Kimberly-Clark sustainability score: 38/100
Kimberly-Clark is a US maker of personal care and tissue products, including Huggies, Kleenex, Scott and Kotex. Headquartered in Dallas, it reported $16.4B in net sales for 2025, with approximately 36,000 employees at year end.
More about Kimberly-Clark
It completed its acquisition of Kenvue on 2 November 2026; this record's figures predate that deal.
Head office Dallas, United StatesStaff ~36,000 (2025)Revenue $16,447M net sales, continuing operations (FY2025)Website ↗
Kimberly-Clark has assured emissions data and SBTi-approved absolute targets, but its Scope 3 target covers only purchased goods and end of life, and its core products are single-use. About 90% of products use forest fibre, recycled content in plastic packaging was 5.1% against a 20% goal, and the NRDC rates its main tissue brands D.
Kimberly-Clark scores 38/100 (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 November 2026.
That places Kimberly-Clark joint 486th of 1,017 companies scored, and joint 28th of 57 in FMCG / Consumer Goods.
What is Kimberly-Clark doing well, and where does it fall short?
Strongest on Carbon Footprint: Operations and Targets & Commitments (8/10, 8/10). Weakest on Energy Source and Nature & Biodiversity Impact (5/10, 5/10).
Where Kimberly-Clark lost points
For each question that lost points, the evidence our public rubric looks for that we didn't find.
- Emissions from its own operations8/10No verified figures published with their method and a falling trend.
- 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 is5/10Less than half its energy shown to be renewable, or no transition plan.
- Its effect on nature5/10Its effect on nature isn't measured or independently verified.
- How it uses materials and handles waste5/10No measurable waste or recycling targets reported publicly.
- Its effect on water7/10No water stewardship programme or verified fall in water use.
- Its climate targets8/10No validated long-term net zero target.
- How openly it reports7/10No annual impact report, or no pay linked to climate targets.
- Its record on controversies6/10Points 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 Kimberly-Clark's SINK score calculated?
Same ten questions for every company. No private weighting.
SINK = (0.3 × Base + 0.7 × Performance) × ScaleWhat evidence is Kimberly-Clark's score based on?
20 sources used in this assessment. All publicly available. Each row shows which of the ten questions it informed.
5% of them were published by Kimberly-Clark itself; the rest come from independent sources.
19 of 20 sources are independent of the company.
“Direct GHG Emissions 1,686”
“with goals approved by the Science Based Targets initiative”
“On November 2, 2026, we completed the Kenvue Acquisition”
“Achieved an absolute reduction in operational (Scope 1 and 2) GHG emissions of 43.3 percent”
“absolute reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of 42%”
“(Scope 1 and 2) GHG emissions of 40.9%”
“a 46% reduction in Scope 1 and 2 greenhouse gas emissions in 2025”
“a rooftop solar photovoltaic system in Salamanca, Spain”
“direct greenhouse emissions, which represent 60% of our total emissions”
“natural forest-free status at some unspecified time after 2030”
“CDP Forests score of B”
“it achieved a 52.8 per cent reduction in 2023 against a 2015 baseline”
“Our 2030 ambition is to reduce our global operational water footprint by 50% versus 2015”
“CDP (formerly Carbon Disclosure Project) 2023 B ranking for Climate Change, Water Security and Forests”
“has filed a class action complaint against Kimberly-Clark Corporation”
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 Kimberly-Clark compare with other fmcg / consumer goods companies?
Where Kimberly-Clark sits among fmcg / consumer goods peers.
Among the 57 major fmcg / consumer goods brands we've scored, Kimberly-Clark is tied =28th of 57, with 2 others.
Who scores higher in FMCG / Consumer Goods?
The 3 companies in the sector scoring nearest above Kimberly-Clark.
Faith In Nature reported 136,291.6 tCO2e for its year to 30 June 2025.
See the breakdown →ELEMIS reports Scope 3 as 99.8% of its emissions, with one year of data and no supplier engagement figures.
See the breakdown →Louis Vuitton, reported via parent LVMH, has cut operational emissions 55% but absolute total emissions rose 5% in 2024, driven by flat Scope 3 at 7.5 Mt.
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.