Johnson & Johnson scores 15 points higher than The Procter & Gamble Company on SINK's sustainability index.
Johnson & Johnson is more sustainable according to SINK's open sustainability index, scoring 41/100 vs The Procter & Gamble Company's 26/100 — a difference of 15 points.
Johnson & Johnson scores 41/100 on the SINK sustainability index (Below expectations). J&J reports comprehensive emissions data with third-party verification, but Scope 3 stagnation undermines climate trajectory. Nature and biodiversity disclosure is minimal despite sourcing palm oil linked to deforestation. Systemic governance failures—90,000+ talc lawsuits, $25B+ in penalties—reflect institutional weakness that extends beyond environmental claims.
The Procter & Gamble Company scores 26/100 on the SINK sustainability index (Significant gaps). P&G has cut operational emissions 60% but Scope 3—which dominates its footprint—is rising. Forest degradation via toilet paper sourcing, five active greenwashing lawsuits, and intensity-based (not absolute) Scope 3 targets expose a company optimizing optics while core business remains linear and extractive.
Both companies are rated on the same 10-question SINK rubric: Scope 1/2/3 carbon footprint, energy source, nature and biodiversity, resource use, water, emissions trajectory, science-based targets, transparency, and controversies. Scores are 0–100, based on public data, and fully reproducible.
See the full leaderboard — 500+ companies ranked.
View full leaderboard →