Imperial Brands scores 44/100 (Below expectations) on SINK's independent climate assessment — scored from public data only, no company payment can change a number. Last verified August 2026.
That places Imperial Brands joint 183rd of 600 companies scored, and 10th of 43 in FMCG / Consumer Goods.
Imperial Brands discloses substantial carbon reductions in operations (72% S1+S2) and has SBTi-validated net-zero targets, but structural harms persist: tobacco farming drives deforestation and water contamination, 4.5 trillion cigarette butts remain unaddressed, and the company actively lobbies against tobacco regulation while greenwashing via ESG awards.
This score is built from public data only. If your practice is stronger than your disclosure, submit evidence for review — or challenge any question, free.
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 Nature & Biodiversity Impact and Controversies & Red Flags (3/10, 5/10).
9 sources used in this assessment. All publicly available. Each row shows which rubric questions it informed.
“Scope 1 emissions of approximately 73437000 kg CO2e for Scope 1, 15683000 kg CO2e for Scope 2 (market-based)”
“Every stage of the tobacco supply chain poses serious environmental consequences, including deforestation, the use of fossil fuels and the dumping or leaking of waste”
“the tobacco industry... cuts 600 million trees, 200,000 hectares of land, 22 billion tonnes of water, and emits 84 million tonnes of CO2”
“In 2021, Imperial Brands consumed 1.11 million cubic meters of water, a decrease of 7% over 2020”
“CDP corporate scores register; Imperial Brands historically CDP A-rated”
“These organisations include PMI, British American Tobacco, Japan Tobacco International, and Imperial Brands as major tobacco producers”
“All of the 'big four' TTCs (BAT, PMI, Japan Tobacco International and Imperial Brands) and Altria have been rated 'A', the highest possible rating, across various indices by the Carbon Disclosure Project”
“The Guardian reported tobacco industry lobbying activities to attempt to derail the bill... Imperial Brands also reportedly engaged with MPs and government officials”
“Imperial Brands supports net-zero by 2050; assessed as minimal substantive climate-policy engagement”
If you believe a source has been misread or a newer version exists, submit a challenge.
Where Imperial Brands sits among fmcg / consumer goods peers.
Among the 43 major fmcg / consumer goods brands we've scored, Imperial Brands sits 10th of 43.
Score history begins —.
As Imperial Brands'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.
This score is not currently being contested.
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.
Imperial Brands is a British tobacco and nicotine company headquartered in Bristol. It manufactures cigarettes, fine-cut and cigar products, vaping and heated-tobacco products, and oral nicotine. A major global cigarette producer, it operates across 160+ countries with a significant supply-chain footprint in agriculture-dependent regions.
Peer global tobacco major; comparable supply chain scale and regulatory exposure.
View breakdown →Comparable FMCG scale, geography, and multi-category portfolio; higher ESG disclosure maturity.
View breakdown →Large FMCG peer with substantial supply chain environmental footprint and agriculture exposure.
View breakdown →Consumer goods peer with similar packaging waste and resource use accountability patterns.
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.