Clarks sustainability score: 30/100
Better than 16% of Apparel (Durable / Outdoor)
Below expectations starts at 31. The highest score on SINK is 71.
Clarks designs and sells shoes through its own shops, online and to wholesale customers around the world. In 2025 the Americas brought in £423.6 million, the UK and Ireland £323.2 million, Asia Pacific £94.0 million and the rest of Europe, the Middle East and Africa £30.7 million.
More about Clarks
C&J Clark (No 1) Limited, the group's parent company, was incorporated in 1997; its majority shareholder is Viva QiLe Limited, whose ultimate parent is Viva Goods Company Limited. It had an average of 5,797 employees and £871.5 million revenue in its year to 31 December 2025.
Founded 1997Head office Street, United KingdomStaff ~5,797 average (year to 31 December 2025)Revenue ~£871.5M revenue (year to 31 December 2025)Website ↗
Clarks' footprint was 579,255 tCO2e in 2025, up from 565,983 t in 2024. Almost all of it (550,647 t) is the materials and manufacture of its shoes. Its accounts give two different Scope 1 figures: 3,849 t in the climate statement and 2,235 t in the energy and carbon table. It publishes no renewable electricity share, and it has no group climate target and no SBTi target. Its leather policy commits to ending deforestation in its cattle leather supply chains, and it has phased out plastic bags in its UK, EU and US shops. It publishes no water figures, and independent raters say its product claims lack supporting data.
Clarks scores 30/100 (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 Clarks joint 769th of 1,070 companies scored, and joint 48th of 59 in Apparel (Durable / Outdoor).
What is Clarks doing well, and where does it fall short?
Strongest on Controversies & Red Flags and Carbon Footprint: Operations (8/10, 5/10). Weakest on Emissions Trajectory and Water Impact (0/10, 1/10).
Where Clarks 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 effect on waterPublish figures for its water use.
- Its climate targetsSet emissions reduction targets.
Every question that lost points
- Emissions from its own operations5/10No full Scope 1 and 2 figures worked out to the GHG Protocol.
- Emissions from its supply chain5/10Most of its supply-chain (Scope 3) emissions aren't measured.
- Whether its emissions are falling0/10No evidence its emissions are falling.
- How clean its energy is2/10No renewable energy tariff or major efficiency investment shown.
- Its effect on nature3/10No assessment of its effect on nature, and no basic environmental policy.
- How it uses materials and handles waste3/10No active waste reduction, reuse or repair shown.
- Its effect on water1/10No figures for its water use.
- Its climate targets1/10No emissions reduction targets.
- How openly it reports4/10No dedicated sustainability role, board oversight or public report.
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 Clarks's SINK score calculated?
Same ten questions for every company. No private weighting.
SINK = (0.3 × Base + 0.7 × Performance) × ScaleWhat evidence is Clarks's score based on?
9 sources used in this assessment. All publicly available. Each row shows which of the ten questions it informed.
22% of them were published by Clarks itself; the rest come from independent sources.
“Scope 1&2 total CO2e based on above (location-based) (tCO2e) 14,210 14,629”
“Scope 1&2 total CO2e based on above (location-based) (tCO2e) 14,629”
“There’s no evidence it’s taken any action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in its supply chain.”
“Clarks is committed to eliminating deforestation and conversion of natural vegetation in our bovine leather supply chains originating”
“We avoid Clarks because it hasn’t published the amount of sustainability or production information that we’d expect for a brand its size”
“doesn't publish any reports, targets, or other significant environmental or sustainability information”
“Two companies with more than £500m turnover each, had surprisingly little information on their websites about their climate impacts, with no reporting on emissions or reduction targets found there.”
“While we aim to avoid misleading consumers on green claims, greenwashing can be subjective.”
“ranked according to how much they disclose about their social and environmental policies, practices and impacts. 42.8 / 250”
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 Clarks compare with other apparel (durable / outdoor) companies?
Where Clarks sits among apparel (durable / outdoor) peers.
Among the 59 major apparel (durable / outdoor) brands we've scored, Clarks is tied =48th of 59, with 2 others.
Who scores higher in Apparel (Durable / Outdoor)?
The 3 companies in the sector scoring nearest above Clarks.
Valentino reports carbon reductions and renewable energy commitments but lacks science-based targets, supply chain transparency, and water disclosure.
See the breakdown →Jimmy Choo discloses emissions only at parent-company level with no brand-specific quantification.
See the breakdown →Li Ning's footprint was 1,162,595 tCO2e in 2025, the first year it reported its supply chain, which accounts for 1,104,308 t of it.
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.