Sherwin-Williams

SHW · Materials

Sustainability score

41.0Rank 433 overall / 12 in Materials

Sherwin-Williams's distance from the ideal is driven mostly by Emissions intensity and ESG risk score. It sits closest to the frontier on Net debt / EBITDA.

14th percentile of the index, 54th percentile of Materials

Environmental

Social

Financial/Operational

Distance-to-ideal decomposition

Emissions intensity

41%

ESG risk score

20%

Controversy level

Asset turnover

15%

Net margin

FCF margin

13%

Net debt / EBITDA

Pillar weight shares: Environmental 24%, Social 23%, Financial/Operational 53%

Generating AI analysis...

Net-zero scenario

SHW · Sherwin-Williams

Middle · middle 60% of Materials · score 44.7 · rank 7/25

Cleanup cost: 0.12 yrs · n/a; Sector median 0.12 yrs
Revenue at risk: 0%; Sector median 0%
Revenue upside: 0%; Sector median 0%
Can it pay: 2.5x debt load; FCF margin 13% · sector median 2.0x

Verdict: BUYNo position to stressData: estimatedHeld at benchmark

Cleanup bill by source

Purchased electricity	n/a
On-site fuel combustion	n/a
Vehicle fleets	n/a
Process emissions	n/a
Fugitive emissions	n/a

Why

Benchmark: burden 0.12 years of earnings (sector median 0.12 years), fossil revenue 0%, beneficiary revenue 0%, net debt/EBITDA 2.5x; largest gaps to the sector ideal: beneficiary revenue share and FCF margin.

Sherwin-Williams

Sustainability score

Net-zero scenario

SHW · Sherwin-Williams

Cleanup bill by source

Why

Materials peers

Key takeaways

Explanation

Sherwin-Williams

Sustainability score

Net-zero scenario

SHW · Sherwin-Williams

Cleanup bill by source

Why

Materials peers

Key takeaways

Explanation