, has cut operational emissions 55% but absolute total emissions rose 5% in 2024, driven by flat Scope 3 at 7.5 Mt.
See the breakdown →LVMH has solid operational emissions cuts and nature commitments, but Scope 3 emissions rose 5% in 2024 despite intensity-target rhetoric, masking absolute growth through price inflation.
See the breakdown →Henkel reports comprehensive climate data with CDP A rating and SBTi-validated absolute targets, but supply-chain emissions data quality lags operations.
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.