Tomorrow.io

Does the core business genuinely avoid or reduce emissions, or build climate resilience? Share of revenue that is actually 'green'. Fossil-dependent models score low.

The core product directly builds climate adaptation capacity — hyperlocal, AI-driven weather forecasting helps enterprises reduce weather-related operational losses and supports early warning for extreme events, with NOAA independently validating satellite data quality in December 2025; however, no quantified avoided-loss or emissions-reduction figures have been published by the company itself.

Credible, science-based targets (SBTi), a real net-zero plan with progress to date, and CDP disclosure — not just a dated press release.

The 2022 ESG report mentioned a goal of 'mapping and mitigating Scope 1+2 emissions toward net zero' but no SBTi submission, CDP disclosure, quantified baseline emissions, reduction timeline, or follow-up ESG report has been found in public records as of mid-2026 — leaving targets entirely unverified.

Operational footprint, labour and social practices, and governance quality across the company's own operations and supply chain.

The sole public ESG report (2022) cites 5,000+ trees planted, 27% senior management from underrepresented backgrounds, and vague operational sustainability goals; there is no follow-up report, no audited Scope 1/2/3 data, no supply-chain disclosure, and satellite manufacturing and launch activities carry non-trivial embedded carbon that goes unaddressed.

Quality of disclosure, independent third-party verification, and how much hard data backs the company's claims.

Disclosure is severely limited to one self-published ESG report from 2022 with no third-party assurance, no CDP response, no GRI or SASB index, and no subsequent annual update — a notable gap for a company that markets itself as a climate resilience platform and has reached unicorn status.

Controversies, litigation, pollution, fossil-fuel lobbying, conflict-zone involvement and governance scandals. Higher means cleaner.

No material controversies, litigation, pollution incidents, or fossil-fuel lobbying were found; the company has significant U.S. DoD/Air Force contracts for military weather satellites, which is an ethically dual-use area but not inherently harmful, and NOAA independently validated satellite data quality — overall a clean record with the main concern being disclosure gaps rather than misconduct.