Pop Mart's Double A Mirage: No Carbon Roadmap Behind the ESG Rating
With MSCI AA rating and revenue doubling, the toy giant's climate story collapses under scrutiny.
Targets vs. Reality
Pop Mart’s stated environmental targets are sparse and ill-defined. The company promises a 10% reduction in energy intensity and a 10% reduction in water intensity by 2025, both against a 2020 baseline. Yet the baseline values are not publicly disclosed, making progress impossible to verify. Current energy intensity stands at 1.07 MWh per million RMB of revenue; water intensity at 0.34 tonnes per million RMB. Without the 2020 reference point, these figures float in a vacuum.
The only longer-term climate pledge is a “carbon peak by 2030”—a vague, non-committal target that falls far short of net-zero or carbon neutrality. Such a goal merely aims to stop growing emissions, not reduce them to levels required by science. Peers like Lego have set SBTi-validated, science-based targets and aim for net-zero by 2050; Hasbro targets carbon neutrality by 2040. Pop Mart’s peak pledge is closer to business-as-usual.
Meanwhile, reality shows a company growing explosively: revenue jumped 106.9% year-on-year to RMB 13.04 billion. A 15% drop in scope 1 and 2 emissions to 7,407.59 tCO2e sounds impressive, but with revenue more than doubling, total emissions intensity might be improving while absolute scope 3 emissions (which are not disclosed) almost certainly soared. Without absolute targets and comprehensive reporting, the reduction in scope 1+2 is a narrow victory.
What the Data Shows
Despite the gaps, some verified data points demonstrate genuine effort. MSCI has awarded Pop Mart an AA ESG rating for two consecutive years—a third-party endorsement that signals industry leadership on financially relevant ESG risks. Scope 1 and 2 emissions decreased 15% year-on-year, supported by a tangible renewable energy investment: the Baoding factory generates 12,000 MWh of solar electricity annually, covering roughly 60% of that facility’s needs.
Material circularity indicators exist: the company recycled 83 tonnes of toys in 2024 and introduced a DIMOO figurine line containing 55% recycled materials. On packaging, 100% of Pop Mart’s packaging categories are FSC-certified—a claim independently verifiable through the Forest Stewardship Council’s chain-of-custody system.
However, all environmental performance data—emissions, energy, water, recycling tonnage—comes from the company’s own unreviewed 2024 Sustainability Report. It is not third-party assured, so even these positive figures carry inherent uncertainty.
Risk Signals
- No Carbon Neutrality Roadmap 🔴 Evidence: The 2024 Sustainability Report explicitly states no carbon neutrality roadmap exists. Only a “2030 carbon peak” ambition is mentioned. Confidence: High. The absence of a net-zero or science-based target contradicts the expectations set by an MSCI AA rating and lags dramatically behind peers.
- Missing Scope 3 Emissions 🔴 Evidence: The 2024 report provides no Scope 3 data whatsoever. For a plastic-toy manufacturer, Scope 3—covering raw material extraction, manufacturing, distribution, and product end-of-life—likely represents the overwhelming majority of its carbon footprint. Confidence: High. Without Scope 3, any claim about overall climate performance is fundamentally incomplete.
- Unassured Sustainability Report 🔴 Evidence: The 2024 Sustainability Report contains no assurance statement from an independent auditor. Confidence: High. All self-reported environmental data—including the 15% emissions reduction and renewable energy generation—lacks credibility verification.
- Intensity Targets Without Baselines 🟡 Evidence: Energy and water intensity targets (10% reduction by 2025 vs 2020) are stated, but the 2020 baselines are not disclosed. Confidence: Medium. This opacity prevents stakeholders from judging progress, though the existence of targets is marginally better than none.
- Revenue Growth Outpacing Efficiency Gains 🟡 Evidence: Revenue grew 106.9% YoY. While energy intensity is reported at 1.07 MWh/RMB million, absolute energy use and emissions may still climb if growth exceeds intensity improvements. Confidence: Medium. Without absolute caps or Scope 3 data, the company’s rapid expansion likely increases total environmental pressure.
- Limited Circularity Scale 🟡 Evidence: 83 tonnes of toy recycling is minimal relative to the company’s production volumes (exact tonnage not disclosed). The 55% recycled DIMOO figurine applies to one product line only. Confidence: Medium. These initiatives are positive signals but currently insignificant to the overall material footprint.
What's Not Being Said
Pop Mart’s disclosures are marked by high-profile absences. The company does not explain why it has neither a carbon neutrality roadmap nor a science-based target. The 2030 carbon peak goal is mentioned almost as an afterthought, with no interim milestones or detailed plans.
Scope 3 emissions—the elephant in the room—are simply not reported, despite the toy industry’s heavy reliance on petroleum-based plastics and global logistics. Many investors and raters now consider Scope 3 essential; omitting it while boasting an AA rating from MSCI hints at a shallow integration of climate into the rating model.
The report’s lack of third-party assurance is never addressed. For a company of Pop Mart’s size and visibility, this is a conspicuous choice that undermines all its environmental claims.
Also left unsaid: how the 106.9% revenue growth affects absolute environmental impact, or why the company has not joined the SBTi despite its rating. These silences make the AA rating look like a paper achievement.
Observations
Pop Mart presents a classic case of high rating, shallow depth. Its MSCI AA rating and specific operational wins—MSCI’s multi-year recognition, the Baoding solar installation, and FSC packaging—are credible and demonstrate real movement in certain areas. The 15% scope 1+2 reduction, while unassured, is a directionally positive signal.
Yet the gaps are glaring. Without a carbon neutrality roadmap, the company lacks a long-term climate strategy. Without Scope 3, most of its environmental footprint remains invisible. Without third-party assurance, the data it does share cannot be fully trusted. The dual intensity targets are noble but meaningless without baselines. And with revenue skyrocketing, absolute impacts are almost certainly rising, even as intensity metrics improve.
Compared to Lego and Hasbro—peers with clearly defined net-zero or carbon-neutral paths—Pop Mart is years behind. Investors and customers should view the AA rating with caution. A high ESG score is not a license to ignore the fundamentals. Pop Mart needs to move from gesture to governance: set SBTi-aligned targets, disclose Scope 3, commission independent assurance, and confront the reality that its growth model may be on a collision course with its sustainability claims.
Claims Extracted from Source
Data sources: MSCI ESG Research | 2024 Sustainability Report (released 2025) | 2024 Sustainability Report (released 2025)
“Pop Mart has achieved an MSCI ESG rating of AA for two consecutive years.”
Context: MSCI ESG Ratings assess companies' resilience to long-term, financially relevant ESG risks. AA is the second-highest rating tier, indicating industry leadership.
The rating is provided by a reputable third-party research firm, directly verifiable, and has been consistently held for two years.
“Scope 1 and 2 greenhouse gas emissions totaled 7,407.59 tCO2e in 2024, a 15% reduction compared to the previous year.”
Context: The company does not have a carbon neutrality roadmap or a commitment to absolute emission reductions beyond a 2030 peak. Scope 3 emissions, which are typically the largest portion for toy companies, are not disclosed.
While the data shows a positive trend, the sustainability report is not third-party assured, and there is no long-term target or disclosure of Scope 3 emissions, reducing confidence in the overall carbon management strategy.
“Pop Mart targets a 10% reduction in energy intensity per RMB million of revenue by 2025 against a 2020 baseline.”
Context: Current energy intensity is 1.07 MWh/RMB million. The 2020 baseline value is not publicly disclosed, making it difficult to assess progress. The target is intensity-based, not absolute, which may allow emissions to rise if revenue grows faster than efficiency improvements.
The target exists but lacks transparency on the baseline value, and the report is not assured, introducing medium risk.
“Pop Mart targets a 10% reduction in water intensity per RMB million of revenue by 2025 against a 2020 baseline.”
Context: Current water intensity is 0.34 ton/RMB million. As with energy intensity, the baseline is not disclosed, and the report is not assured. Water usage is less material for a toy company compared to other sectors.
Similar to the energy target, lacks baseline transparency and assurance, posing medium risk.
“The Baoding factory generates 12,000 MWh of solar electricity annually, meeting approximately 60% of its energy needs.”
Context: Renewable energy contributed significantly to the reported Scope 2 emissions reduction. However, the claim is self-reported without independent verification.
The specific figure indicates a tangible investment in renewable energy, but without third-party assurance, there is some risk of misstatement.
“The company recycled 83 tons of toys in 2024.”
Context: This is a relatively small volume given the scale of production. There are no targets for future increases, and the claim lacks independent verification.
A positive initiative but limited in scale and unverified, resulting in medium risk.
“The DIMOO figurine line incorporates 55% recycled materials.”
Context: This represents a step toward circularity, but the claim is limited to a single product line and lacks third-party certification like Global Recycled Standard.
While promoting recycled content, the claim is not independently certified, and its impact is limited without broader adoption.
“100% of Pop Mart's packaging categories are FSC-certified.”
Context: FSC (Forest Stewardship Council) certification ensures the paper-based packaging comes from responsibly managed forests. This is a third-party standard with chain-of-custody verification.
FSC certification is widely recognized and independently audited, providing high confidence in this claim.
“Pop Mart has not set a carbon neutrality roadmap, with only a mention of a 2030 carbon peaking goal.”
Context: Compared to peers like Lego and Hasbro, which have net-zero targets validated by SBTi or internal goals, Pop Mart lacks a long-term decarbonization strategy. This is a critical gap for a company with a high MSCI rating.
The absence of a carbon neutrality roadmap represents a high-risk data gap, indicating insufficient climate ambition and planning.
“Scope 3 emissions, likely the largest source from material production and product use, are not disclosed.”
Context: For a plastic toy manufacturer, Scope 3 emissions from supply chain, raw materials, and product end-of-life are expected to dominate the carbon footprint. Without disclosure, the overall climate impact is unknown.
Failure to disclose Scope 3 is a major data gap, undermining any claims of comprehensive carbon management.
“The 2024 Sustainability Report is not third-party assured.”
Context: Without independent assurance, all environmental data in the report, including emissions, energy, water, and recycling figures, carry higher risk of inaccuracy or misrepresentation.
Lack of assurance is a significant data gap that reduces confidence in all self-reported ESG metrics.
This article was produced by SCALPEL's AI analysis pipeline with human editorial review. Claims and risk classifications are based on publicly available brand communications.