Taylor Wimpey has strong climate commitments and operational emissions reporting, but undermines credibility through a £488k water pollution fine for reckless regulatory violations, lobbying against Future Homes Standards, and modest Scope 3 reductions partly driven by lower activity rather than genuine decarbonisation. Greenfield housebuilding's inherent habitat destruction and limited circular economy progress remain structural weaknesses.
Same formula for every company. No curve. No private weighting.
SINK = (0.3 × Base + 0.7 × Performance) × ScaleStrongest on Carbon Footprint — Operations and Targets & Commitments (8/10, 8/10). Weakest on Water Impact and Controversies & Red Flags (3/10, 4/10).
8 sources used in this assessment. All publicly available. Each row shows which rubric questions it informed.
If you believe a source has been misread or a newer version exists, submit a challenge.
Among the 12 major construction / real estate brands we've scored, Taylor Wimpey sits 6th of 12.
Score history begins 4 April 2026.
As Taylor Wimpey's score updates, the trajectory will appear here.
We're backfilling historical scores for FTSE 100 and S&P 100 companies over the coming weeks.
Every challenge is published. We'd rather be corrected than wrong — that's the whole point.
No challenges submitted yet. If you have evidence that contradicts this score, you can challenge any question above — cite a public source and we'll review it.
Taylor Wimpey is a major UK housebuilder, founded in 2007, headquartered in High Wycombe. It designs, builds and sells residential properties across the UK market, operating through regional divisions and timber frame manufacturing. A FTSE 100 constituent with c.10,000+ completions annually.
Peer UK housebuilder with similar scale and carbon commitments; useful for sector-level performance benchmarking.
View breakdown →Peer UK housebuilder; relevant comparison on operational transparency and lobbying alignment.
View breakdown →Energy major with parallel pattern: strong net-zero targets undermined by regulatory violations and policy lobbying.
View breakdown →Comparable brand-stage controversy cycle: comprehensive reporting offset by operational violations and credibility erosion.
View breakdown →Email alerts when a rubric question is verified, a challenge is resolved, or the overall score changes.
One email, every Sunday. Score changes, new research, the stories behind the numbers. Free.
No spam. Unsubscribe in one click.
Readers and institutions support our work. Companies can pay to submit evidence we couldn't find. Neither type of payment changes a score.