Bioregional Development sustainability score: 56/100
Bioregional is a London-based sustainability consultancy and registered charity founded in 1994, with 31 employees and £2.5m annual revenue. It develops frameworks and tools for environmental planning, retrofit, and one-planet living, working with housing bodies, local authorities, and businesses across the UK.
Founded 1994Head office London, United KingdomStaff 31 (FY2026, average headcount; 28.6 FTE)Revenue 2,528,664 GBP (FY2026)Website ↗
Bioregional has cut its Scope 1 and 2 emissions by 89% since 2018/19, but Scope 3, about 99% of its 139.7 tCO2e footprint and estimated mainly from spending, fell only 9.6%, largely by cutting travel. Progress on its goal for key suppliers to set science-based targets is not reported, and no nature baseline or current water data was found. Its small office footprint limits direct impact, and a documented performance gap at its flagship BedZED project weighs on its credibility.
Bioregional Development scores 56/100 (Making progress) on SINK's independent climate assessment, scored from public data only. Scores are free. Companies can never pay for anything about their own score. Last verified October 2026.
That places Bioregional Development joint 39th of 934 companies scored, and joint 9th of 29 in Consulting / Professional Services.
What is Bioregional Development doing well, and where does it fall short?
Strongest on Targets & Commitments and Transparency & Accountability (7/10, 7/10). Weakest on Energy Source and Emissions Trajectory (3/10, 4/10).
Where Bioregional Development lost points
For each question that lost points, the evidence our public rubric looks for that we didn't find.
- Emissions from its own operations6/10Its own emissions aren't independently verified or tracked over several years.
- Emissions from its supply chain6/10No full value-chain map or supplier engagement programme.
- Whether its emissions are falling4/10No evidence of a year-on-year fall in its total emissions.
- How clean its energy is3/10No renewable energy tariff or major efficiency investment shown.
- Its effect on nature4/10Its effect on nature isn't measured or independently verified.
- How it uses materials and handles waste4/10No measurable waste or recycling targets reported publicly.
- Its effect on water4/10No measured water footprint with reduction targets.
- Its climate targets7/10Its targets aren't validated by the Science Based Targets initiative.
- How openly it reports7/10No annual impact report, or no pay linked to climate targets.
- Its record on controversies7/10Points 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 Bioregional Development's SINK score calculated?
Same ten questions for every company. No private weighting.
SINK = (0.3 × Base + 0.7 × Performance) × ScaleHas Bioregional Development's score changed?
Bioregional Development's score has moved from 57 to 56 across 2 recorded reviews, down 1 point.
- 57 → 56-116 October 2026
correction: re-sourced 2026-10-16 (live records failing current gates, zero coverage). Re-scored under current rules from the filed accounts (OCR-verified) and independent coverage; Scope 3 completeness exception documented. (Owner exception: Scope 3 completeness guard skipped — filed accounts state the 139.7 t total is ~99% Scope 3.)
- Scored 579 April 2026
Initial score at platform launch
What evidence is Bioregional Development's score based on?
11 sources used in this assessment. All publicly available. Each row shows which of the ten questions it informed.
18% of them were published by Bioregional Development itself; the rest come from independent sources.
“Scope 1 and 2 emissions fell by 89% since our 2018/19 baseline”
“In 2018/19 our carbon footprint (including scopes 1, 2, and 3) was 137 tCO2e.”
“Group of companies' accounts made up to 31 March 2026”
“require 50% of our key suppliers (measured by procurement emissions) to have science-based targets by 2025”
“80.6 tCO2e in 2023-24, a decrease of 50% from our 2018/19 baseline”
“Environment/conservation/heritage”
“Bioregional Development Group commits to reduce scope 1 and scope 2 GHG emissions 50% by 2030 from a 2018 base year”
“It faced problems such as overheating and having to switch from CHP to gas which undermined its sustainability targets.”
“BedZED eco-village is the real deal - no greenwashing to be seen or heard here.”
“Retrofit Automation Tool by Bioregional aims to accelerate retrofit planning by turning complex, messy datasets into clear decarbonisation pathways”
“Completing the list was a retrofit automation tool by Bioregional, which aims to simplify the retrofitting planning process.”
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 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 Bioregional Development compare with other consulting / professional services companies?
Where Bioregional Development sits among consulting / professional services peers.
Among the 29 major consulting / professional services brands we've scored, Bioregional Development is tied =9th of 29, with 3 others.
Who scores higher in Consulting / Professional Services?
The 3 companies in the sector scoring nearest above Bioregional Development.
Cooper Parry's footprint rose 31% in two years to 8,545 tCO2e in its 2025 financial year, almost all of it from its supply chain, even though its direct emissions fell 94% and its electricity is now renewable under certificates.
See the breakdown →Birketts's footprint was 4,632 tCO2e in its 2024/25 year, 16% below its 2023/24 baseline, though its direct emissions rose and its carbon plan and its accounts give different figures for them.
See the breakdown →Hymans Robertson's footprint was about 5,200 tCO2e in 2025/26, mostly from its supply chain, and its core emissions fell 13% in the year after two years of rises.
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. Companies can never pay for anything about their own score.