The Procter & Gamble Company sustainability score: 28/100
Better than 16% of FMCG / Consumer Goods
Below expectations starts at 31. The highest score on SINK is 71.
Procter & Gamble makes consumer goods across beauty, grooming, health care, fabric and home care, and baby and family care, under brands including Gillette, Pampers, Tide and Olay. It reported US$87 billion in net sales for the year to June 2026, with about 104,000 employees.
Founded 1905Head office Cincinnati, Ohio, United StatesStaff ~104,000 (2026)Revenue US$87,032M net sales (FY ended 30 Jun 2026)Website ↗
P&G has cut its own Scope 1 and 2 emissions, but its Scope 3, mostly from consumers using its products, keeps rising, and its supply-chain targets are per unit, not absolute. Break Free From Plastic's 2023 audit named it among the top 10 global plastic polluters, and it dropped its no-degradation forest pledge in 2023.
The Procter & Gamble Company scores 28/100 (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 November 2026.
That places The Procter & Gamble Company joint 783rd of 1,023 companies scored, and joint 45th of 57 in FMCG / Consumer Goods.
What is The Procter & Gamble Company doing well, and where does it fall short?
Strongest on Carbon Footprint: Operations and Carbon Footprint: Supply Chain (8/10, 7/10). Weakest on Emissions Trajectory and Controversies & Red Flags (3/10, 3/10).
Where The Procter & Gamble Company 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
- Whether its emissions are fallingShow its emissions are falling.
- Its record on controversiesDeal with the findings under question 10, in public.
- Its effect on natureMeasure its effect on nature and have it independently verified.
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 falling3/10No evidence its emissions are falling.
- How clean its energy is6/10Less than 90% of its energy shown to be renewable.
- Its effect on nature4/10Its 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 water5/10No measured water footprint with reduction targets.
- Its climate targets6/10No validated long-term net zero target.
- How openly it reports7/10No annual impact report, or no pay linked to climate targets.
- Its record on controversies3/10Points 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 The Procter & Gamble Company's SINK score calculated?
Same ten questions for every company. No private weighting.
SINK = (0.3 × Base + 0.7 × Performance) × ScaleHas The Procter & Gamble Company's score changed?
The Procter & Gamble Company's score has moved from 26 to 28 across 3 recorded reviews, up 2 points.
- 26 → 28+27 November 2026
Re-scored under the current method. P&G's published lines now give a total of 180 million tonnes, mostly consumer use of its products, which keeps it in the heaviest size step.
- 26 → 267 November 2026
Correction, 7 November 2026: question 2: cited Bloomberg for the 230M tonne figure and removed a 20M+ tonne upstream figure that no source gives. Score unchanged.
- Scored 268 February 2026
Initial score at platform launch
What evidence is The Procter & Gamble Company's score based on?
18 sources used in this assessment. All publicly available. Each row shows which of the ten questions it informed.
33% of them were published by The Procter & Gamble Company itself; the rest come from independent sources.
P&G publishes no Scope 3 total, so its total is the sum of its published Scope 1, market-based Scope 2 and five Scope 3 lines for FY 24/25: purchased goods, upstream transport, use of sold products, end of life and business travel. Downstream transport is not reported.
12 of 18 sources are independent of the company.
“Scope 1 - Direct GHG Emissions 1,966 1,988 2,121”
“Scope 1 - Direct GHG Emissions 1,987 2,123 2,158”
“Maintained 100% third-party certified wood pulp across P&G; 86% FSC™ certified wood pulp in our Family Care brands”
“Plastic packaging: 681,000 metric tons”
“Procter & Gamble dropped its pledge from a corporate policy to not buy wood pulp from degraded forests”
“Procter & Gamble's Board and Management are still failing to mitigate material deforestation and forest degradation risks”
“Procter & Gamble has promised a group of shareholders it will disclose more details about how it audits wood-pulp suppliers”
“Mars, Inc., Procter & Gamble, Danone, Altria, and British American Tobacco”
“Close behind, Unilever, Mondelēz International, Procter & Gamble and Mars, Inc. have all remained in the top ten every year.”
“SEC regulations require that we disclose certain environmental proceedings”
“P&G and its subsidiaries are members of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce , American Chemistry Council , and National Association of Manufacturers”
“commitments to achieve net zero GHG emissions across operations and supply chain by 2040”
“Accuracy of Climate Policy Engagement Disclosure No, does not meet criteria”
“Procter and Gamble (P&G) has dropped its pledge not to buy wood pulp from degraded forests, in a briefing to investors.”
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 The Procter & Gamble Company compare with other fmcg / consumer goods companies?
Where The Procter & Gamble Company sits among fmcg / consumer goods peers.
Among the 57 major fmcg / consumer goods brands we've scored, The Procter & Gamble Company is tied =45th of 57, with 3 others.
Who scores higher in FMCG / Consumer Goods?
The 3 companies in the sector scoring nearest above The Procter & Gamble Company.
Method Products hides behind parent SC Johnson's vague sustainability claims while dodging material disclosure.
See the breakdown →Unilever has reduced operational emissions 77% but Scope 3 is rising, missing 1.5°C targets by 45%.
See the breakdown →Who Gives A Crap publishes a verified product carbon footprint, but only for 2022 and with no split by scope, so there is no emissions trend.
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.