Company Profile · Apparel & Textile · ~8 min read
Teejay Lanka PLC: Apparel & Textile Sustainability Profile
Sri Lanka’s largest listed fabric manufacturer has done the thing most of the first mandatory SLFRS cohort has not: measured its full value chain and had the disclosure independently assured. What it has not done is test whether any of it survives a warming climate.
Why we profiled this company
Teejay Lanka PLC is the largest CSE-listed apparel and textile manufacturer by market capitalisation — LKR 22.22 Bn against Hayleys Fabric’s LKR 12.80 Bn, both at 24 July 2026 on CSE data. Apparel and textiles is Sri Lanka’s largest merchandise export sector, which places it high in our sector sequence. Teejay meets both eligibility tests: CSE-listed, and it publishes disclosure.
Snapshot
| Company | Teejay Lanka PLC (TJL.N0000), Colombo Stock Exchange Main Board; listed 2011 |
| Sector | Apparel & Textile |
| Market-cap rank in sector | #1 — largest CSE-listed apparel and textile manufacturer by market capitalisation: LKR 22.22 Bn, against Hayleys Fabric LKR 12.80 Bn, both at 24 July 2026 (StockAnalysis on CSE data). Company market capitalisation LKR 20.2 Bn at 31 March 2026 (Annual Report 2025/26, p.16) |
| Financial year covered | FY2025/26 (ended 31 March 2026) — first mandatory SLFRS period. The company states it adopted SLFRS S1 and S2 voluntarily in the prior year and that the current year is the first in which it applies them as a mandatory requirement (p.81) |
| Reporting frameworks | SLFRS S1 and S2; SASB (Apparel, Accessories & Footwear); GRI — the report states both “with reference to GRI” (p.13) and “reported in accordance with the GRI Standards” (p.340); IFRS Foundation <IR> Framework; UN SDGs; UN Global Compact |
| External assurance | Three separate Ernst & Young limited assurance engagements under SLSAE 3000 (Revised), all dated 5 June 2026: the integrated report against the <IR> Framework (p.326); GRI EESG indicators (p.329); and the SLFRS S1 and S2 disclosures themselves (p.332). GHG inventory stated to be independently verified under ISO 14064-3:2019 (p.95) — the verifier is not named and no verification statement is reproduced. Financial audit: Deloitte Partners |
| Materiality process | Double materiality. AA1000AS six-part assessment applied alongside GRI Standards and the COSO framework; 21 material topics listed (p.48). Financial-materiality threshold set quantitatively at 1% of average profit before tax over the last five years, plus four stated qualitative thresholds (p.80). Topics identified by internal study; external stakeholder validation deferred to “subsequent years” (p.48) |
| Scope 1 & 2 emissions | Scope 1 68,395.30 tCO₂e; Scope 2 28,481.72 tCO₂e; FY2025/26 (p.96). Operational-control boundary; GHG Protocol Corporate Standard and ISO 14064-1:2018; DEFRA 2025 emission factors; IPCC AR6 global warming potentials (pp.95–96) |
| Scope 3 / financed emissions | Disclosed — 581,665.48 tCO₂e, itemised across 10 GHG Protocol categories (p.97). Categories 8, 11, 13, 14 and 15 are not quantified and the report does not state why |
| Climate scenario analysis | Not performed. “The Group has not yet commenced formal scenario analysis for climate-related risks and opportunities”; intended for the next reporting year under SLFRS S2 transitional relief (p.93) |
| Net-zero / carbon target | 42% absolute reduction in Scope 1 and 2 emissions by 2030; 25% reduction in Scope 3 by 2030; net zero by 2050. Base year 2022, with a stated rationale (p.154). The report describes these as both “SBTi-aligned” (p.138) and “validated SBTi targets” (p.154); no validation date is published |
| Board climate governance / ESG oversight | Board delegated oversight of SLFRS S1 and S2 to the Audit Committee, with an itemised mandate covering material climate risks, GHG targets, data integrity and ESG controls (p.50). Executive-level ESG Steering Committee chaired by the Group CFO reports monthly to the Executive Committee and quarterly to the Audit Committee (pp.50, 82–83). No standalone board sustainability committee. Executive remuneration is not linked to climate-related risks and opportunities (p.97) |
| Board independence | All seven directors are Non-Executive; three of seven independent (42.9%). Chairman is an Independent Non-Executive Director and the Chairman and CEO roles are separated (p.191). Controlling shareholders Brandix Lanka Ltd (32.47%) and Pacific Textured Jersey Holdings Ltd (27.16%) hold 59.63% between them; public holding 40.07% (p.339) |
| CSR commitment | No minimum commitment as a percentage of profit stated. CSR investment LKR 12 Mn in FY2025/26, down from LKR 16 Mn; persons impacted 60, down from 6,110 (p.17) |
| ESGNexus disclosure assessment | Comprehensive 6 / 7 (0.86), Methodology v1.2. A full three-scope inventory, dated quantified targets and separate assurance over the SLFRS disclosures place Teejay at the front of the first mandatory cohort; the frontier is climate scenario analysis, which has not been performed, and the reconciliation of figures that appear twice in the report at different values. |
Sources: Teejay Lanka PLC Annual Report 2025/26 (year ended 31 March 2026) and the three Ernst & Young assurance statements published with it (pp.326, 329, 332); CSE market data via StockAnalysis, 24 July 2026.
Key takeaways
— Teejay quantifies all three emission scopes, including 581,665.48 tCO₂e of Scope 3 across ten GHG Protocol categories — the disclosure most of the first mandatory cohort deferred.
— It commissioned a separate limited assurance engagement over its SLFRS S1 and S2 disclosures, on top of assurance over the integrated report and the GRI indicators. Three engagements is unusual; all three are limited, not reasonable.
— Climate scenario analysis has not been performed. The report says so directly on p.93 — and then states on p.94 that scenario analysis “is used” to identify climate opportunities, naming no scenarios.
— Three figures appear twice in the report at different values: the GRI compliance basis, emission intensity, and the injury data on p.130. None is reconciled.
— Scope 3 is roughly 86% of the footprint and rose 2.44% year on year against a 25% reduction target for 2030. The company discloses the rise and attributes it to better data.
A Disclosure That Measures What It Cannot Yet Model
Teejay Lanka PLC has published the most complete emissions inventory of any company ESGNexus has assessed in Sri Lanka’s first mandatory SLFRS cohort. It measured 581,665.48 tonnes of Scope 3 carbon dioxide equivalent across ten value-chain categories in the year to 31 March 2026 and paid for assurance. Most of its peers elected the transitional relief and deferred.
The gap sits beside it. The same report states that formal climate scenario analysis has not begun, and that the company intends to perform it next year under the relief SLFRS S2 permits. Teejay knows to two decimal places what its value chain emits. It does not yet know what a 2°C or 4°C world does to a cotton-dependent, water-intensive knitting business with plants in Avissawella and Tamil Nadu. Measurement is a bookkeeping problem, and Teejay has solved it. Resilience is a strategy problem, and the report defers it.
This profile assesses the quality of the disclosure — whether the report meets the requirements of SLFRS S1 and S2 — not the company’s underlying sustainability performance, which no published report can certify. It is based on the Teejay Lanka PLC Annual Report 2025/26 and the independent assurance reports published alongside it. Every finding below concerns what the report does and does not say.
The Business, Briefly
Teejay is South Asia’s largest knit-fabric provider and Sri Lanka’s only multinational weft-knit manufacturer, CSE-listed since 2011, operating from Avissawella with a matching-capacity plant in India (p.4). It supplies the global apparel brands Sri Lanka’s export sector is built around, which makes its climate disclosure a supply-chain document as much as a corporate one — Teejay’s Scope 1 is a customer’s Scope 3.
The year was hard. Group revenue fell 10% to LKR 60.04 Bn, and profit after tax fell 98% to LKR 53 Mn (p.16); headcount fell to 3,298 from 3,465 (p.117); no dividend was declared. The sustainability programme was funded and reported through that.
Source: Teejay Lanka PLC Annual Report 2025/26, pp.4, 16, 117.
Disclosure and Frameworks
FY2025/26 is Teejay’s first mandatory SLFRS period and its second year of applying the standards — it adopted S1 and S2 voluntarily a year early, and says so plainly (p.81). The head start shows in the structure: the SLFRS disclosures occupy twenty pages inside the Strategic Review (pp.80–99), cross-referenced to the risk report and the financial statements rather than parked in a CSR annex. This is the fifteenth year Teejay has reported on an integrated basis (p.11).
The materiality process is disclosed with method rather than asserted: double materiality via the AA1000AS six-part assessment alongside GRI Standards and the COSO framework, 21 material topics listed (p.48), and — unusually for the cohort — a numeric financial-materiality threshold of 1% of average profit before tax over five years, with four qualitative thresholds beside it (p.80). One qualification: the topics were identified by internal study, and Teejay “intends to further validate” them through external stakeholder engagement “in subsequent years” (p.48). That is a management view of impact, not a tested one.
The assurance position is the strongest ESGNexus has recorded in this cohort. Ernst & Young performed three separate limited assurance engagements under SLSAE 3000 (Revised), all dated 5 June 2026: over the integrated report against the <IR> Framework (p.326), over the GRI indicators (p.329), and over the SLFRS S1 and S2 disclosures themselves (p.332). Most first-cohort filers assured selected GRI indicators and left the SLFRS disclosures unassured. Teejay did not. Two caveats belong with the praise: every engagement is limited rather than reasonable, and the GHG inventory is described as independently verified under ISO 14064-3:2019 (p.95) without the verifier being named or a verification statement reproduced in the 366 pages.
One compliance claim goes unreconciled. The frameworks table describes sustainability reporting as “with reference to” GRI (p.13); the GRI content index states that Teejay “has reported in accordance with the GRI Standards” (p.340). Those are different claims carrying different obligations, and both appear in the same report.
Source: Teejay Lanka PLC Annual Report 2025/26, pp.11, 13, 48, 80–81, 95, 326, 329, 332, 340.
Environmental
Teejay reports FY2025/26 Scope 1 emissions of 68,395.30 tCO₂e and Scope 2 of 28,481.72 tCO₂e, on an operational-control boundary covering Teejay Lanka, Teejay Lanka Prints and Teejay India, using the GHG Protocol Corporate Standard and ISO 14064-1:2018 with DEFRA 2025 emission factors and IPCC AR6 global warming potentials (pp.95–96). Scope 1 fell 2.68%, and Scope 2 fell 24.68% year on year (p.152).
Scope 3 is where the disclosure separates from its peers. Teejay quantifies 581,665.48 tCO₂e across ten GHG Protocol categories and publishes the split (p.97): purchased goods and services dominate at 518,484.43 tCO₂e, followed by processing of sold products at 26,966.24 and fuel- and energy-related activities at 18,235.30. Categories 8, 11, 13, 14 and 15 are not quantified, and the report does not say why. Scope 3 is approximately 86% of the total footprint (p.154) and rose 2.44% from 568,570.49 tCO₂e (disclosed), attributed to improved data quality and expanded boundaries (p.152); the report does not quantify this explanation separately from the underlying movement.
Targets are quantified, baselined and dated: 42% absolute reduction in Scope 1 and 2 by 2030, 25% reduction in Scope 3 by 2030, and net zero by 2050, against a 2022 base year for which the report gives an explicit rationale (p.154). Note that it calls these targets “SBTi-aligned” on p.138 and “validated SBTi targets” on p.154, publishing no validation date. ESGNexus records them as dated quantified targets, not as SBTi-validated.
Elsewhere: total energy 1,078,661.75 GJ with renewables flat at 11% for a second year, against an LKR 795 Mn biomass investment due for commissioning at end-2026 (pp.17, 86). Water consumption fell 8% to 2,544,186 m³, but water intensity worsened to 42.37 m³ per LKR Mn of revenue from 41.35 — revenue fell faster than water use (p.17). Waste rose to 7,062.16 MT with zero to landfill for a third year, though the reuse-and-recycle rate has declined three years running: 68%, 64%, 63% (p.18), a series published without commentary. Three further disclosures are absent and stated as absent — no assessment of assets vulnerable to physical or transition risk or exposed to climate opportunity, no internal carbon price, no material climate-related capital expenditure (p.97).
Source: Teejay Lanka PLC Annual Report 2025/26, pp.17–18, 86, 95–97, 138, 152–154.
Social
Teejay employed 3,298 people at 31 March 2026, down from 3,465 against what the report calls an industry-wide downsizing trend (p.117). Of those, 2,931 are men and 367 women: a female share of roughly 11%, low for an apparel-sector employer, and a percentage the report does not itself print. It does disclose the counts, and that women hold 18.06% of management and 31.8% of the executive cadre against a 2% starting baseline, with targets of 15% overall representation by 2028 and 25% female management by 2030 (p.120).
Safety outcomes are strong on the headline measures: zero work-related fatalities and zero high-consequence injuries in FY2025/26, as in the prior year (p.130). The detail is where a problem appears. The GRI 403-9 table on p.130 reports 4 recordable injuries, an injury rate of 0.27 and 15 lost days. The infographic on the same page reports 7 recordable injuries, a rate of 0.22 and 8 lost days. Both are labelled FY2025/26, neither is footnoted to a different boundary, and the report does not reconcile them.
Training rose to 11.97 hours per employee from 10.82, while investment in training fell to LKR 12.489 Mn from LKR 30.637 Mn — a 59% cut in spend against a rise in hours delivered, unexplained (p.17). Community investment fell to LKR 12 Mn from LKR 16 Mn and persons impacted to 60 from 6,110 (p.17); a 99% fall in beneficiaries is disclosed without narrative. Teejay reports nil incidents of child labour and nil of forced labour.
The GRI content index records an omission against GRI 2-7 (Employees): the full breakdown the standard requires is not included, the stated reason being that the information was unavailable in time for report publication (p.340).
Source: Teejay Lanka PLC Annual Report 2025/26, pp.17, 117, 120, 130, 340.
Governance
All seven of Teejay’s directors are Non-Executive, and three are independent — 42.9% (p.191). The Chairman is an Independent Non-Executive Director, and the Chairman and CEO roles are separated. Two shareholders control the register: Brandix Lanka Ltd at 32.47% and Pacific Textured Jersey Holdings Ltd, a subsidiary of Hong Kong-listed Pacific Textiles Holdings, at 27.16% — 59.63% between them, against a public holding of 40.07% (p.339). Four board seats are held by directors connected to those shareholders. That is disclosed and lawful, and it is the context in which the independence ratio should be read.
On climate, the Board has delegated oversight of SLFRS S1 and S2 to the Audit Committee, with an itemised mandate covering material climate risks, GHG targets, data integrity and ESG controls (p.50). That committee also performs the Risk Committee function (p.197). Below it, an ESG Steering Committee chaired by the Group CFO reports monthly to the Executive Committee and quarterly to the Audit Committee (pp.50, 82–83), and the board evaluation framework explicitly tests director knowledge of SLFRS S1 and S2 (p.82). Two limits are disclosed: the structured board knowledge-gap assessment on sustainability was conducted only in the final quarter (p.82), and executive remuneration is “not explicitly linked to CRROs as of FY 2025/26” (p.97). Oversight exists; the incentive to act on it does not yet.
Source: Teejay Lanka PLC Annual Report 2025/26, pp.50, 82–83, 97, 191, 197, 339.
How We Assess the Disclosure
ESGNexus grades disclosure completeness against a published, equal-weighted, page-referenced checklist of seven criteria drawn from SLFRS S1 and S2 (Disclosure Grading Methodology v1.2). We assess what the report does and does not disclose — not the company’s underlying performance. Each criterion is scored Present (1), Partial (0.5) or Absent (0), or N/A where it genuinely does not apply. Under the v1.2 first-year reliefs rule, a quantified Scope 3 disclosure scores Present (1), an explicit dated deferral under the transitional relief scores Partial (0.5), an explicit but undated deferral scores 0.25, and silence scores Absent (0). The full checklist below is reproducible: the same report and this rubric should yield the same result.
| # | Criterion (SLFRS S1/S2) | Score | Basis — what the report does or does not disclose |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Materiality assessment disclosed, with method shown | Present (1) | Double materiality. AA1000AS six-part assessment applied with GRI Standards and the COSO framework; 21 material topics listed (p.48). Quantitative financial-materiality threshold of 1% of average PBT over five years, plus four stated qualitative thresholds (p.80). Topics identified by internal study; external stakeholder validation deferred (p.48). |
| 2 | Scope 1 and Scope 2 GHG emissions quantified, with methodology | Present (1) | Scope 1 68,395.30 tCO₂e; Scope 2 28,481.72 tCO₂e (p.96). Operational-control boundary; GHG Protocol Corporate Standard; ISO 14064-1:2018; DEFRA 2025 factors; IPCC AR6 GWPs; activity-data sources tabulated by sub-category (pp.95–96). Note: p.153 prints Scope 1 as 68,178.52 tCO₂e. |
| 3 | Scope 3 / financed emissions disclosed or explicitly deferred | Present (1) | Quantified at 581,665.48 tCO₂e and itemised across 10 GHG Protocol categories (p.97), calculated under the GHG Protocol Corporate Value Chain (Scope 3) Standard (p.95). Categories 8, 11, 13, 14 and 15 are not quantified and no reason is stated. Scope 3 is approximately 86% of the total footprint (p.154). |
| 4 | Climate scenario analysis actually performed | Absent (0) | “The Group has not yet commenced formal scenario analysis”; intended for the next reporting year under SLFRS S2 transitional relief (p.93). Each risk’s scenario-analysis row reads “Refer Note 8 Transitional Relief” (pp.86, 88, 90, 92). A relief election earns no credit on this criterion. The report elsewhere states scenario analysis “is used” to identify opportunities, naming no scenarios (p.94). |
| 5 | Board-level climate governance described concretely | Present (1) | Board delegated SLFRS S1 and S2 oversight to the Audit Committee with an itemised mandate — material climate risks, GHG targets, data integrity, ESG controls (p.50). ESG Steering Committee chaired by the Group CFO; monthly to ExCo, quarterly to the Audit Committee (pp.50, 82–83). Board evaluation framework tests director knowledge of SLFRS S1 and S2 (p.82). Remuneration not linked to climate (p.97). |
| 6 | Quantified targets with baseline year and target date | Present (1) | 42% absolute Scope 1 and 2 reduction by 2030; 25% Scope 3 reduction by 2030; net zero by 2050; base year 2022 with a stated rationale (p.154). Water intensity target of a 50% reduction from 117 l/kg by 2030 (p.85). Female representation targets of 15% overall by 2028 and 25% of management by 2030 (p.120). |
| 7 | Integration: mainstream financial report vs. quarantined standalone CSR section | Present (1) | SLFRS S1 and S2 disclosures sit inside the Strategic Review of the mainstream integrated report (pp.80–99), not in a bolt-on annex. Fifteenth consecutive year of integrated reporting (p.11); connected-information statement (p.80); Six Capitals structure; GRI content index pp.340–351. |
Total: 6 / 7 = 0.86 → Comprehensive.
A “Comprehensive” band means the report discloses the required elements; it is not a statement that the company asserts full SLFRS S1 compliance. The single Absent is climate scenario analysis, which the company states it has not commenced and intends to perform next year under SLFRS S2 transitional relief. Teejay’s report also states its GRI basis two different ways — “with reference to” on p.13 and “in accordance with” on p.340.
Alongside the checklist, we characterise the disclosure on four qualitative dimensions — completeness, comparability, credibility and candour — each rated against cited evidence. These carry the nuances the checklist score does not, including the qualified compliance basis.
| Dimension | Assessment | Basis (as disclosed) |
|---|---|---|
| Completeness | Solid | Environmental, social and governance data are all quantified with three- and four-year comparatives (pp.16–18), and the GHG inventory covers all three scopes (pp.96–97). Capped by five unquantified Scope 3 categories with no stated reason (p.97); by climate-vulnerable assets, transition-risk exposure and climate opportunities all recorded as “not yet assessed” (p.97); and by an omission against GRI 2-7, the employee breakdown, reasoned as “information unavailable in time for report publication” (p.340). |
| Comparability | Solid | GHG Protocol with ISO 14064-1:2018, DEFRA 2025 factors and IPCC AR6 GWPs (pp.95–96); SASB Apparel, Accessories & Footwear metrics disclosed (pp.98–99); multi-year comparatives throughout. Capped by two unreconciled statements of the GRI basis — “with reference to” (p.13) against “in accordance with” (p.340) — and by two FY2025/26 emission-intensity figures, 11.30 tCO₂e per LKR Mn of revenue (p.18) and 1.61 kgCO₂e per LKR ’000 (p.153), neither stating which scopes it covers. |
| Credibility | Solid | Three separate EY limited assurance engagements under SLSAE 3000 (Revised) cover the integrated report (p.326), the GRI indicators (p.329) and the SLFRS S1 and S2 disclosures themselves (p.332) — a standalone SLFRS engagement is uncommon in this cohort. All three are limited, not reasonable. The GHG inventory is stated to be verified under ISO 14064-3:2019 (p.95), but the verifier is not named and no verification statement is reproduced. Materiality topics were validated internally only (p.48). |
| Candour | Solid | The report states plainly that scenario analysis has not begun (p.93); that physical-risk exposure, transition-risk exposure and climate opportunities have not been quantified; that no internal carbon price is applied; that executive pay is not linked to climate; and that no material climate-related capital expenditure was deployed (all p.97). It discloses that Scope 3 emissions rose 2.44% and explains the rise as improved data capture (p.152). Capped by three internal inconsistencies the report leaves unreconciled: the GRI basis, the emission-intensity figures, and the injury data on p.130. |
Where the Disclosure Leads — and Where It Lags
It leads on measurement. A complete three-scope inventory with a published Scope 3 category split is the disclosure most of the first mandatory cohort deferred rather than produced — and Teejay went further, buying separate assurance over the SLFRS disclosures rather than over selected GRI indicators alone. When 86% of a footprint sits in the value chain and the company publishes the number anyway, that is a decision to be judged on.
It also leads on stated absence: no assessment of physical-risk or transition-risk exposure, no internal carbon price, no climate link in executive pay, no material climate capital expenditure (p.97) — and Scope 3 rising against its own reduction target. Companies that disclose inconvenient facts about themselves are rarer than companies with good numbers.
It lags in three places, and all three are fixable.
First, scenario analysis. SLFRS S2 permits the deferral and Teejay has taken it, legally and transparently. But scenario analysis is the mechanism by which the risks Teejay has already identified — flooding at Avissawella, drought affecting cotton, heat reducing machinery efficiency — become numbers a CFO can act on. Without it, the risk tables describe qualitative exposures with every financial-effects row reading “Refer Note 8 Transitional Relief” (pp.86, 88, 90, 92). The company has committed to next year, and that commitment is the most consequential thing to hold it to.
Second, the contradiction on p.94. Having stated on p.93 that formal scenario analysis has not commenced, the report states one page later that “climate-related scenario analysis is used to evaluate how future climate conditions and regulatory environments may create opportunities”, naming no scenario, input or assumption. The two passages cannot both be right, and a reader establishing whether Teejay performs scenario analysis gets two answers from consecutive pages.
Third, three figures appear twice at different values. Scope 1 is 68,395.30 tCO₂e on p.96 and 68,178.52 tCO₂e on p.153 — a 216.78-tonne gap equal to the separately reported ozone-depleting-substance emissions, explicable but never explained. Emission intensity is 11.30 tCO₂e per LKR Mn of revenue on p.18 and 1.61 kgCO₂e per LKR ’000 on p.153, neither page naming the scopes. And p.130 gives 4 recordable injuries in the table, 7 in the infographic beside it. None is a fabrication or, on the evidence, an error of substance; all three are the kind of internal inconsistency assurance is meant to catch and a hostile reader finds first. Add a fourth, structural: five Scope 3 categories go unquantified with no stated reason, several plausibly immaterial for a fabric manufacturer. Saying so would cost a sentence.
What This Means for Investors, Peers and Regulators
For investors: Teejay’s disclosure is now usable in a way most of the cohort’s is not. A three-scope inventory with a category split, dated targets against a justified 2022 baseline, and third-party assurance over the SLFRS section together allow a transition-risk model to be built rather than guessed at. What cannot yet be modelled is physical resilience: no scenario work, no quantified asset exposure, no anticipated financial effect. The FY2026/27 report is where that gap closes or does not, and it is the specific thing to look for.
For peers in the apparel and textile sector, Teejay sets a floor. Measuring Scope 3 in the first mandatory year is demonstrably possible for a mid-cap manufacturer in a bad trading year — revenue down 10%, profit after tax down 98%. “We elected the relief” remains a legal answer. It is no longer the only available one.
For regulators: Teejay shows the scenario-analysis relief being used exactly as designed — by a company that has otherwise gone well beyond the minimum. The second mandatory year will answer whether that deferral was a sequencing choice or a permanent floor.
The largest company in a sector is not automatically the best discloser, and the best discloser is not automatically the best governed. The ESGNexus Sustainability Index scores disclosure, not reputation.
Sources & Further Reading
Teejay Lanka PLC, Annual Report 2025/26 — “Wings Weren’t Built for Calm Skies”, financial year ended 31 March 2026, published 5 June 2026 (teejay.com).
Ernst & Young, Independent practitioner’s assurance report on the SLFRS Sustainability-related Financial Disclosures, 5 June 2026 (Annual Report 2025/26, p.332).
Ernst & Young, Independent practitioner’s assurance reports on Integrated Reporting (p.326) and Sustainability Reporting (p.329), 5 June 2026.
Institute of Chartered Accountants of Sri Lanka — SLFRS S1 General Requirements for Disclosure of Sustainability-related Financial Information and SLFRS S2 Climate-related Disclosures (casrilanka.com).
Colombo Stock Exchange market data for TJL.N0000 and MGT.N0000, accessed 24 July 2026 (stockanalysis.com).
ESGNexus — Disclosure Grading Methodology v1.2, August 2026 (esgnexus.lk).
Ernst & Young, Independent practitioner’s assurance report on the SLFRS Sustainability-related Financial Disclosures, 5 June 2026 (Annual Report 2025/26, p.332).
Ernst & Young, Independent practitioner’s assurance reports on Integrated Reporting (p.326) and Sustainability Reporting (p.329), 5 June 2026.
Institute of Chartered Accountants of Sri Lanka — SLFRS S1 General Requirements for Disclosure of Sustainability-related Financial Information and SLFRS S2 Climate-related Disclosures (casrilanka.com).
Colombo Stock Exchange market data for TJL.N0000 and MGT.N0000, accessed 24 July 2026 (stockanalysis.com).
ESGNexus — Disclosure Grading Methodology v1.2, August 2026 (esgnexus.lk).
About ESGNexus
ESGNexus is Sri Lanka’s independent platform for ESG, CSR, and sustainability intelligence. We track company-level ESG performance, regulatory developments, and sustainability data across Sri Lanka’s listed companies, large unlisted corporates, and state-owned enterprises. All editorial content is independently produced. Sponsored content is clearly labelled.
Data disclaimer: This profile is compiled from Teejay Lanka PLC’s publicly available reports and other public sources, for general information only. It is not investment advice and not a comprehensive audit of the company’s sustainability performance. ESGNexus does not independently verify company disclosures; figures are as reported by the company and its assurance provider. Assessments reflect the quality of disclosure, not a certification of underlying performance. ESGNexus corrects errors promptly; to flag one, contact the editorial team. Errors and omissions excepted.