Rated Ranking: Best Global Green Brands 2014

Best Global Green Brands 2014

best_global_green_brands_post_image

Summary
The idea to set up a global ranking of green brands is a good one. Actually, it is a really good one because all other rankings in the sustainability field consider companies only and it would be really interesting to see if sustainability performance and perception of brands converge in terms of sustainability and match this with economical performance. Well – it would have been really interesting to have such a ranking…

Unfortunately, the Best Global Green Brands ranking can not contribute even basic insights in this area:

  • As it is based on the universe of the Interbrand’s Best Global Brands (see Rated Ranking here) list it excludes a lot of interesting and considerable brands with high performance in the sustainability field.
  • While the basic idea of analyzing both the sustainability performance and the perception of consumers is a fair approach the methodology is not explained.
  • Even worse, there is not even a hint what makes a brand ranking higher in the list than another one.

This ranking is really disappointing and we see no possibility of commenting on the results. We would highly appreciate if someone would start a serious endeavor of developing a best global green brands ranking.

Please click here to see the list and the Fortune article.

Relevance / Impact
– 9 points –
Added Value / Insights
– 7 points –

Trustworthiness / Intention
– 9 points –
Methodology
– 3 points –

Aggregated points
– 28 (out of 60) –
51–60
points
Highly valuable ranking

41–50
points
Useful ranking with some flaws

30–40
points
Partially useful ranking with considerable flaws

< 30
points
Useless ranking

Reach of publication:

  • Global, e.g. North America, Europe and Asia (5 points)
  • Regional, e.g. Europe or North America (3 points)
  • Large national market: e.g. US, China, Japan, Germany, France, UK, Italy, Brazil (2 points)
  • Mid-sized or small market, e.g. Switzerland, Netherlands, Argentina, Singapore (1 point)

Ranking will be recognized by key stakeholders:

  • Opinion Leaders (Politicians, Professors; NGO’s) (2 points)
  • Business Advisory Board, C-Level Executives (CEO, CCO, CFO, CMO) (2 points)
  • High Potentials & Top Talents (employer market, students) (2 points)
  • Financial Market (2 points)
  • General Public (2 points)

Aggregated points: 9 (of max. 15)

Is the owner providing the ranking a credible and trustworthy organization?

  • Ranking owner has limited credibility and reputation. (1 point)
  • Ranking owner has fair credibility and reputation. (3 points)
  • Ranking owner has excellent credibility and reputation. (5 points)

What is the ranking owner’s intention to produce and disseminate the ranking?

  • Ranking is predominantly a tool to raise awareness for the owner with the possible intention to sell consultancy services. (1 point)
  • Ranking is partly a tool to raise awareness for the owner with the possible intention to sell consultancy services. (3 points)
  • Ranking is predominantly a tool to surface and share important insights on the subject surveyed. (5 points)

Is/Are the media outlet(s) where the ranking is published of high credibility and reputation?

  • Media outlet(s) has/have limited credibility and reputation. (1 point)
  • Media outlet(s) has/have fair credibility and reputation. (3 points)
  • Media outlet(s) has/have excellent credibility and reputation. (5 points)

Aggregated points: 9 (of max. 15)

Do the ranking results provide overall orientation where companies stand?

  • limited orientation only (1 point)
  • fair orientation provided (3 points)
  • very good orientation (5 points)

Is the Ranking published in the same format on a regular basis, e.g. annually, which allows to track developments and comparisons over time?

  • ranking is published for the first time (1 point)
  • ranking is published for the second time in the same format (3 points)
  • ranking is published for more than 3 times on a regular basis in the same format (5 points)

Comment: Ranking published since 2011.

Do the ranking results provide added value and further insights on how companies are evaluated in in their industry, e.g. detailed ratings in various sub-dimensions of the overall result?

  • limited added value only (1 point)
  • fair amount of added value (3 points)
  • high amount of added value (5 points)

Aggregated points: 7 (of max. 15)

Is the ranking based on a representative survey among key stakeholders or on a jury only?

  • Ranking is based on a jury’s opinion only. (1 point)
  • Ranking is based on a small survey or only on a limited group of stakeholders. (3 points)
  • Ranking is based on a robust and representative survey. (5 points)

Comment: As there is no hint at all what makes a brand appearing on what rank it has to be assumed that the list is made up on the opinions of the jury.

Is the ranking methodology easy to understand and reasonable – even for non-statisticians?

  • Methodology not easy to understand and not reasonable. (1 point)
  • Methodology fairly good to understand and reasonable. (3 points)
  • Methodology very easy to understand and reasonable. (5 points)

Comment: While the basic idea of measuring performance and perception to set up the ranking is a fair approach there are no explanations how the methodology is set up. The so called “gap score” is not explained and therefore the entire methodology is not understandable.

Is the ranking methodology easy to access and transparent?

  • Methodology not easy to find and not sufficiently transparent. (1 point)
  • Methodology fairly good to find and of medium transparency. (3 points)
  • Methodology very easy to find and of high transparency. (5 points)

Aggregated points: 3 (of max. 15)

Ranking category

  • Product / Service Brands
  • Company Brands
  • Corporate Reputation and Company Esteem
  • Social Responsibility, CSR & Sustainability, Ethical Business Practices
  • Innovation & Technology
  • Employer Attractiveness & Diversity
  • Leadership
  • Nations & Destinations
  • University & Other Institutions
  • Sports
  • Lifestyle
  • Social Media
  • Personal Branding & CEOs

Ranking statistics

  • Name of Ranking: Best Global Green Brands
  • Ranking managed/produced by institute/organization: Interbrand in partnership with Deloitte
  • Ranking published by media outlet: Fortune publishes ranking online as a media partner.
  • Date of recent publication: June 24, 2014
  • Date of previous publication: July 12, 2013

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *