No Starch Press sustainability score: 25/100

No Starch Press publishes no sustainability report, has no CDP or BEGES/SECR filing, and no GHG emissions data of any kind is publicly available. The company is a private independent publisher with approximately 50 employees operating from a single San Francisco office. Estimated Scope 1+2 is well under 1,000 tonnes CO₂e — the physical footprint is negligible. Under SINK rules, a company of this size with no formal data but a demonstrably tiny operational footprint scores 3, not 0, because the planet barely notices the operational emissions of a ~50-person office-based publisher. No formal emissions calculation or energy data is published.

No Scope 3 or supply chain emissions data is published. The primary supply chain impact for a book publisher of this size is paper procurement and third-party printing. No Starch Press uses Penguin Random House Publisher Services for distribution. No FSC certification, recycled paper policy, or printer sustainability requirements are publicly disclosed on the nostarch.com website. The supply chain is relatively simple — editorial office, a print-on-demand or small-run printer, and a distributor — but the company has published no data or awareness statement about this. A ~50-person publisher with an inherently short supply chain scores 2: limited physical exposure, but no documented awareness.

No emissions data exists for any year, so no trajectory can be established. The company is small (~50 employees) and appears to have stable or modestly growing operations based on Glassdoor reviews noting consistent revenue growth. There is no evidence of rapid headcount or operational expansion that would indicate rising emissions. A small, stable company with no evidence of emissions growth scores 2 under SINK rules — the planet experiences a negligible and likely flat emissions profile from this entity. No proxy data (energy bills, miles, waste reduction) is published.

No energy or renewable energy information is published by No Starch Press. No green tariff, RE100 membership, PPA, or on-site generation is disclosed. The company operates from a single San Francisco office with very low energy consumption typical of a small editorial and administrative team. San Francisco's grid has a relatively high share of renewables (California RPS), but this is a grid-level fact, not a company-specific action. A minimal energy consumer with no formal renewable energy strategy but negligible energy impact scores 2 — the absence of a strategy is less consequential given the tiny energy footprint.

No biodiversity, nature, TNFD, or deforestation policy is published. The key nature risk for a book publisher is paper sourcing — whether timber used in printing comes from responsibly managed forests (FSC/SFI certification). No Starch Press publishes no FSC certification, recycled paper commitment, or deforestation-free policy on its website or in any accessible disclosure. The physical nature impact of a ~50-person publisher is low compared to large publishers, but the absence of any documented paper procurement policy prevents a higher score. Scores 2: aware of the sector's paper risk is not demonstrated; avoidance of worst practices is not evidenced.

No resource use, waste, or circularity data is published. No Starch Press offers a free ebook edition with every print book purchased from nostarch.com, which reduces unnecessary print runs and is a modest form of resource efficiency — but this is primarily a commercial offering, not an environmental programme. No supply chain sustainability requirements, office waste policy, or hardware lifecycle policy is disclosed. Scores 2 for basic awareness-level performance: a small publisher with low material footprint but no documented waste minimisation or circular strategy.

No water consumption or discharge data is published. No Starch Press is an office-based publisher with no manufacturing operations and no significant water use beyond normal office consumption. The physical water impact of a ~50-person administrative and editorial office in San Francisco is negligible. No chemical discharge or water pollution risk is associated with the business model. Under SINK rules, a company with genuinely negligible water impact and no formal monitoring still scores 3 — not 0 — because the physical reality is that this company's water footprint is near-zero.

No environmental targets, commitments, or goals of any kind are published by No Starch Press. No SBTi commitment, net-zero pledge, emissions reduction target, energy efficiency goal, or paper sustainability target is disclosed on the company website, in any regulatory filing, or in any third-party database searched (CDP, SBTi target dashboard, InfluenceMap). No offsets are purchased (which for a tiny-footprint company is the correct approach), but there is no stated reduction target of any kind. Scores 0: no targets, no commitments, no stated goals.

No sustainability report, ESG disclosure, TCFD or CSRD filing, or dedicated environmental webpage is published. The company is privately held with no regulatory obligation to disclose environmental performance in the US at its revenue scale. No dedicated sustainability role, board oversight mechanism, or public sustainability data is identifiable. The About page on nostarch.com describes the founding history and publishing philosophy but contains no environmental or governance content. Bill Pollock appears to be the sole owner and CEO, consistent with a small SME. Scores 2: owner-driven private company with no public sustainability information — not unusual at this scale, but the absence of any disclosure limits accountability.

No environmental controversies, regulatory actions, greenwashing findings, or climate lobbying activity involving No Starch Press were found across any of the sources searched, including InfluenceMap, CDP, NGO reports, or journalism. The company has no InfluenceMap profile. No trade association memberships with misaligned climate lobbying positions are documented. The business model — independent technical book publishing — has no structural fossil-fuel enablement dimension. Starts at 8; no deductions apply. No positive lobbying advocacy is documented either, so no upward adjustment is made.