Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. scores 2 points higher than Morgan Stanley on SINK.
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. is more sustainable according to SINK's scores, scoring 31/100 vs Morgan Stanley's 29/100, a difference of 2 points.
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. scores 31/100 on SINK (Below expectations). Goldman Sachs reports assured operational emissions, but its Scope 1 rose 4% in 2024 and it publishes no financed-emissions total, its main footprint. Banking on Climate Chaos records its fossil-fuel financing rising by $9.5 billion to $28.5 billion in 2024. Its 2030 financing targets are intensity-based, not absolute, it left the Net-Zero Banking Alliance in December 2024, and it buys offsets equal to all its operational emissions.
Morgan Stanley scores 29/100 on SINK (Significant gaps). Morgan Stanley reports operational emissions with Deloitte review, but publishes financed emissions only for six lending sectors and gives no total. It left the Net-Zero Banking Alliance in January 2025, its business-travel emissions are rising, and it relies on unbundled renewable certificates and offsets for its operational carbon-neutral claim. NGO reports name it among the largest fossil-fuel financiers.
Both companies are rated on the same 10-question SINK rubric: Scope 1/2/3 carbon footprint, energy source, nature and biodiversity, resource use, water, emissions trajectory, science-based targets, transparency, and controversies. Scores are 0–100, based on public data, and fully reproducible.
See the full leaderboard: 1,023 companies ranked.
View the full leaderboard →