Dr. Martens sustainability score: 47/100
Better than 76% of Apparel (Durable / Outdoor)
Leading practice starts at 60. The highest score on SINK is 71.
Is this your company? Claim this profile (free)
Buying from companies like this? Check 5 of your suppliers free
Dr. Martens is a London-listed footwear brand known for its leather boots and shoes, sold through its own shops, online and wholesale in EMEA, the Americas and Asia-Pacific. It reported £764.9 million of revenue for the 52 weeks to 29 March 2026, with about 3,610 employees.
Founded 2020Head office London, United KingdomStaff ~3,610 (2026)Revenue £764.9 million revenue (52 weeks ended 29 March 2026; FY25: £787.6 million)Website ↗
Dr. Martens has SBTi-validated targets, a full Scope 3 inventory and a rising share of renewable electricity, and its total emissions fell in FY25, which it puts down mainly to lower production. But it missed its 2025 zero-deforestation target, its leather traceability reaches the abattoir rather than the farm, its emissions are not externally verified, and its resale and repair volumes are small.
Dr. Martens scores 47/100 (Making progress) 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 Dr. Martens joint 259th of 1,118 companies scored, and joint 12th of 60 in Apparel (Durable / Outdoor).
What is Dr. Martens doing well, and where does it fall short?
Strongest on Carbon Footprint: Operations and Carbon Footprint: Supply Chain (7/10, 7/10). Weakest on Nature & Biodiversity Impact and Water Impact (3/10, 3/10).
Where Dr. Martens 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
- Its effect on natureAssess its effect on nature and publish a basic environmental policy.
- Its effect on waterMonitor its water use and take measures to reduce it.
- How it uses materials and handles wasteReport measurable waste or recycling targets publicly.
Every question that lost points
- Emissions from its own operations7/10Its own emissions aren't independently verified or tracked over several years.
- Emissions from its supply chain7/10No full value-chain map or supplier engagement programme.
- Whether its emissions are falling6/10No consistent fall over several years across its operations and supply chain.
- How clean its energy is6/10Less than 90% of its energy shown to be renewable.
- Its effect on nature3/10No assessment of its effect on nature, and no basic environmental policy.
- How it uses materials and handles waste5/10No measurable waste or recycling targets reported publicly.
- Its effect on water3/10No monitoring of water use, or no measures to reduce it.
- Its climate targets7/10Its targets aren't validated by the Science Based Targets initiative.
- How openly it reports7/10No mission-locked structure, such as B Corp certification.
- 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 Dr. Martens's SINK score calculated?
Same ten questions for every company. No private weighting.
SINK = (0.3 × Base + 0.7 × Performance) × ScaleWhat evidence is Dr. Martens's score based on?
10 sources used in this assessment. All publicly available. Each row shows which of the ten questions it informed.
20% of them were published by Dr. Martens itself; the rest come from independent sources.
“The reporting period for our SECR disclosure is 1 April 2025 to 31 March 2026”
“10% of bonus was based on the development of the circularity strategy”
“Other targets include increasing sourcing of renewable electricity to 100% by 2026”
“There’s no evidence it’s taking actions to protect biodiversity in its supply chain.”
“Major fashion brands like Zara, Coach, Adidas, Dr. Martens, and at least 80 others may be indirectly driving deforestation in the Amazon”
“with more than 10,000 pre-loved pairs sold in the US since launch”
“to launch a new repair service in the UK to prolong the life of its boots, shoes, sandals, and accessories”
“The ReWair store opened in the U.S. in late March, following success with a resale pilot on Depop in the U.K.”
“On-site effluent treatment facilities are audited by LWG against its wastewater protocol.”
“Leather tanning is a key impact area for water use and wastewater emissions.”
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 Dr. Martens compare with other apparel (durable / outdoor) companies?
Where Dr. Martens sits among apparel (durable / outdoor) peers.
Among the 60 major apparel (durable / outdoor) brands we've scored, Dr. Martens is tied =12th of 60, with 3 others.
Who scores higher in Apparel (Durable / Outdoor)?
The 3 companies in the sector scoring nearest above Dr. Martens.
Kering's emissions fell 14% in 2025 to 1.86 MtCO2e, though intensity was flat as revenue fell, and its Scope 1 and 2 emissions are only 4% below 2022 against a 54.6% cut targeted for 2033.
See the breakdown →Hermès reports strong operational emissions reductions and renewable energy adoption, but absolute Scope 3 emissions rose 14% in 2024 despite intensity-based targets that mask the increase.
See the breakdown →Seasalt's footprint was 42,620 tCO2e in its 2024/25 year, more than 99% of it from its supply chain, and Which? reports that its total rose again in 2024 even though its own operations' emissions are 88% lower.
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.