The category “Asia excl. China and Japan” includes jurisdictions in the continent excluding China and Japan (therefore this category includes Hong Kong (China), India, Korea, Singapore, and Chinese Taipei). “Latin America” includes jurisdictions both in Latin America and in the Caribbean. “Europe” includes all jurisdictions that are fully located in the region, including the United Kingdom and Switzerland but excluding Russia and Türkiye. “Other advanced” includes all jurisdictions that are classified as advanced economies in IMF’s World Economic Outlook Database but that are not represented in the other categories in the figure (e.g. Australia, Canada, and Israel). “Others” includes mostly jurisdictions that are classified as emerging market and developing economies in IMF’s World Economic Outlook Database but that are not represented in the other categories in the figure (e.g. Saudi Arabia and South Africa).
Global Corporate Sustainability Report 2024
Annex A. Methodology for data collection and classification
A.1. OECD Corporate Sustainability dataset
A.1.1. Regional classification
A.1.2. Listed companies
The dataset contains information for 43 970 worldwide listed companies with a market capitalisation of USD 98 trillion at the end of 2022. The raw financial dataset contains all security observations listed on each stock exchange. The following cleaning steps are applied:
1. Firms listed on an over-the-counter (OTC) market are excluded.
2. Firms listed on a multilateral trading facility (MTF) are excluded.
3. Security types classified as “units” and “trust” are excluded.
4. Security types identified as “REITs” and “investment funds” are excluded.
5. Firms identified as delisted are excluded.
6. For firms with multiple observations but different countries of domicile, their true country of domicile is manually checked to remove duplicate observations.
7. For firms listed on several stock exchanges, only the primary listing is kept.
A.1.3. Corporate sustainability
This firm-level dataset presents information on whether companies disclose sustainability information and the used accounting standards, the external assurance of sustainability information, GHG emission reduction targets, the presence of a sustainability committee reporting directly to the board, self-reported board level oversight of climate-related issues, executive remuneration linked to sustainability factors, employee representation on the board, disclosure on stakeholder engagement and policies on shareholder engagement.
The dataset’s coverage varies depending on the specific datapoint but, for instance, it includes information on 14 400 companies listed on 83 markets with a total USD 90 trillion market capitalisation at the end of 2022 with respect to whether they disclosed sustainability information or not in 2022 or 2023. In the example, the difference of 29 570 listed companies represents the companies for which the information is unavailable in the commercial databases used to develop the Corporate Sustainability Dataset.
The main data sources (LSEG and Bloomberg) were controlled against each other to ensure consistency. Information was retrieved as of mid-September 2023.
Sustainability disclosure by trusts, funds or special purpose acquisition companies was excluded from the universe under analysis. Sustainability disclosure for years prior to 2021 was also excluded.
Figure 2.1 displays the shares of companies that disclosed sustainability-related information (by no. of companies and by market capitalisation) among all listed companies within each region. It includes the disclosure in either English or another language of a sustainability report, an integrated annual report with sustainability data, a corporate social responsibility report with substantial data and a full or partial report of GHG emissions scope 1 and 2 or scope 3.
Figure 2.2 displays the share of companies that reported sustainability information (by market capitalisation and by no. of companies in Annex Figure A.1) among all listed companies in each industry. For instance, out of the 4 734 consumer goods companies globally with a total market capitalisation of USD 8.5 trillion, 854 consumer goods companies with USD 7.4 trillion of market capitalisation report sustainability information, accounting for 87% of the total market capitalisation of the industry.
Annex Figure A.1. Share of companies disclosing sustainability information by industry
Source: OECD Corporate Sustainability dataset, LSEG, Bloomberg.
Figure 2.3 displays the shares of companies that disclosed scope 1 and 2 GHG emissions (by no. of companies and by market capitalisation) among all listed companies within each region. Only the companies that reported both scope 1 and scope 2 GHG emissions are counted in the analysis.
Figure 2.4 displays the shares of companies that disclosed scope 1 and 2 GHG emissions (by market capitalisation and by no. of companies in Annex Figure A.2) among all listed companies in each industry. For instance, out of the 4 734 consumer goods companies globally with a total market capitalisation of USD 8.5 trillion, 541 consumer goods companies with USD 6.8 trillion of market capitalisation report scopes 1 and 2 emissions information, accounting for 79% of the total market capitalisation of the industry. Only the companies that reported both scope 1 and scope 2 emissions are counted in the analysis.
Annex Figure A.2. Share of companies disclosing scope 1 and 2 GHG emissions by industry
Source: OECD Corporate Sustainability dataset, LSEG, Bloomberg.
Figure 2.5 displays the shares of companies that disclosed scope 3 GHG emissions (by no. of companies and by market capitalisation) among all listed companies within each region.
Figure 2.6 displays the shares of companies that disclosed scope 3 GHG (by market capitalisation and by no. of companies in Annex Figure A.3) among all listed companies in each industry. For instance, out of the 4 734 consumer goods companies globally with a total market capitalisation of USD 8.5 trillion, 372 consumer goods companies with USD 5.5 trillion of market capitalisation report scope 3 emissions information, accounting for 64% of the total market capitalisation of the industry.
Annex Figure A.3. Share of companies disclosing scope 3 GHG emissions by industry
Source: OECD Corporate Sustainability dataset, LSEG, Bloomberg.
Figure 2.7 displays the shares of companies that had their sustainability information verified by an independent third party (by no. of companies and by market capitalisation), among all listed companies disclosing sustainability information within each region. For instance, in the case of the global category, the share is calculated over 9 957 worldwide listed companies that disclosed sustainability‑related information with a market capitalisation of USD 85 trillion. In the 372 cases globally where there was a discrepancy between LSEG and Bloomberg databases (“Yes” in one and “No” in the other one), it was considered that the company did not assure its sustainability-‑related information.
Figure 2.8 displays the level of assurance of the sustainability information (by no. of companies and by market capitalisation), among all listed companies that had their sustainability information verified by an independent third party within each region. For instance, in the case of the global category, the share is calculated over 2 957 worldwide listed companies that had their sustainability information verified by an independent third party with a market capitalisation of USD 56 trillion. The figure indicates (by no. of companies and by market capitalisation) whether the level of assurance is “limited” or “reasonable”, or whether the information is not available. The analysis was conducted by recognition of the words “limited” and “reasonable” within the assurance reports, translated into the local language when necessary. When, within the same sustainability report, some information was verified with a limited level of assurance and other information with a reasonable level, the verification was considered as reasonable assurance.
Figure 2.9 displays the shares of companies (by no. of companies and by market capitalisation) with sustainability information assured by auditors against those assured by other assurance providers, among all listed companies that verified their sustainability information by an independent third party and for which the name of the independent third party was disclosed, within each region. For instance, in the case of the global category, out of the 2 957 companies that had their sustainability information assured by an independent third party with a market capitalisation of USD 56 trillion, 2 165 disclosed the name of the independent third party, among which 1 773 identified an auditor and 392 other assurance providers. The independent third party was classified as an auditor if the third party audited the financial statement of any of the 43 970 companies comprising the sample globally.
Figure 2.10 displays the shares of companies (by no. of companies and by market capitalisation) that engaged their financial statement’s auditor for the assurance of their sustainability information compared to the shares of companies that rely on other assurance providers, among those reporting the name of the independent third party. For instance, in the case of the global category, the share is calculated over 2 165 companies that disclosed the name of their assurance provider with a market capitalisation of USD 46 trillion. The independent third party was classified as the same auditor of the financial statement if the third party was part of the same group that audited the financial statement.
Figure 2.11 displays the level of assurance of the GHG emissions (by no. of companies and by assured GHG emissions). The share by number of companies is computed among all listed companies that had their sustainability information verified by an independent third party within each region. For instance, in the case of the global category, the share is calculated over 2 957 worldwide listed companies that had their sustainability information verified by an independent third party with a market capitalisation of USD 56 trillion. The figure indicates (by no. of companies and by assured GHG emissions) whether the level of assurance of the GHG emissions is “limited” or “reasonable”, or whether the information is not available, for each emissions scope. The level of assurance identified for the GHG emissions corresponds to the level of assurance that has been predominantly applied to the verified scope 1, 2 and 3 GHG emissions. In relatively few cases, the assurance level was classified as “high” or “moderate”, which are not levels of assurance recognised by the ISAE 3000. In the figure, “high” was considered as “reasonable” and “moderate” as “limited”.
Figure 2.12 displays the number of companies (and their market capitalisation) that use one or more sustainability standards for their sustainability information, within each region. The sustainability disclosure can be either partially or fully compliant with a reporting standard. Likewise, a single company can report compliance with one or more reporting standards. The category “Others” contains all companies that disclosed sustainability information but that did not report compliance with any specific reporting standard among the three highlighted in the figure.
Figure 2.13 displays the shares of companies that disclosed GHG emission reduction targets (by no. of companies and by market capitalisation) among all listed companies within each region.
Figure 2.14 displays the shares of companies that set GHG emission reduction targets before 2030, by 2030 or after 2030 (by no. of companies and by market capitalisation) among all listed companies that disclosed GHG emission reduction targets, within each region. For instance, in the case of the global category, the share is calculated over 4 917 listed companies that disclosed GHG emission reduction targets with a market capitalisation of USD 69 trillion.
Figure 2.15 displays the shares of companies that disclosed a baseline year (by no. of companies and by market capitalisation) among all listed companies that disclosed GHG emission reduction targets, within each region. For instance, in the case of the global category, the share is calculated over 4 917 listed companies that disclosed GHG emission reduction targets with a market capitalisation of USD 69 trillion.
Figure 2.16 displays the use of two different types of targets among companies that disclose both a GHG emission reduction target and a baseline year for their target, within each region. For instance, in the case of the global category, the shares are calculated considering the metrics disclosed by 1 799 listed companies with a market capitalisation of USD 34 trillion. The analysis includes 15 companies that disclosed their GHG emission reduction target both as intensity per unit of production and as an absolute reduction.
Figure 2.19 displays the 100 listed companies with the highest total disclosed GHG emissions, which include scope 1, 2 and 3 GHG emissions.
Figure 2.22 displays the shares of companies that disclosed environmental R&D costs (by no. of companies and by market capitalisation) among all listed companies within each region. The environmental R&D costs include the data on research and development costs for the development of products and services focusing on improving the environmental impact reduction and innovation.
Figure 2.23 displays the 100 listed companies with the lowest disclosed GHG emissions, which include scope 1, 2, and 3 GHG emissions relative to the companies’ revenues, and the highest level of R&D and number of patents. To select these 100 companies, 50 companies have been selected among the companies with the lowest disclosed relative GHG emissions and the highest number of stocked patents. The same rationale has been applied to the R&D expenditure to select the other 50 companies. Moreover, to avoid possible selection bias when selecting the top 100 companies with low GHG emissions (i.e. industries that structurally have low emissions and are therefore not as susceptible to transition risks), only industries with emissions above one Gt of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions have been selected. However, the renewable resources and alternative energy industry has been included since its R&D and stock patents aim to reduce, as a rule, mitigation risks. The figure also displays the top 100 companies with the highest number of stocked patents (50 companies) and the highest level of R&D (50 companies) without any consideration to their GHG emissions within each selected industry,
Figure 2.26 displays private and listed companies with public benefit objectives incorporated in Delaware and France in 2021 and 2023. The analysis was conducted by selecting all listed companies registered in Delaware with either the “PBC”, “P.B.C.”, or “public benefit” included in the company name. Information on other US states that allow for the incorporation of companies with public benefit objectives was not shown in the figure due to low data coverage. Data for France have been retrieved, upon request, from the Observatoire des sociétés à mission. The eight listed sociétés à mission are (in alphabetic order) Compagnie de Forage Arverne Drilling, Danone S.A., Frey, Les Agences de Papa France, Obiz S.A., REALITES, Voltalia and Vranken Pommery Monopole.
Figure 2.27 displays the share of companies that disclosed having a board committee responsible for sustainability (by no. of companies and by market capitalisation) among all listed companies within each region. A company is considered to have such a committee if its responsibilities explicitly include oversight of CSR, sustainability, health and safety, and energy efficiency activities, regardless of the name of the committee. For example, a company with a “risk management committee” would be included in the categorisation if it mentioned the committee is responsible for managing sustainability risks.
Figure 2.28 displays the share of companies that indicated in the CDP questionnaire having a board level oversight of climate-related issues (by no. of companies and by market capitalisation) among all listed companies within each region. OECD licenses CDP data.
Figure 2.29 displays the number of companies that indicated in their response to CDP's 2022 climate change questionnaire having conducted lobbying activities that may impact climate‑related policies, including the companies whose lobbying activities are self-reported to be in line with the goals of the Paris Agreement within each industry. OECD licenses CDP data.
Figure 2.30 displays the share of companies that indicated establishing their executive compensation linked to sustainability matters (by no. of companies and by market capitalisation) among all listed companies within each region. The compensation policy includes remuneration for the CEO, executive directors, non-board executives, and other management bodies based on “ESG or sustainability factors”.
Table 2.1 displays the share of companies that indicated having an employee representation on the board (by no. of companies and by market capitalisation) among all listed companies within each region. The employee representation includes the board members who serve as designated employee representatives mainly based on the company’s primary corporate governance filing, and the data is complemented with information from other corporate filings, company websites or other sources.
Figure 2.32 displays the share of companies that disclosed information on whether they engage with their stakeholders (by no. of companies and by market capitalisation) among all listed companies within each region. The disclosure on stakeholder engagement takes account of the company’s disclosed information on how it is engaging with its stakeholders, and how it is involving the stakeholders in its decision-making process. In the latter case, the information notably includes what procedures are in place for engagement and if a two-way communication has been established between the company and its various stakeholders.
Figure 2.31 displays the share of companies that disclosed their policies on shareholder engagement (by no. of companies and by market capitalisation) among all listed companies within each region. The disclosure of policies on shareholder engagement considers whether the company has a policy to facilitate shareholder engagement, resolutions, or proposals. It also takes into account whether the company facilitates shareholders to have the right to ask a question to the board or management or allows shareholders to table resolutions or shareholder proposals at shareholder meetings.
A.1.4. Sustainable bonds
Sustainable bonds are mainly collected from LSEG. This dataset contains deal-level information of nearly 14 400 bonds issued by both the corporate and official sectors from 103 jurisdictions since 2013. This dataset provides a detailed set of information for each sustainable bond issue, including the identity, nationality, and industry of the issuer; the type, interest rate structure, maturity date and rating category of the bond, the amount of and “use of proceeds” obtained from the issue. The issuance amounts were adjusted by 2023 US Consumer Price Index (CPI).
For sustainable bonds, values for corporations correspond to the “gross proceeds” (i.e. the amount paid by investors to acquire the bonds) in most cases. Where the information on the gross proceeds could not be retrieved, the “original amount issued” (i.e. the face value of the bonds in their legal documentation) has been used as follows: 22% of the amount issued from 2013 to 2023 corresponds to the original amount issued, whereas the remaining 78% corresponds to the gross proceeds. For that 78% in which the gross proceeds are used, the original amount issued is 2.9% higher. However, the amount issued in “all corporate bonds”, which includes conventional bonds, corresponds to the gross proceeds amounts in all cases.
LSEG data contains both Regulation S and Rule 144A sustainable bonds. Rule 144A presents a safe harbour from the registration requirements of the Securities Act for resales of securities not fungible with securities listed on a US securities exchange to qualified institutional buyers. Regulation S provides a safe harbour from the registration requirements of the Securities Act for offerings made outside the United States (Bruckhaus, 2017[30]). The calculations presented take account of this factor, and an exercise to eliminate the duplication when a single bond was issued both under Regulation S and Rule 144A was performed.
When calculating the outstanding amount of bonds in a given year, issues that are no longer outstanding due to being redeemed earlier than their maturity should also be deducted. Outstanding values refer to the “principal amount” or otherwise to the “original amount issued” (i.e. the face value of the bonds in their legal documentation) when the “principal amount” could not be retrieved. The early redemption data are obtained from LSEG and cover bonds that have been redeemed early due to being repaid via final default distribution, called, liquidated, put or repurchased. The early redemption data are merged with the primary bond market data via international securities identification numbers (i.e. ISINs).
In Figure 2.36, the values correspond to the sum of the amounts issued in 2022 and 2023. The five displayed categories stand for: Large listed, advanced (bond issuers that are MSCI World Index constituents as of September 2023), Large listed, emerging (bond issuers that are MSCI Emerging Markets Index constituents as of September 2023), Smaller listed (bond issuers that are listed on a stock exchange but that are not constituents of the MSCI World nor the MSCI EM indexes), and Unlisted subsidiary with a listed parent (bond issuers that were delisted prior to 2022, or that have never listed their equity, and which have their immediate or ultimate parent listed), Other unlisted company (other bond issuers that were delisted prior to 2022, or that have never listed their equity) . The bond issuer is categorised as listed if an International Securities Identification Numbering (ISIN) exists and if it is associated with a valid LSEG Identification Code (RIC) made up of the bond issuer’s ticker symbol and an exchange code (based on the name of the stock exchange). If the bond issuer does not display an ISIN coupled with a RIC or its RIC shows a delisting year prior to 2022 (e.g. SPS.N^H97), it is classified as unlisted.
A.2. Sustainable investment funds
Open-ended and Exchange Traded Funds (ETF) data have been retrieved from Morningstar Direct. Funds retrieved as “Sustainable Funds” in the case their names contain climate or ESG relevant acronyms and words such as “ESG”, “sustainable”, “responsible”, “ethical”, “green”, “social”, “environment”, “Paris align” and “climate” (and their translation in other languages). For climate funds the following keywords have been selected: “low-carbon”, “green”, “climate”, “climate transition” and “Paris alignment”. Consequentially, climate funds are a subset of sustainable funds. Funds that contain both sustainability-related keywords and climate in their names have been considered in the climate category.
Funds without any asset value are excluded. Assets under management (AUM) were adjusted by the 2023 US Consumer Price Index (CPI).
A.3. SASB Sustainable Industry Classification System® Taxonomy
© 2021 Value Reporting Foundation (merged into the IFRS Foundation in July 2022). All Rights Reserved. OECD licenses the SASB SICS Taxonomy (or “SASB Mapping”). The SASB Mapping presents 26 sustainability issues categorised into 5 dimensions, classifying which issues would be financially material in each of 77 industries in total.
Figure 2.17 merges some sustainability issues in the SASB mapping: “Climate Change” is a merger of “energy management”, “GHG emissions” and “physical impacts of climate change” in the SASB mapping; “Human Capital” merges all three sustainability issues within this dimension in the SASB mapping; “Data Security and Customer Privacy” are two different issues in the SASB mapping.
A.4. Ownership data
The main source of information is the FactSet Ownership database. This dataset covers companies with a market capitalisation of more than USD 50 million and accounts for all positions equal to or larger than 0.1% of the issued shares. Data are collected as of March 2023 in current USD, thus no currency nor inflation adjustment is needed. The data are complemented and verified using LSEG and Bloomberg. Market capitalisation information for each company is collected from LSEG. The dataset includes the records of owners for 30 871 companies listed on 92 markets covering 98% of global market capitalisation. For each of the economies/regions presented, the information corresponds to all listed companies in those economies/regions with available information.
The information for all the owners reported as of the end of 2022 is collected for each company. Some companies have up to 5 000 records in their list of owners. Each record contains the name of the institution, the percentage of outstanding shares owned, the investor type classification, the origin country of the investor, the ultimate parent’s name, among other things.
The table below presents the definitions of the five categories of owners used in this report. In many cases, when the ultimate owner is identified as a Government, a Province or a City and the direct owner was not identified as such, ownership records are reclassified as public sector. For example, public pension funds that are regulated under public sector law are classified as government, and sovereign wealth funds (SWFs) are also included in that same category.