Carbon Footprint — Operations: How does Yara International ASA score?

Yara discloses Scope 1+2 absolute emissions (16.3Mt CO2e, 2024) with third-party limited assurance and multi-year tracking aligned to GHG Protocol. However, reported figure excludes Freeport and Hull facilities, rendering the 'comprehensive' claim incomplete and capping the score.

Carbon Footprint — Supply Chain: How does Yara International ASA score?

Scope 3 from fertilizer use (42.8Mt CO2e, 73% of total footprint) is disclosed but not quantified year-on-year. Upstream Scope 3 (purchased ammonia, raw materials) explicitly excluded from targets despite investor coalition criticism. No full life-cycle assessment targets exist.

Emissions Trajectory: How does Yara International ASA score?

Scope 1+2 emissions rose from 15.6Mt (2023) to 16.3Mt (2024). Intensity targets met but absolute reductions absent. Scope 3 rising with production growth (8% increase planned 2023–2025). No evidence of near-term absolute decline trajectory.

Energy Source: How does Yara International ASA score?

Yara is the EU's largest industrial natural gas buyer; ~90% of energy for ammonia production is fossil-based. A 24-MW green hydrogen electrolyzer (started June 2024) produces 20,500 mt/year green ammonia—trivial against 7.8Mt/year total output. No RE100 membership or company-wide renewable electricity target.

Nature & Biodiversity Impact: How does Yara International ASA score?

Yara recognizes fertilizer-driven eutrophication, dead zones, and nitrous oxide emissions. Member of SBTN and OP2B, published Nature Position Paper. No TNFD-aligned disclosure confirmed, no quantified nature footprint, no deforestation-free commitment. Core business model remains ecologically damaging.

Resource Use & Waste: How does Yara International ASA score?

Yara launched Sustainable Procurement Policy (2022) and acquired organic/recycled fertilizer brands (Ecolan, Agribios). Life-cycle footprinting begun 2022 appears stalled (FAIRR reports no 2024 updates). No verified circular economy targets at scale; business remains linear fossil-gas-to-nitrogen model.

Water Impact: How does Yara International ASA score?

Yara acknowledges fertilizer-driven eutrophication and waterway pollution. Montoir de Bretagne plant fined €61,500 (September 2021) for excess nitrogen/phosphorus discharge and placed under enhanced surveillance. Water withdrawal tracked but concentrations at priority sites not disclosed despite 2023 commitment to do so.

Targets & Commitments: How does Yara International ASA score?

Yara submitted 30% Scope 1+2 (2030, 2019 baseline) and 11.1% Scope 3-use targets to SBTi, remaining in 'committed' status for 5+ years without validation. Fertilizer sector SDA delayed from 2022 to 2024. No SBTi net-zero target. 2025 KPI was intensity-based, not absolute reduction.

Transparency & Accountability: How does Yara International ASA score?

Yara publishes CSRD/ESRS-compliant Integrated Report (2024, March 2025), TCFD-aligned disclosures, multi-year KPI tracking, and EU Taxonomy reporting. MSCI A rating; Refinitiv 83/100. Executive remuneration linked to sustainability KPIs. SBTi validation remains pending; Hull/Freeport exclusion and undisclosed trade association climate alignment are transparency gaps.

Controversies & Red Flags: How does Yara International ASA score?

Montoir de Bretagne water discharge fine (€61,500, 2021). Yara holds Vice-President role in Fertilizers Europe and sits on CEFIC boards identified by InfluenceMap as having 'mix of supportive and unsupportive' climate positions. ShareAction, Corporate Europe Observatory, and ASEED document credible greenwashing and lobbying for fossil gas.

Recently scored: Marathon Petroleum, Verizon Communications, Tesla, Inc., Johnson & Johnson

812 companies scored·64 score updates this week

Chemicals·Oslo, Norway·Founded 2003·Last verified 31 May 2026

Yara International ASA sustainability score: 21/100

Yara International is a Norwegian chemical company and the world's largest producer of nitrogen fertilizers and ammonia.

21/100

Significant gaps

9th of 10 in Chemicals

Pending ReviewStrong evidence· 15 src

Yara is a fertilizer giant whose core business model—synthesizing nitrogen from fossil gas—remains fundamentally misaligned with climate science. Scope 3 emissions dominate (73% of total footprint) yet targets exclude upstream suppliers. A tiny green hydrogen pilot and delayed SBTi validation cannot mask stalled decarbonization and regulatory fines for water pollution.

Yara International ASA scores 21/100 (Significant gaps) on SINK's independent climate assessment — scored from public data only. Fees pay for the review, never the result. Last verified May 2026.

That places Yara International ASA joint 766th of 812 companies scored, and 9th of 10 in Chemicals.

At a glance

Strongest

Emissions from its own operations7/10
How openly it reports6/10

Weakest

Its record on controversies3/10
Its climate targets3/10

See all ten questions ↓

Yara International ASA in context

How does Yara International ASA compare with other chemicals companies?

Where Yara International ASA sits among chemicals peers.

Among the 10 major chemicals brands we've scored, Yara International ASA sits 9th of 10.

9/10

Yara International ASA's rank

Industry average

Industry low

Industry high

1Novonesis

46 2Croda International

44 33M Company

388BASF

9Yara International ASA

10Dow Inc. (The Dow Chemical Company)

See all 10 in Chemicals →

For buyers

Buy from Yara International ASA? Check your whole supplier list.

Every supplier scored from public evidence like this, ranked, in 48 hours. No questionnaires, and your suppliers never know.

Check your suppliers →

The ten questions

What is Yara International ASA doing well, and where does it fall short?

Strongest on Carbon Footprint — Operations and Transparency & Accountability (7/10, 6/10). Weakest on Controversies & Red Flags and Targets & Commitments (3/10, 3/10).

Explore next

Who scores higher in Chemicals?

The 3 companies in the sector scoring nearest above Yara International ASA.

31/100

Bayer

Bayer reports comprehensive climate data with 21.9% Scope 1&2 reductions and SBTi-validated targets, but faces systematic controversies: 170,000+ Roundup lawsuits, $11B settlements, an OECD deforestation complaint, and glyphosate biodiversity damage.

See the breakdown →

29/100

Corteva Agriscience

Corteva reports operational emissions with limited assurance and has set unvalidated climate targets.

See the breakdown →

23/100

BASF

BASF reports operationally transparent emissions data but has stalled progress since 2023, with Scope 1+2 flat and total emissions rising.

See the breakdown →

See the full Chemicals table →

Method and evidence

How we worked this out

The formula and all 15 sources.

The calculation

How is Yara International ASA's SINK score calculated?

Same ten questions for every company. No private weighting.

SINK = (0.3 × Base + 0.7 × Performance) × Scale

Industry base impact

Chemicals sector ceiling.

25 / 100

Performance score

Sum of the 10 rubric questions, scored 0–10 each.

39 / 100

Raw score

Weighted average before scale penalty.

(0.3 × 25) + (0.7 × 39) = 34.8

Scale penalty

Multiplier based on total emissions. Bigger polluters lose more.

× 0.6

Final score

Rounded. Significant gaps.

21 / 100

Where the evidence comes from

What evidence is Yara International ASA's score based on?

15 sources used in this assessment. All publicly available. Each row shows which rubric questions it informed.

11 of 15 sources are independent of the company.

[1]Self-reported

Yara Integrated Report 2024

2025

Q1Q3Q4Q9

Yara International ASA sustainability score: 21/100

Yara International ASA's strongest and weakest areas

How does Yara International ASA compare with other chemicals companies?

Buy from Yara International ASA? Check your whole supplier list.

What is Yara International ASA doing well, and where does it fall short?

Who scores higher in Chemicals?

How we worked this out

How is Yara International ASA's SINK score calculated?

What evidence is Yara International ASA's score based on?

Which companies moved this week, and why.