IWG sustainability score: 45/100
IWG runs flexible workspaces under brands including Regus and Spaces, with its head office in Zug, Switzerland; International Workplace Group plc was incorporated in Jersey in 2016. 76 billion revenue in 2025.
Founded 2016Head office Zug, SwitzerlandStaff ~9,225 (average, 2025)Revenue ~$3.76B (FY2025)Website ↗
IWG's total footprint rose to 377,000 tCO2e in 2025, with both its own and its value-chain emissions up. Just 44% of its centres use certified renewable electricity, and heating is mainly gas. It says its targets were validated by SBTi in 2026, but its value-chain target is intensity-based and it publishes no water or waste figures.
IWG scores 45/100 (Below expectations) 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 IWG joint 275th of 900 companies scored, and 11th of 27 in Construction / Real Estate.
Limited evidence. Published with 2 independent parties, below our full-confidence threshold of 3. This score rests on 8 sources, 25% of them published by the company itself. Every source cited here passed the same quality checks as any other score: all live, none from data aggregators. There is simply less of it.
What is IWG doing well, and where does it fall short?
Strongest on Controversies & Red Flags and Carbon Footprint — Operations (8/10, 7/10). Weakest on Emissions Trajectory and Resource Use & Waste (3/10, 3/10).
Where IWG lost points
For each question that lost points, the evidence our public rubric looks for that we didn't find.
- Emissions from its own operations7/10Its 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 falling3/10No evidence its emissions are falling, not even from energy bills or mileage.
- How clean its energy is4/10Less than half its energy shown to be renewable, or no transition plan.
- Its effect on nature4/10Its effect on nature isn't measured or independently verified.
- How it uses materials and handles waste3/10No active waste reduction, reuse or repair shown.
- 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.
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 IWG's SINK score calculated?
Same ten questions for every company. No private weighting.
SINK = (0.3 × Base + 0.7 × Performance) × ScaleWhat evidence is IWG's score based on?
8 sources used in this assessment. All publicly available. Each row shows which of the ten questions it informed.
25% of them were published by IWG itself; the rest come from independent sources.
“Total Scope 1 emissions 71,865”
“75% of operational waste in centres to be diverted from landfill by 2030”
“IWG said selected suppliers will begin providing feedback as the strategy rolls out across its global supply chain from the fourth quarter of 2026.”
“a transition from spend-based estimations to either supplier-specific or product-based emissions using Environmental Product Declarations”
“we felt that the progress we made in 2025 warranted a dedicated standalone report.”
“warning owners that the vehicles holding the leases could go into administration”
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 IWG compare with other construction / real estate companies?
Where IWG sits among construction / real estate peers.
Among the 27 major construction / real estate brands we've scored, IWG sits 11th of 27.
Who scores higher in Construction / Real Estate?
The 3 companies in the sector scoring nearest above IWG.
Lendlease has achieved strong operational emissions reductions and 100% renewable electricity by FY25, backed by SBTi-validated targets.
See the breakdown →Barratt Redrow has achieved a 51% absolute emissions cut in Scope 1&2 since 2021 and leads on biodiversity net gain delivery, hitting 10% ahead of UK mandate.
See the breakdown →LondonMetric has published credible decarbonisation targets and expanded renewable energy on-site, but portfolio emissions lack verified like-for-like reduction.
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?
See what's behind your number →Scores are free. Companies can never pay for anything about their own score.