Montblanc sustainability score: 36/100

Joint 48th of 57 in FMCG / Consumer Goods on this question

Montblanc does not publish standalone emissions data. Its sustainability page redirects to parent Richemont (richemont.com/sustainability), stating it 'plays its part' without disclosing Montblanc-specific Scope 1 or 2 figures. Richemont's Non-Financial Report 2024 (calendar year 2023 data) reports group-level Scope 1 of ~15,000 tCO2e and Scope 2 market-based of ~4,400 tCO2e across all Maisons combined, but no Maison-level disaggregation is published. Montblanc operates manufacturing in Hamburg and global retail, suggesting it contributes a non-trivial share of Richemont's Scope 1+2, but specific tonnage for Montblanc alone is unavailable. Mark based on what it discloses and the company's size and sector. No Montblanc-level third-party verification exists. Score reflects mid-sized company with no brand-level disclosure.

Joint 41st of 57 in FMCG / Consumer Goods on this question

No Montblanc-specific Scope 3 data is published. Richemont group reports ~1,633,300 tCO2e Scope 3 for 2023 across all Maisons, covering 9 of 15 GHG Protocol categories, with 98.4% from upstream activities. Montblanc's supply chain includes precious metals, leather (including crocodile skin), plastics, watch components and global logistics — a complex, multi-material global supply chain. Montblanc's website states it is 'collaborating with experts to measure the impact generated by our production activities' but provides no quantified Scope 3 figures at the brand level. Richemont requires suppliers to follow its Supplier Code of Conduct and tracks progress on SBT adoption among key suppliers, but Montblanc-specific supplier engagement evidence is absent. Good On You (2025) notes Montblanc 'does not publish an aggregate breakdown of materials used.' Score reflects mid-sized manufacturer with complex global supply chain and no brand-level disclosure.

Joint 27th of 57 in FMCG / Consumer Goods on this question

No Montblanc-specific year-on-year emissions trajectory is published. At the Richemont group level, Scope 1+2 GHG emissions 'remained at last year levels, below the SBT target line' in 2023 (Richemont Non-Financial Report 2024). Group total Scope 3 increased by approximately 5.6% comparing 2023 and 2025 data points per Tracenable. Critically, Richemont's SBTi-validated Scope 3 target is intensity-based (55% reduction per dollar value added by 2030), not absolute — meaning absolute Scope 3 can rise with revenue growth and still be 'on track.' Good On You (2025) notes 'no evidence it is on track' for its science-based target. No Montblanc-level trajectory data exists. Score reflects a mid-sized stable manufacturer with group-level evidence of flat Scope 1+2 but intensity-only Scope 3 target and no brand-level data; capped given the intensity-target limitation.

Joint 14th of 57 in FMCG / Consumer Goods on this question

Richemont is a member of RE100 and has committed to sourcing 100% renewable electricity by no later than 2025. In 2023, Richemont reported 97% of electricity consumption was from renewable sources (Richemont Non-Financial Report 2024). The 2025 Non-Financial Report confirms the group is aiming to reach 100% renewable electricity by end-2025 as part of its SBTi near-term objectives. Richemont uses Energy Attribute Certificates (EACs/GOs) as its primary mechanism. Montblanc benefits from this group-level transition, but no Montblanc-specific on-site generation data, PPA details, or additionality evidence is published at the brand level. The 97% renewable figure is strong but relies primarily on EACs rather than PPAs or on-site generation. Score reflects high renewable percentage under group policy, using market-based instruments without confirmed additionality.

Joint 32nd of 57 in FMCG / Consumer Goods on this question

Montblanc's supply chain involves leather goods, precious metals sourcing and plastics — all carrying significant nature risk. Richemont maintains an internal database of CITES-listed animal and plant species and joined the International Crocodilian Farmers Association in 2021, which is where the exotic-leather exposure is actually evidenced. Richemont's Non-Financial Report 2025 notes the group is "developing its understanding of ecosystem and biodiversity impacts" and addresses five biodiversity pressures in its reporting. Good On You rates Montblanc Animals 2 out of 5 and finds it does not publish sufficient information on its most critical issues. No TNFD disclosure and no quantified nature footprint exists for Montblanc or Richemont; the group has no deforestation-free commitment and no science-based nature target, and nothing is disclosed at brand level. Score 3: group-level awareness and species-level controls, short of the assessed dependencies and nature policy band 4 requires. NOTE: an earlier version attributed "uses leather and crocodile skin" to Good On You; that sentence is not on its page. The underlying fact is sourced from Richemont's own CITES and ICFA disclosures instead, and the score is unchanged by the correction.

Joint 38th of 57 in FMCG / Consumer Goods on this question

Montblanc's sustainability page states it has developed plastic-free packaging using only recycled materials, that all nylon products are fully recyclable and sourced from recycled plastic, and that metal parts from leather products and leftover materials are recycled and transformed into new products. Richemont's Non-Financial Report 2025 identifies circularity and waste management as material topics. However, no quantified waste metrics (total waste generated, recycling rates, landfill diversion) are published at the Montblanc brand level. No formal circular economy targets with measurable outcomes are disclosed. Packaging improvements and some materials recycling are evidenced, but the company does not publish supplier sustainability requirements or verified circular metrics. Score reflects meaningful operational practices with public evidence but absence of quantified reporting or verified circular targets.

Joint 33rd of 57 in FMCG / Consumer Goods on this question

No Montblanc-specific water data is published. Richemont's Non-Financial Report 2025 acknowledges 'responsible water stewardship throughout its value chain' and identifies water consumption during processing of mining/metals, textiles, and leather as material upstream impacts. The report also flags water depletion in water-stressed areas from natural textile fibres (cotton, cashmere, silk) as material. Good On You (2025) explicitly notes 'there's no evidence it's set a target to manage water use in its supply chain.' No water consumption figures, discharge data, or reduction targets are published for Montblanc or attributed to it within Richemont's group data. Richemont monitors environmental performance at group level but no brand-level water stewardship programme is evidenced. Score reflects awareness of water risks at group level with material supply chain water risks and no quantified data or targets at brand level.

Joint 24th of 57 in FMCG / Consumer Goods on this question

Richemont's SBTi-validated targets (validated 2021) cover: (i) absolute Scope 1+2 reduction of 46% by 2030 from 2019 base — this is a genuine absolute target; and (ii) Scope 3 reduction of 55% per dollar value added by 2030 — this is an intensity-based target, not absolute. The intensity-based Scope 3 target is a material weakness: absolute Scope 3 emissions can rise if revenue grows. Good On You (2025) notes 'no evidence it is on track' for its targets. Richemont also requires 20% of key suppliers to set SBTs by 2025 per the press release. No offsets are disclosed as a primary mechanism; the reduction-first approach on Scope 1+2 is credible. No Montblanc-specific net-zero pathway, transition plan, or interim milestones are published at brand level. Score reflects SBTi-validated near-term Scope 1+2 absolute target (positive) but intensity-only Scope 3 target (significant penalty) and no evidence of on-track delivery.

Joint 44th of 57 in FMCG / Consumer Goods on this question

Montblanc's own sustainability web pages contain mostly generic statements and redirect to Richemont's group sustainability page. No standalone Montblanc sustainability or impact report exists. Richemont publishes a detailed Non-Financial Report annually (most recently FY25, covering calendar year 2024 environmental data), prepared in accordance with GRI Standards 2021 and compliant with Swiss Code of Obligations Articles 964a-c. Selected indicators are assured by PricewaterhouseCoopers SA (limited assurance). Richemont has a Governance and Sustainability Committee at Board level. However, all transparency and governance is at the Richemont group level — no Montblanc-specific board oversight, sustainability team disclosure, or executive compensation linked to sustainability targets for Montblanc is evidenced. Score reflects good group-level governance and PwC-assured reporting, but Montblanc brand-level transparency is minimal.

Joint 19th of 57 in FMCG / Consumer Goods on this question

No regulatory fines, upheld greenwashing rulings, or significant environmental controversies specific to Montblanc were found in searches. Good On You (2025) rates Montblanc 'Not Good Enough' overall, citing lack of material disclosure and no water target, but this is a rating methodology difference rather than a documented controversy. No InfluenceMap entry was found for Montblanc or Richemont in the climate lobbying database, suggesting they are not among identified climate-policy obstructors. Richemont is not on any known climate-obstruction list. Montblanc's use of crocodile skin and leather has been noted by NGO-aligned fashion rating platforms as an animal welfare concern, but no regulatory action was found. Clean record on environmental law and no lobbying concerns identified. Score starts at 8 and deducted 1 for credible NGO/rating platform criticism (Good On You 'Not Good Enough' on planet and animal welfare, unresolved).