Rated Ranking: Global 100 Most Sustainable Corporations in the World 2014

Global 100 Most Sustainable Corporations in the World 2014

global_100_most_sustainable_corporations_of_the_world_teaser_image

Summary
Corporate Knights presents its Global 100 Most Sustainable Companies of the World for the 10th time this year – claiming to be recognized as “the gold standard in corporate sustainability analysis”. The ranking is based on a two step process. First the starting universe of all companies with a market capitalization of more then 2 billion US$ is reduced down to some 350 by applying several screening factors. The remaining companies are scored with a set of 12 KPIs. Due to the goal to benchmark the performance of the “Global 100” with the MSCI All Country World Index (ACWI) each industry sector has a predefined set of slots in the top 100 list representing the industry composition of the ACWI. While the two step analysis with its quantitative KPI set is a quite robust quantitative methodology the latter fact reduces the value of the ranking because potentially listed companies could be neglected if their industry group has a low number of slots in the top 100.

The Ranking receives high awareness due to its annual presentation at World Economic Forum in Davos and the broad distribution of the Corporate Knights magazine as well as a high media reception. The ranking would be of even more value if it would allow to follow up individual corporations on their sustainability path.

PS: Since the start of the ranking the Global 100 have outperformed the ACWI. This is an interesting contribution to the discussion of the question whether sustainability strategies pay off in performance …

Relevance / Impact
– 15 points –
Added Value / Insights
– 13 points –

Trustworthiness / Intention
– 13 points –
Methodology
– 13 points –

Aggregated points
– 54 (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: 15 (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)

Comment: Corporate Knights is published as a quarterly insert in Globe and Mail (Canada) and Washington Post as well as an electronic edition.

Aggregated points: 13 (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)

Comment: With publishing the collected KPI data this year the Ranking made a big step forward. Limitations to orientation provided araise from limited numbers of peers in the industry group in some cases.

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 is published for the 10th time in 2014.

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)

Comment: See remark above. Ranking would receive 5 points if it would provide an industry ranking.

Aggregated points: 13 (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)

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)

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: 13 (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: Global 100 Most Sustainable Corporations in the World
  • Ranking managed/produced by institute/organization: Corporate Knights
  • Ranking published by media outlet: Corporate Knights
  • Date of recent publication: January 22, 2014
  • Date of previous publication: January 23, 2013

Leave a Reply

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