Las Vegas Sands sustainability score: 43/100
Making progress starts at 46. 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
Las Vegas Sands owns and operates integrated resorts with casinos, hotels, shopping malls and convention space in Macao, through its 74.80% stake in Sands China Ltd., and Marina Bay Sands in Singapore. In 2025 its Macao resorts brought in $7,433 million of net revenues and Marina Bay Sands $5,584 million.
More about Las Vegas Sands
Las Vegas Sands Corp. was incorporated in Nevada in August 2004. It had about 41,500 employees worldwide, about 41,000 of them full-time, and $13,017 million net revenues in 2025.
Founded 2004Head office Las Vegas, United StatesStaff ~41,500 employees worldwide, incl. ~41,000 full-time (10-K for 2025, no date or average given)Revenue ~US$13.0B net revenues (US$13,017M, 2025)Website ↗
Las Vegas Sands' footprint was 2,224,522 tCO2e in 2025, the sum of its printed Scope 1, market-based Scope 2 and Scope 3 lines, down from 2,850,485 t in 2024 but above 1,739,102 t in 2023. Scope 1 rose each year from 2021 to 2025. It calls 31% of its energy renewable, but almost all of that is certificates. It met an SBTi-validated target to cut Scope 1 and 2 emissions 17.5% by 2025 from 2018, and SBTi validated a 60.2% cut by 2030, but it has no validated net-zero target. It recorded 2 incidents of non-compliance with water regulations in 2025, with no penalty disclosed. It dropped its Long Island casino bid in 2025.
Las Vegas Sands scores 43/100 (Below expectations) 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 Las Vegas Sands joint 367th of 1,118 companies scored, and joint 7th of 18 in Hospitality / Hotels.
What is Las Vegas Sands doing well, and where does it fall short?
Strongest on Carbon Footprint: Operations and Transparency & Accountability (8/10, 8/10). Weakest on Emissions Trajectory and Energy Source (2/10, 2/10).
Where Las Vegas Sands 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.
- How clean its energy isMove to a renewable energy tariff or make a major efficiency investment.
- Its effect on natureMeasure its effect on nature and have it independently verified.
Every question that lost points
- 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 falling2/10No evidence its emissions are falling.
- How clean its energy is2/10No renewable energy tariff or major efficiency investment shown.
- Its effect on nature4/10Its 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 water5/10No measured water footprint with reduction targets.
- Its climate targets7/10Its targets aren't validated by the Science Based Targets initiative.
- How openly it reports8/10No mission-locked structure, such as B Corp certification.
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 Las Vegas Sands's SINK score calculated?
Same ten questions for every company. No private weighting.
SINK = (0.3 × Base + 0.7 × Performance) × ScaleWhat evidence is Las Vegas Sands'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 Las Vegas Sands itself; the rest come from independent sources.
“Scope 1 GHG emissions (MT CO2e) 228,255 38,446 58,341 119,588 155,421 164,524”
“accelerating renewable energy use and increasing energy attribute”
“citing potential crime, addiction, traffic congestion and environmental issues”
“operations would require excessive pumping of an already-depleted sole-source aquifer and fragile drinking water supply”
“would likely impact water usage, increase vehicular traffic and generate more solid waste”
“drawing rebuke from groups and some local residents that believe the project would be damaging to the environment”
“LVS used tonight’s hearing as an opportunity to ‘greenwash’ the catastrophic impacts”
“comes with significant impacts to water usage, traffic flow, public health and the local economy”
“critics pushed back against the casino citing potential impacts to traffic and the environment”
“Communities and Planet corporate responsibility platform”
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 Las Vegas Sands compare with other hospitality / hotels companies?
Where Las Vegas Sands sits among hospitality / hotels peers.
Among the 18 major hospitality / hotels brands we've scored, Las Vegas Sands is tied =7th of 18, with 1 other.
Who scores higher in Hospitality / Hotels?
The 3 companies in the sector scoring nearest above Las Vegas Sands.
PGL Beyond's footprint was 76,932 tCO2e in 2024, 93% of it from its supply chain, and about two-thirds of its UK centres' energy is gas and other fossil heating fuels.
See the breakdown →Radisson reports intensity-based carbon reductions and SBTi-validated net zero targets, but discloses no absolute emissions tonnage across its rapidly expanding 40,000-key portfolio, masking whether growth is offsetting per-unit gains.
See the breakdown →THE PIG's footprint was 11,822 tCO2e in 2024, mostly from the food it buys, up from 8,353 t in 2023, and its own operations' emissions rose again in 2025.
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.