Membership is coming. It will help keep SINK's method public and its scores free. Join the waitlist to hear when it opens.
Membership opens soon.
Join the waitlist and we'll email you when it does. All scores stay free for everyone, members or not. That's the whole point.
Some ratings are paid for by the companies they rate. At SINK, a business can pay us to review evidence it hasn't published, such as energy data, certifications or supplier audits. The ten questions stay the same for everyone, and scores can go down as well as up.
A typical commercial ESG rating costs £30,000+ a year and comes with a non-disclosure clause. We publish ours openly. The work to keep it going, such as researching new sectors, checking sources and reviewing challenges, has to be paid for somehow.
A sustainability score paywalled behind enterprise contracts can't shape public discourse. It can't be cited by journalists, used by NGOs, or referenced by consumers. Free at the point of use only works if the work itself is funded.
In development:
Members get access first when these ship.
Two things: tools that make SINK more useful to you, and the satisfaction of funding work that stays free for everyone else.
On the tools side: watchlists, score-change alerts, personal compare views and early access to the Sunday Rundown. These are in development now. Members get them first when they ship.
On the bigger picture: SINK scores every company on the same ten questions, with a public method and every source linked. The scores stay free for journalists, NGOs, students and consumers, and anyone else who needs to check a sustainability claim. Membership would pay for the research and the method behind every score.
You're not buying access to data. You're keeping a public good public.
Because a sustainability rating only matters if it can shape decisions. That means journalists need to cite it, NGOs need to reference it and consumers need to find it. Scores behind a paywall would only serve fund managers.
Commercial ESG ratings cost £30,000+ a year for institutional access. Their methodologies are private. Their data is licensed. They're useful for portfolio managers and not much else.
SINK works the other way. The method is public, the scores are free and anyone can challenge them. Member tools (watchlists, alerts, compare views) would make SINK more useful, and the scores themselves stay free because that's what makes them count.
Research and infrastructure, mostly.
Scoring a single company takes hours: reading sustainability reports, checking third-party investigations and cross-checking claims. Multiply that across every company we score, then add method work, database hosting and reviewing challenges.
Membership would keep the public side running: the database, the open method and the scores everyone can check. Businesses that send us evidence pay for a person to review it.
One rule covers every fee: fees pay for the review, never the result. The method is public, the ten questions are fixed, and the formula is the same whether you're a free reader or a paying member.
Asset managers, journalists, NGOs, procurement teams, ESG consultants, pension funds.
Tell us what you need: data access, industry research, help with the method, or briefings on specific companies. We'll tell you honestly what we can do.
A 30-minute call is the fastest way to scope what you need.
Book a call →In development:
“We'd rather be corrected than wrong.”
One email, every Sunday. Score changes, new research, the stories behind the numbers. Free.
No spam. Unsubscribe in one click.