This chapter outlines key trends and market practices of listed companies concerning corporate sustainability. It covers the regional and sectoral distribution of sustainability-related disclosures, common reporting standards and GHG emissions disclosure. Additionally, it explores third‑party assurance of listed companies’ sustainability related disclosure, their use of sustainability standards and their emission reduction targets. The chapter examines financially material sustainability risks, the investor landscape, ownership patterns of top emitting and environmentally innovative companies, and board responsibilities in managing sustainability issues. It also highlights the integration of stakeholder interests into corporate decision making, the disclosure of artificial intelligence ethics policy and of human rights-related information.
Global Corporate Sustainability Report 2025
Abstract
Information on a company’s sustainability-related risks and opportunities and how it manages them can be material for investors’ decisions to buy or sell securities, as well as to exercise their rights as shareholders and bondholders. Therefore, access to material sustainability information is crucial for market efficiency and for the protection of investors. Most regulators mandate or recommend the disclosure of sustainability matters (OECD, 2025[1]). However, even in jurisdictions where sustainability disclosure is not mandatory, a significant number of companies have been reporting on sustainability risks and opportunities, driven by the interest of investors in the impact of environmental and social matters on companies’ financial performance.
Out of the 44 152 listed companies globally with a total market capitalisation of USD 125 trillion, almost 12 900 disclosed sustainability‑related information in 2024 or 2025 (Figure 2.1). For these figures, a company is considered as disclosing sustainability-related information when it discloses a sustainability report, an integrated annual report with sustainability data, a corporate social responsibility report with substantial data or a full or partial report of GHG emissions scope 1 and 2 or scope 3. The companies that disclosed sustainability-related information represent 91% of the global market capitalisation. In 2024, Europe (98%), Developed Asia-Pacific excl. the US (94%), and the United States (93%) had the highest overall levels of disclosure by market capitalisation. Among the 2 216 listed state‑owned enterprises globally, 63% (1 395 companies) disclosed sustainability‑related information in 2024 (these represented 95% of the market capitalisation of all state‑owned enterprises).
Between 2022 and 2024, sustainability-related disclosure expanded, particularly among the largest listed companies. In China, Developed Asia-Pacific excl. the US, Emerging and Developing Asia excl. China, and the Middle East and Africa, disclosure by market capitalisation rose by 7 percentage points.
91% of companies by market capitalisation disclose sustainability-related information globally.
Source: OECD Corporate Sustainability dataset, LSEG, Bloomberg, MSCI. See Annex A for details.
Across industries, the share of companies by market capitalisation disclosing sustainability information in 2024 ranged from 78% to 94% globally. The share is the largest for the energy, technology and financials sectors, followed by consumer cyclicals (Figure 2.2). The share of sustainability‑related disclosure by industry also varies between region. For instance, in China, companies representing 99% of the financial sector’s market capitalisation disclose sustainability information, compared to 84% in the Middle East and Africa and 82% in Latin America.
The energy industry discloses sustainability information extensively, but other high environmental-impact sectors such as real estate lag.
Note: The energy sector is defined to include both energy and energy-related utilities industries and is based on the Reference data Business Classification (TRBC) from LSEG. Sectors with less than USD 100 billion of market capitalisation were excluded from the figure.
Source: OECD Corporate Sustainability dataset, LSEG, Bloomberg, MSCI. See Annex A for details.
Public awareness and regulatory actions around climate change have accelerated in several regions in recent years. This has contributed to increasing investors’ interest in companies’ GHG emissions. A reporting system coupled with efforts to assess emissions is an important first step in any effort to reduce GHG emissions. It requires an accurate measuring, reporting and tracking system of the emissions resulting directly from the activities carried out by the company (scope 1), indirect emissions related to energy consumption (scope 2), and emissions generated in the supply chain or by companies financed by financial institutions (scope 3).
Globally, 11 135 companies representing 88% of market capitalisation disclosed scope 1 and 2 GHG emissions in 2024, ranging from 46% of companies by market capitalisation in the regional category “Others” to 98% in Europe (Figure 2.3, Panel A). Commercial data providers also offer estimates of a company’s GHG emissions based on its financial and non-financial disclosures, industry and location of operations. Estimated scope 1 and 2 GHG emissions reported by data providers are available for 16 000 companies, covering 95% of market capitalisation (Figure 2.3, Panel B).
Large companies widely disclose scope 1 and 2 emissions, while estimates help reduce disclosure gaps for smaller ones, especially in the United States.
Source: OECD Corporate Sustainability dataset, LSEG, Bloomberg, MSCI. See Annex A for details.
Globally, the technology, financials and energy industries have the highest share of companies disclosing scope 1 and 2 GHG emissions by market capitalisation, with higher shares in Europe and lower shares in Others. In the United States, the industry with the largest share of companies (97% by market capitalisation) disclosing scopes 1 and 2 by market capitalisation is basic materials, while in the consumer non-cyclicals industry, less than 80% of the industry’s capitalisation reports this information (Figure 2.4).
Technology, financials and energy companies lead in emissions disclosure by market capitalisation, while real estate lags with 74% disclosure.
Source: OECD Corporate Sustainability dataset, LSEG, Bloomberg, MSCI. See Annex A for details.
The disclosure of at least one category of scope 3 emissions (76% by market capitalisation) is 12 percentage points lower than the disclosure of scope 1 and 2 emissions globally. In 2024, 7 712 companies (76% by market capitalisation) reported at least one category of scope 3 emissions, ranging from 2 279 companies (97% by market capitalisation) in Europe to 243 companies (29% of market capitalisation) in China (Figure 2.5, Panel A). In contrast, estimated scope 3 emissions amount to 94% of market capitalisation across nearly 15 900 companies (Figure 2.5, Panel B) – an almost equal number of companies for which scope 1 and 2 emissions are estimated.
Globally, 76% of companies by market capitalisation disclose at least one category of scope 3 GHG emissions, with estimates helping to fill significant gaps in China, and the Middle East and Africa.
Source: OECD Corporate Sustainability dataset, LSEG, Bloomberg, MSCI. See Annex A for details.
Globally, the technology and consumer cyclicals industries have the largest share of companies by market capitalisation that disclose at least one category of scope 3 emissions data. In Europe, disclosure is consistent across most industries, reaching more than 95% of disclosure by market capitalisation, except for real estate (75%). In China, the financial industry has the largest share of companies by market capitalisation disclosing scope 3 GHG emissions (57%) (Figure 2.6).
Scope 3 GHG disclosures vary across industries: technology and consumer cyclicals lead; energy and real estate lag.
Source: OECD Corporate Sustainability dataset, LSEG, Bloomberg, MSCI. See Annex A for details.
Of the almost 12 900 companies that disclosed sustainability-related information in 2024, 42% obtained assurance of the information by an external service provider. Latin America (62% of companies, 86% of market capitalisation), Others (61%, 89%) and Europe (56%, 93%) show the highest levels of assurance of their sustainability‑related information. Nevertheless, provision of assurance is meaningful even in jurisdictions where it is neither required nor recommended. As shown in Figure 2.7, there is a significant difference between the assurance of sustainability-related information by number of companies and by market capitalisation. For instance, in the Middle East and Africa, 32% of companies obtain assurance, making up 73% of the region’s market capitalisation.
Global consistency: companies seek assurance, regardless of the inexistence of regulatory requirements.
Source: OECD Corporate Sustainability dataset, LSEG, Bloomberg. See Annex A for details.
Based on the depth and scope of the verification, the International Standard on Sustainability Assurance (ISSA) 5000 distinguishes between two levels of assurance. The first level, referred to as “reasonable” assurance requires a broad and detailed set of procedures and is designed to provide a high level of confidence that the information has no material misstatement. The second level, referred to as “limited”, provides a lower degree of confidence, as the assurer undertakes fewer tests and procedures, with the objective of identifying whether anything indicates a material misstatement (IAASB, 2024[2]).
Globally, in 2024, of the 5 458 companies that subjected their sustainability-related information to an independent assurance, 3 061 were partially or fully verified under limited assurance, while 918 were partially or fully verified under reasonable assurance. Among the assured sustainability-related information, most companies rely on limited assurance (56%), while only 17% disclose reasonable assurance of at least one data point or information (“reasonable” is the level required, as a rule, from the external auditing of financial reports). The United States (72%), Europe (62%), the Middle East and Africa (61%), and Latin America (61%) show the highest reliance on limited assurance, while China (28%) shows comparatively higher shares of reasonable assurance than other regions (Figure 2.8. Panel A).
Reasonable assurance of sustainability-related information remains uncommon, with notable exceptions in Asia.
Source: OECD Corporate Sustainability dataset, LSEG, Bloomberg. See Annex A for details.
GHG emissions may be subject to a different level of assurance than the rest of the sustainability information. In all regions, GHG emissions are mainly verified with a limited level of assurance. Globally, out of the total GHG emissions verified by an independent assurance provider, limited assurance was performed on 40% of scope 1 and 2 emissions and 38% of scope 3. Only 14% of companies had a reasonable level of assurance for scope 1, 13% for scope 2, and 6% for scope 3 (Figure 2.9, Panel A).
Globally, 42% of verified scope 1 emissions and 41% of verified scope 2 emissions were assured with limited assurance while this number reached 70% for verified scope 3 emissions. In China 70% of verified scope 3 GHG emissions were assured with reasonable assurance (Figure 2.9, Panel B).
Just under 15% of companies obtain reasonable assurance for scope 1 and 2 GHG emissions, despite these being largely under their direct control.
Source: OECD Corporate Sustainability dataset, LSEG, Bloomberg. See Annex A for details.
Among the companies that disclose the name of the independent assurance provider, 54% of the sustainability-related information with assurance was assured by an auditor (Figure 2.10, Panel A). Auditors assured an important share of sustainability-related information in Europe, Latin America and Others. In Latin America, this may reflect regulatory requirements in Brazil and Mexico that mandate statutory auditors as assurance providers (OECD, 2025[1]). By contrast, in Europe – where France and Spain permit accredited non-audit providers to deliver assurance attestations – 89% were still carried out by auditors. In China and the United States, 23% and 27% of assurance attestations were developed by an auditor, and the remaining 77% and 73% by other assurance providers, respectively.
Auditors dominate the assurance market in Europe and Latin America, while other assurance providers are widespread in Asia and the United States.
Source: OECD Corporate Sustainability dataset, LSEG, Bloomberg. See Annex A for details.
When looking at companies that disclose the name of the independent assurance provider, the share of companies that decide to engage the same auditor of the financial statement to verify their sustainability disclosure varies across regions. Globally, 1 461 companies (40%) selected their financial auditors for the assurance of their sustainability-related information (Figure 2.11, Panel A).
Hiring the auditor of the financial statement to assure the sustainability report is a common practice only in Europe.
Source: OECD Corporate Sustainability dataset, LSEG, Bloomberg. See Annex A for details.
The comparability of sustainability-related information disclosed by companies in different jurisdictions enhances the efficiency of the capital market. In this regard, companies have been using different accounting standards and frameworks to disclose sustainability information. Globally, the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) Standards are used by 6 548 companies, accounting for 61% of global market capitalisation. Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) recommendations are used by 4 857 companies representing 46% of market capitalisation, and SASB Standards are used by 3 497 companies representing 56% of market capitalisation. Some of these companies use more than one standard or framework when reporting sustainability information (Figure 2.12).
In Developed Asia-Pacific excl. US and Europe, 2 590 companies (73% of market capitalisation) and 922 companies (58% of market capitalisation), respectively, fully or partially followed TCFD recommendations. SASB Standards are mainly used in the United States, where 1 324 companies use them to disclose sustainability information. Almost all regions predominantly use the GRI Standards in their sustainability reporting: 325 companies in Latin America (85% of market capitalisation), 1 350 companies in Europe (77% of market capitalisation), 1 878 companies in Developed Asia-Pacific excl. US (73% of market capitalisation), and 944 companies in Emerging and Developing Asia excl. China (60% of market capitalisation).
Globally, 582 companies use the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) standards, either stating a partial alignment, or asserting compliance. These companies are mostly from the Developed Asia-Pacific excl. US or Emerging and Developing Asia excl. China regions (226 and 139 companies respectively).
The use of the European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS) remains nascent, reflecting their recent adoption in July 2023. Under the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), large, listed companies will apply the ESRS for the first time in 2025, while other companies will not be required to do so until 2028 or later (OECD, 2025[1]). At least 1 800 companies listed in the European Union are subject to the use of ESRS “Wave one” in 2025.
Larger companies tend to use global reporting standards, while smaller companies often use other frameworks.
Note: ESRS “Wave one” contains companies listed in the European Union with total assets over EUR 25 million (USD 25.97 million) or total revenues over EUR 50 million (USD 51.95 million) and over 500 employees, which would be subject to ESRS “Wave one” for their 2024 sustainability-related information.
Source: OECD Corporate Sustainability dataset, LSEG, Bloomberg, IFRS Foundation. See Annex A for details.
Prior to 2023, the global landscape for corporate sustainability disclosure became increasingly structured around three main frameworks: the GRI Standards, the TCFD recommendations, and the SASB Standards. In 2023, two new standards were established: the IFRS S1 and S2, and ESRS. As of June 2025, 36 jurisdictions have adopted or otherwise used the IFRS S1 and S2 or are in the process of finalising steps towards introducing them into their regulatory frameworks (IFRS, 2025[3]).
The increasing number of sustainability reporting standards with varying approaches have led to efforts to improve the interoperability of standards, as regulators and standard setters seek to streamline reporting obligations and enhance global comparability. The private sector has similarly underscored the need for greater harmonisation, as evidenced by a survey conducted by Business at OECD (BIAC) between December 2024 and February 2025 (BIAC, 2025[4]).
An example of interoperability efforts is the joint work by the ISSB and the EFRAG, supported by the European Commission. It resulted in the release of a comprehensive Interoperability Guidance in May 2024 to align IFRS S1 and S2 and the ESRS. The Guidance highlights areas of alignment and clarifies how companies can fulfil reporting requirements under both frameworks in a coherent manner, in particular in the areas of climate-related disclosure, while promoting digital tagging for parallel reporting.
EFRAG and GRI also signed a joint statement of interoperability and launched a GRI-ESRS Interoperability Index. This resource helps EU companies reporting under ESRS to leverage existing GRI disclosures, especially for materiality assessment and impact reporting.
In June 2025, GRI and the IFRS Foundation published a joint statement clarifying how GRI 102: Climate Change 2025 and IFRS S2 can be used together and considered equivalent. On GHG emissions, equivalence is deemed fulfilled when companies that report Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions under IFRS S2, in line with the Greenhouse Gas Protocol, use those same disclosures to satisfy the relevant GRI 102 requirements, provided appropriate cross-references are included.
In nature-related reporting, the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures (TNFD) and the GRI have jointly produced an interoperability mapping where GRI standards support TNFD recommendations and metrics, helping users to understand overlaps and identify any additional disclosures needed to meet TNFD expectations. Similarly, TNFD and EFRAG published the ESRS‑TNFD Correspondence Mapping to demonstrate significant alignment across all 14 TNFD recommended disclosures and ESRS environmental standards (E2-E5).
On social and human rights issues, the Australian, British and Canadian governments published a joint template to support businesses reporting under the UK Modern Slavery Act (2015), Australian Modern Slavery Act (2018) and Canada’s Fighting Against Forced Labour and Child Labour in Supply Chains Act (2023). This optional template is designed to reduce the administrative burden for organisations subject to supply chain reporting requirements in all three jurisdictions, taking stock of distinct legal requirements such as reporting deadlines (Public Safety Canada, 2025[5]).
Finally, interoperability efforts are also underway across various taxonomy frameworks. The ASEAN Taxonomy Board (ATB) released the second version of its Taxonomy for Sustainable Finance, providing a multi-tiered common framework that enables comparability across member states. Together, these efforts reflect a growing consensus around the need for coherence in sustainability reporting. As reporting requirements expand, enhanced interoperability will be essential to reduce reporting burdens, improve data quality, and ensure useful information for stakeholders globally.
Globally, 76% of companies by market capitalisation disclose a target to reduce their GHG emissions over a specified time horizon. In Europe, the United States and Developed Asia-Pacific excl. US, the share is larger, at 92%, 85% and 83%, respectively. China and Others stand below, at 32% and 21% respectively (Figure 2.13, Panel A).
Targets related to energy use are targets aiming to reduce energy consumption or to increase the share of renewables in that consumption (thus reducing GHG emissions, although not explicitly tracking emissions). Globally, less companies disclose that type of target than GHG emission reduction targets, with only 50% of companies by market capitalisation doing so (Figure 2.13, Panel B).
Almost 80% of companies by market capitalisation disclose a GHG emission reduction target.
Source: OECD Corporate Sustainability dataset, MSCI. See Annex A for details.
Figure 2.14 presents the distribution of the earliest target years set by each listed company for GHG emission reduction targets (excluding targets associated with no specific year). Globally, only 44% of companies with a GHG emission reduction target have a concrete emission reduction goal before 2030 (in terms of number of companies). Including the year 2030, that number rises to 88%, as many companies chose this milestone as their target year. There are, however, regional disparities as this number drops to 71% of companies with an emission reduction target in China, while it reaches 95% in Latin America.
Globally, 88% of companies set GHG emission reduction targets in or before 2030.
Source: OECD Corporate Sustainability dataset, MSCI. See Annex A for details.
Disclosure of a baseline year is necessary for investors to assess what the GHG emission reduction targets (both in relative and absolute terms) effectively mean for an individual company. Globally, among companies that have set specific years for their GHG emission reduction targets, there are still 20% of companies for which no associated baseline year is available (by number of companies, focusing on targets with the earliest target year for companies that have several targets). Latin America, the United States and Developed Asia-Pacific excl. US display larger shares of baseline year disclosure, at 87%, 85% and 84% respectively, while Emerging and Developing Asia excl. China (60%), China (61%) and the Middle East and Africa (62%) are lower (Figure 2.15).
Baseline data is not always easily accessible for investors to assess GHG emission targets.
Source: OECD Corporate Sustainability dataset, MSCI. See Annex A for details.
When setting GHG emission reduction targets, companies can select different metrics to measure the progress of their reduction path. Notably, most companies calculate the reduction of their GHG emissions over the baseline year either as the GHG emission reduction in absolute terms or the reduction of GHG emissions intensity (typically per unit of revenue or per unit of production). Globally, 32% of companies that have a target commit to reducing their GHG emissions intensity and 88% set a reduction target in absolute terms (by market capitalisation, focusing on targets with the earliest target year for companies that have several targets) (Figure 2.16, Panel B). In China, GHG emission intensity metrics are used more often than in other regions, with 53% (by market capitalisation) of companies choosing them, while 55% (by market capitalisation) use absolute targets, far below the global average.
Most companies with GHG emission targets set them in absolute terms.
Source: OECD Corporate Sustainability dataset, MSCI. See Annex A for details.
Equity markets play a pivotal role in fostering innovation and facilitating long‑term investments, both of which are essential for sustainable economic growth. Therefore, understanding the interplay between corporations and sustainability within the framework of equity markets is crucial for a comprehensive view of global sustainable development. The G20/OECD Principles of Corporate Governance aim to provide a framework that incentivises companies and their investors to make decisions and manage their risks in a way that contributes to the sustainability and resilience of the corporation.
An analysis of the sustainability risks that companies are considered to be facing according to the SASB Sustainable Industry Classification System® Taxonomy (“SASB mapping”) shows that climate change is considered to be a financially material risk for listed companies that account for 65% of global market capitalisation (Figure 2.17). In particular, this risk is considered to be financially material for companies representing 76% of market capitalisation in the Middle East and Africa, 71% in Latin America, and 69% in the United States. Human capital risks are currently the most important sustainability risk with companies representing 68% facing such risks as financially material. In the United States, this share is even higher, where companies representing 76% of market capitalisation are considered to face human capital risks as financially material.
There are differences globally in companies’ sensitivity to sustainability risks from ecological impacts and data security and customer privacy. Companies representing only 10% of total market capitalisation are considered to face ecological impacts as a financially material factor. This share is the smallest in the United States (6%) (Figure 2.17). Globally, companies representing 41% of total market capitalisation are considered to face data security and customer privacy as financially material factors (this is the third most important risk globally). In the United States, companies representing 49% of market capitalisation are considered to face data security and customer privacy as a financially material risk.
Human capital and climate change pose financially material risks for most companies by market capitalisation.
Source: OECD Capital Market Series dataset, LSEG, FactSet, Bloomberg, SASB mapping. See Annex A for details.
Product design and lifecycle management is considered to be a material risk for companies representing 56% of market capitalisation across 37 of 77 industries (Figure 2.18). Meanwhile, business ethics within the leadership and governance dimension is a risk considered to be faced by companies representing 33% of market capitalisation across 18 industries.
Beyond climate and water-related risks, some social risks are considered to be financially material across industries.
Note: The industry classification is according to SASB mapping.
Source: OECD Capital Market Series dataset, LSEG, FactSet, Bloomberg, SASB mapping. See Annex A for details.
Mapping of sustainability risks cannot be equated as the market value at risk, which would depend on an individual assessment of each company’s financial exposure to these risks. However, the share of market capitalisation can serve as a reference for policymakers to assess the differences in economic sectors’ distribution among locally listed companies that may justify setting priorities when regulating and supervising their capital markets (OECD, 2023[6]).
These findings are particularly relevant when considering the 100 listed companies with the highest disclosed GHG emissions, which collectively amount to a market capitalisation of approximately USD 7.1 trillion and emit a total of 33.8 Gt of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions considering all scopes. While there is double counting in this calculation since, for instance, scope 2 GHG emissions of one company may be the scope 3 GHG emissions of another, the 33.8 Gt emissions of these 100 companies are against the backdrop of 37.8 Gt emissions globally from energy combustion and industrial processes in 2024 (IEA, 2025[7]).
Listed companies from Europe (32%), the United States (22%) and Japan (14%) represent the largest portion of companies with the highest disclosed GHG emissions (Figure 2.19, Panel A). Companies from the energy industry account for 35% of the companies with the highest disclosed GHG emissions, followed by industrials with 26%. Regional and sectoral distributions of GHG emissions are influenced by differences in disclosure rates. For example, as shown in Figure 2.3 and Figure 2.5, nearly all European companies by market capitalisation disclose scope 1 and 2 (98%) and scope 3 (97%), compared to only 67% and 29% of Chinese companies.
35% of the top 100 GHG emitters are energy companies.
Note: The disclosed GHG emissions to rank the highest emitters include scope 1, scope 2, and scope 3 GHG emissions. The shares in this figure are calculated using the number of companies, not their market capitalisation.
Source: OECD Corporate Sustainability dataset, OECD Capital Market Series dataset, LSEG, FactSet, Bloomberg. See Annex A for details.
Figure 2.20 shows the ownership distribution for the top 100 highest emitting companies using the categories in Owners of the World’s Listed Companies (De La Cruz, Medina and Tang, 2019[8]). Globally, institutional investors hold the largest share at 36%. In the United States, institutional investors hold a 72% share, in line with broader trends for institutional ownership in the US equity market. In China, the public sector plays a major role, with over half of equity holdings in these high‑emitting companies. Japan demonstrates a more balanced ownership structure with corporate holdings at 15% and institutional investors at 37%. In Latin America, the public sector is important, with a 47% share, while Europe shows a more diversified investor base, including corporate and institutional investors with 14% and 33%, respectively.
Institutional investors hold the highest share of equity in top-emitting listed companies, followed by the public sector.
Note: “Other free-float” refers to the holdings by shareholders that do not reach the threshold for mandatory disclosure of their ownership records.
Source: OECD Capital Market Series dataset, OECD Corporate Sustainability dataset, LSEG, FactSet, Bloomberg. See Annex A for details.
The degree of concentration and control by shareholders at the company level is important when considering investors’ engagement activities and effective change in the strategy of a company, for example about its climate‑related goals. Figure 2.21 shows the distribution of ownership concentration among the 100 companies with the highest disclosed GHG emissions.
Globally, the largest shareholder in each of these 100 companies owns on average 28% of the shares and the largest 20 shareholders own on average 55% of the shares. This means that in markets such as Emerging Asia, the Middle East and Africa most (if not all) high‑emitting companies have a well‑defined controlling shareholder and, therefore, any changes in their strategy will most likely depend on the decision of the controlling shareholder. In the United States, while several high‑emitting companies do not seem to have a controlling shareholder (the top 3 shareholders own 27% of the shares), the 20 largest shareholders own 51% of the shares on average, which suggests that these investors may be able to alter the sustainability‑related strategy of some high‑emitting companies.
The 20 largest shareholders of the 100 highest-emitting companies would often be able to change their strategy.
Source: OECD Capital Market Series dataset, OECD Corporate Sustainability dataset, LSEG, FactSet, Bloomberg. See Annex A for details.
While the adoption of existing green technologies by high‑emitting companies is essential for the transition to a low‑carbon economy, the development of new technologies will also be necessary to guarantee the transition while enhancing energy security and maintaining high standards of living. Globally, out of the existing 3.7 million patents, 308 000 (8%) are classified as green patents. The classification of a patent as green is based on a classification jointly developed by international authorities, which identifies innovations that contribute to environmental objectives. Only patents whose primary purpose is to mitigate environmental harm, adapt to climate change or contribute to smarter grids are labelled as green patents within the data set. The largest number of patents is concentrated in Japan (1.55 million), with nearly 140 000 green patents, representing a 9% share. The United States follows with 914 446 patents, of which 6% are green. Developed Asia-Pacific excl. Japan and US total almost 730 000 patents, out of which 58 000 are green. Europe displays 413 540 patents, with a green share of 10%. China contributes 109 752 patents overall, also with 10% being green (Figure 2.22).
Green patents account for 8% of total patents globally.
Note: Patents are attributed to regions and countries based on the company’s country of exchange.
Source: OECD Corporate Sustainability dataset, MSCI. See Annex A for details.
Looking at the regional distribution of the 100 listed companies with the highest number of green patents, Japan has the highest share (51%) while the United States, Developed Asia‑Pacific excl. Japan and US, and Europe represent approximately 15% each (Figure 1.23, Panel A). These companies collectively amount to a market capitalisation of approximately USD 8.8 trillion. Technology companies account for 30 of these 100 companies, followed by consumer cyclicals and industrials with over 20 each.
Japan leads with 51 of the top 100 companies with high green innovation.
Note: The shares in this figure are calculated using the number of companies, not their market capitalisation.
Source: OECD Corporate Sustainability dataset, OECD Capital Market Series dataset, LSEG, FactSet, Bloomberg, MSCI. See Annex A for details.
Globally, institutional investors own 37% of the top 100 companies by green patents, almost the same as what they own in the 100 high‑emitting companies (Figure 2.24). In the United States, institutional investors own 67% of the equity in these companies. This is in line with the pattern of institutional ownership in US high‑emitting companies of 72% (as seen in Figure 2.19). In contrast, ownership in companies with high green innovation in China differs significantly from ownership in high-emitting companies, with the public sector making up a smaller portion at 5% and a higher presence of institutional investors and other free‑float investors (23% and 49%, respectively).
Institutional investors hold the largest share of the top 100 companies with high green innovation.
Note: “Other free-float” refers to the holdings by shareholders that do not reach the threshold for mandatory disclosure of their ownership records.
Source: OECD Capital Market Series dataset, OECD Corporate Sustainability dataset, LSEG, FactSet, Bloomberg, MSCI. See Annex A for details.
Figure 2.25 shows the ownership concentration in the 100 companies with the highest stock green patents. Globally, the largest shareholder owns an average of 14%, contrasting with the 28% for high-emitting companies. For the top 20 shareholders, however, ownership concentration rises to more than 40% of the shares on average in all regions. Ownership concentration in the top 100 companies with high green innovation is smaller than in high‑emitting companies, which suggests greater potential for non‑controlling shareholders to engage effectively with companies with high green innovation.
Listed companies with high green innovation show moderately lower ownership concentration than high GHG emitters.
Source: OECD Capital Market Series dataset, OECD Corporate Sustainability dataset, LSEG, FactSet, Bloomberg, MSCI. See Annex A for details.
Establishing a board committee responsible for sustainability is not the only way for a company to manage its sustainability risks and a committee, if not well structured, may even be ineffective in doing so. However, the existence of a sustainability board committee may be a proxy for the importance given by boards to sustainability risks. Companies representing two‑thirds of the world’s market capitalisation have established a committee responsible for overseeing the management of sustainability risks and opportunities reporting directly to the board (Figure 2.26). In the United States, 77% of companies by market capitalisation have a committee responsible for sustainability and in Emerging and Developing Asia excl. China and in Europe, more than 60% have such a committee.
13% of listed companies globally (two‑thirds by market capitalisation) have board committees overseeing sustainability risks.
Source: OECD Corporate Sustainability dataset, Bloomberg. See Annex A for details.
The board of directors may consider specifically sustainability‑related issues when overseeing management, although not necessarily via the establishment of a dedicated board committee. Globally, 6 215 companies representing 70% of global market capitalisation indicated their boards of directors oversee climate‑related issues (Figure 2.27, Panel A). This is an increase from 53% in 2022 (OECD, 2024[9]). In Developed Asia excl. China, Europe and the United States, more than 70% of companies by market capitalisation reported a board‑level oversight of climate‑related issues.
Board-level oversight of health and safety is reported by almost 2 260 companies worldwide, representing 29% of market capitalisation (Figure 2.27, Panel B). In the Middle East and Africa, companies that account for 46% of the region’s market capitalisation reported board oversight of health and safety, and in Europe, this share totals 40%. Oversight of human rights by the board is disclosed by around 1 400 companies that account for 38% of global market capitalisation. The United States and Europe display the most significant shares by market capitalisation, reporting board-level oversight of human rights by companies representing 50% and 49% of market capitalisation, respectively (Figure 2.27, Panel C).
While many boards prioritise climate issues, a few also oversee health, safety, and human rights.
Source: OECD Corporate Sustainability dataset, LSEG, Bloomberg. See Annex A for details.
To fulfil their key functions in assessing the company’s risk profile and guiding its governance practices, boards can also take into consideration sustainability matters when establishing the compensation of key executives. Almost 70% of companies by market capitalisation that have executive compensation policies linked to performance measures include a variable component based on sustainability‑related factors (Figure 2.28, Panel A). Executive compensation is linked to sustainability matters in 94% of companies by market capitalisation in Europe, followed by the “Others” category (87%) and the Middle East and Africa (77%). In China and Emerging and Developing Asia excl. China, executive compensation is linked to sustainability matters in 54% and 32% of the companies by market capitalisation, respectively.
Companies representing 32% of global market capitalisation incorporate climate change performance into the CEO and other executives’ remuneration (Figure 2.28, Panel B). Europe has the highest share with 8% of companies (59% of market capitalisation) using climate change KPIs.
Sustainability-linked executive compensation has become common in large European listed companies.
Source: OECD Corporate Sustainability dataset, LSEG, Bloomberg. See Annex A for details.
Since 2013, Delaware in the United States has allowed for-profit corporations to register as Public Benefit Corporations (PBCs), which represents a legal obligation for them to balance shareholder interests with the public benefits identified in their certificates of incorporation. PBCs must disclose their status in stock certificates and report biennially on their public benefit objectives, potentially with third‑party verification.
In France, companies can register as a société à mission since 2019 if they meet five key conditions: defining the company’s raison d'être, which are the principles that the company has adopted and for which it intends to allocate resources; specifying social and environmental objectives in their articles of association; forming a monitoring committee; undergoing third-party verification of whether the company fulfilled its non‑financial goals; and registering the société à mission in the companies’ register.
Between 2021 and 2025, there was a notable increase in the number of private companies with public benefit objectives in Delaware and France (Figure 2.29), while the number of listed companies has seen a slower increase. In Delaware, the number of private PBCs grew from 207 in 2021 to 447 in 2025. Similarly, France saw a rise in sociétés à mission with private entities increasing from 598 in 2021 to 2 148 in 2025 (Observatoire des sociétés à mission, 2022[10]).
Delaware and France saw a rise in companies with public benefit objectives, yet market relevance remains limited.
Source: OECD Corporate Sustainability dataset ; Observatoire des sociétés à mission (2024[11]), https://www.observatoiredessocietesamission.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/BAROMETRE-8-web.pdf; LSEG. See Annex A for details.
To build trust in a long‑term business strategy, companies may establish policies to facilitate shareholder engagement. Globally, 86% of companies by market capitalisation disclose policies on shareholder engagement, including, for instance, how shareholders can question the board or the management or table proposals at shareholder meetings (Figure 2.30). The share of companies that establish policies on shareholder engagement is the highest in the United States (96% of market capitalisation) and in Europe (89%), while relatively lower in Emerging and Developing Asia excl. China (66%) and Latin America (36%).
86% of companies by market capitalisation disclose policies on shareholder engagement.
Source: OECD Corporate Sustainability dataset, LSEG. See Annex A for details.
To promote co‑operation with employees, companies may establish mechanisms for employee participation, such as workers’ councils that consider the position if employee in certain key decisions, or employee representation on the board. For certain jurisdictions, these mechanisms are required by legal provisions for companies above a determined size. Companies representing 11% of global market capitalisation have employee representatives on the board of directors (Figure 2.31). There are notable differences across regions, ranging from 59% in China, 39% in Europe and 9% in Latin America, to negligible amounts in other regions. Energy and water & related utilities lead, with 7% of companies in each industry reporting employee board representation, although their market capitalisation coverage is relatively modest at 12%. Basic materials and industrials both disclosed 5-6% of companies with employee representation, yet stand out by covering 18% of market capitalisation each.
Employee board representation accounts for almost 5% of companies globally, highest in China and Europe.
Source: OECD Corporate Sustainability dataset, Bloomberg. See Annex A for details.
Globally, around 8 200 companies, which account for 48% of global market capitalisation, disclose information on employee representation in trade unions or coverage by collective bargaining agreements. Disclosure is highest in Latin America (25% of companies, 85% of market capitalisation) and Europe (21%, 73%) (Figure 2.32, Panel A).
These 8 200 companies disclosed that, on average, 32% of their employees are represented in trade unions or covered by collective bargaining agreements (Figure 2.32, Panel B). The median stands at 10%, while the third quartile stands at 64%. In China, employee representation in trade unions is mandatory, hence the high percentages. In Latin America and Europe, 67% and 60% of employees are represented in trade unions, on average. Employee representation in trade unions or collective bargaining agreements stands at lower levels in other regions.
At the industry level, water utilities and basic materials have the highest levels of employee representation in trade unions or coverage by collective bargaining agreements, with medians of 60% and 46% respectively, and averages above 45%. Energy also ranks high, with a median of 35% and an average of 45%. In contrast, consumer cyclicals, financials, healthcare, real estate, and technology disclosed low medians despite averages of 15‑33%, suggesting that trade union representation is limited but can be significant in certain companies.
Among listed companies that disclose this information, on average two-thirds of employees are neither unionised nor covered by collective bargaining agreements.
Source: OECD Corporate Sustainability dataset, LSEG, Bloomberg. See Annex A for details.
The employee turnover rate was disclosed by over 8 400 companies that account for 60% of global market capitalisation (Figure 2.33, Panel A). In Europe, 31% of companies representing 90% of market capitalisation disclosed their employees’ turnover rate. In the United States, companies that account for 42% of market capitalisation disclosed an employee turnover rate.
Globally, the distribution of employee turnover rates displays a median of 13% and an average of 16%. Chinese companies disclosed the lowest levels, with a median of 8% and an average of 11%. Latin America displays higher values, with a median of 17% and an average of 21%.
Consumer cyclicals and real estate companies disclosed the highest medians of employee turnover, at 18% and 19%, with averages of 23% each and upper quartiles at around 30%. Energy and water & related utilities exhibit the lowest median turnover rates, both at 9%, with averages of 12% and 10%, respectively.
Disclosure of employee turnover is high worldwide, reflecting the financial materiality of human capital in many industries, while regional differences in turnover rates may mirror variations in labour markets and legislation.
Source: OECD Corporate Sustainability dataset, LSEG, Bloomberg. See Annex A for details.
Globally, more than 7 350 companies disclosed information on the average hours of employee training per year, which represents 57% of market capitalisation. Regional patterns show that disclosure is most prevalent in Latin America (25% of companies, 82% of market capitalisation) and Europe (22%, 77%). The disclosure of employee training hours is lower in Emerging Asia excl. China (12% of companies, 71% of market capitalisation) and the Middle East and Africa (12%, 81%) (Figure 2.34. Panel A).
Companies disclose that employees receive an average of 33 hours of training per year (Figure 2.34. Panel B). Regionally, China (56 hours), Others (41), the Middle East & Africa (37) and Latin America (36) disclose the highest averages, while Europe (27) and the United States (24) stand below the global average. By industry, employee training varies widely, with energy (49 hours), financials (41), and basic materials (38) leading in average hours, while consumer non-cyclicals (26) and real estate (23) lag behind.
Training hours per employee are the highest in China, while the energy sector leads among industries.
Source: OECD Corporate Sustainability dataset, LSEG, Bloomberg. See Annex A for details.
Globally, 17% of companies representing 75% of market capitalisation disclose information on whether they engage with their stakeholders and how they involve them in decision-making (Figure 2.35, Panel A). In every region, apart from Others, at least 70% of companies by market capitalisation disclose such information, and in Europe, 92% do so.
Regarding stakeholder engagement on human rights issues, 2% of companies disclose this practice, covering 24% of market capitalisation. Europe (2% of companies, 29% by market capitalisation) and the United States (3%, 29%) show the highest coverage, while China (0.2%, 2%) disclosed almost no stakeholder engagement on human rights issues (Figure 2.35. Panel B).
Over 7 000 companies disclose stakeholder engagement globally, including around 760 on human rights.
Source: OECD Corporate Sustainability dataset, LSEG. See Annex A for details.
Almost 260 companies disclosed that they had established ethical guidelines and/or compliance activities for designing and developing artificial intelligence, with 179 of these companies being from the technology sector. Industrials follow with 31 companies, and consumer cyclicals with 26 (Figure 2.36. Panel A). These 179 technology companies account for 28% of the industry’s global market capitalisation, while industrials and consumer cyclicals represent 17.4% and 4.7%, respectively.
Nearly 30% of technology companies by market capitalisation disclosed an artificial intelligence ethics policy.
Source: OECD Corporate Sustainability dataset, Bloomberg. See Annex A for details.
Reporting human rights-related information has become an emerging aspect of corporate sustainability disclosure. In the past decade, various jurisdictions have introduced policies and legislation that require entities to disclose human rights information, including with regard to how companies address adverse human rights impacts in their global supply chains.
These policies and laws include disclosure-based due diligence measures (e.g. modern slavery legislation), mandatory human rights due diligence legislation, or product and market-based measures related, for example, to products or commodities associated with forced labour. Meanwhile, several reporting frameworks have evolved to integrate reporting expectations on human rights risks and impacts, including through disclosure of supply chain due diligence measures. For instance, GRI Standards and the ESRS have integrated or drawn from international standards of responsible business conduct.
Against this backdrop, understanding what human rights information companies are disclosing can provide insights on the uptake by business of international standards for responsible business conduct and related domestic policies and regulations. The below indicators were selected to assess how companies are reporting on selected measures of human rights due diligence, relevant for the due diligence framework outlined in the OECD MNE Guidelines and associated OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Business Conduct.
The selected indicators include the allocation of responsibilities and resources for human rights oversight (relevant for due diligence step 1), the identification and disclosure of salient human rights issues (relevant for due diligence step 2) and reported actions to avoid, prevent or mitigate human rights impacts, as well as the disclosure of supply chain health and safety trainings (relevant for due diligence 3). They also cover disclosure of supply chain monitoring results and responses to non‑compliance and demonstration of supply chain health and safety improvements (relevant for due diligence step 4), reporting of human rights impacts (relevant for due diligence step 5), and the presence of formal grievance mechanisms accessible to stakeholders (relevant for due diligence step 6).
Disclosures related to policies are the most commonly reported type of human rights information. Having a policy can often be a first step taken by companies towards addressing human rights risks and impacts in their activities. Moreover, sustainability data providers largely assess human rights performance through the existence of corporate policies and commitments (OECD, 2025[12]).
Human rights-related policy can cover a broad range of topics, including rights of own workers, supply chain workers, communities, end-users or consumers. Globally, companies representing 81% of market capitalisation (17% of listed companies) disclose having a human rights policy. A higher share (85% of global market capitalisation) report having a specific forced or child labour policy, and a lower share (62%) report having a policy on freedom of association. Disclosure of human rights policies is relatively even across regions, with the highest uptake in Europe and the United States, and lowest in China (37% of market capitalisation) (Figure 2.37).
Outside of reporting on human rights related policies, disclosure on human rights due diligence is low and driven by very large companies. Such disclosure ranges from 13% to 50% of listed companies measured by market capitalisation and only 1% to 6% when measured by the number of companies (see Figure 2.38). In comparison, 91% of companies by global market capitalisation are reporting any type of sustainability‑related information (see Figure 2.1).
Human rights issues such as child and forced labour are commonly captured by corporate policies.
Source: OECD Corporate Sustainability dataset, LSEG. See Annex A for details.
Companies accounting for 26% of global market capitalisation (1.6% of companies) identify and disclose salient human rights issues.
Source: OECD Corporate Sustainability dataset, LSEG. See Annex A for details.
The two most reported measures are supply chain health and safety trainings and the existence of a grievance mechanism (50% and 33% respectively in terms of global market capitalisation). However, while 50% of companies by market capitalisation report conducting supply chain health and safety trainings, only 14% are tracking health and safety improvements over time. Meanwhile, only 26% of companies by market capitalisation (1.6% of companies) report on their process for identifying salient human rights risks. Effective human rights due diligence requires a process for identifying salient human rights risks and impacts. Thus, whilst many companies report having policy commitments on human rights related topics, far fewer companies report having a process in place for identifying which specific human rights could be impacted by their business activities.
Disclosure of human rights information is higher among larger companies. The share of listed companies disclosing human rights information is, on average, ten times higher when measured by market capitalisation – across all indicators and all regions. This suggests that the larger a company’s market capitalisation, the more likely it is to disclose on human rights. The gap is particularly striking for indicators related to human rights risk identification and supplier monitoring. For example, disclosure on supplier monitoring results and corrective actions covers 18% of market capitalisation, but just 1.3% of companies.
Human rights disclosure varies widely across regions (see Figure 2.39). On average, European and United States companies lead disclosure of human rights-related information. US companies rank high on disclosure of potential salient human rights risks (32% of market capitalisation) but their disclosure on actual human rights impacts and related incidents is lower (4%). In contrast, reporting on actual instances of human rights impacts is higher in Emerging Asia excl. China, Europe, and the Middle East and Africa, covering 48%, 43% and 42% of regional market capitalisation, respectively.
Human rights-related disclosure varies significantly across geographies, with companies in Europe, the United States, and Emerging Asia leading disclosure on selected indicators.
Source: OECD Corporate Sustainability dataset, LSEG. See Annex A for details.
References
[4] BIAC (2025), The Risks of Divergence Between Global ESG Reporting Standards, https://www.businessatoecd.org/hubfs/The%20Risks%20of%20Divergence%20Between%20Global%20ESG%20Reporting%20Standards.pdf.
[8] De La Cruz, A., A. Medina and Y. Tang (2019), “Owners of the World’s Listed Companies”, OECD Capital Market Series, OECD, Paris, https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/owners-of-the-world-s-listed-companies_ed7ca2f3-en.html.
[2] IAASB (2024), International Standard on Sustainability Assurance 5000, General Requirements for Sustainability Assurance Engagements, https://ifacweb.blob.core.windows.net/publicfiles/2025-01/IAASB-International-Standard-on-Sustainability-Assurance-ISSA-5000.pdf.
[7] IEA (2025), Global Energy Review 2025, IEA, Paris, https://www.iea.org/reports/global-energy-review-2025.
[3] IFRS (2025), IFRS Foundation publishes jurisdictional profiles providing transparency and evidencing progress towards adoption of ISSB Standards, https://www.ifrs.org/news-and-events/news/2025/06/ifrs-foundation-publishes-jurisdictional-profiles-issb-standards/#:~:text=Thirty%2Dsix%20jurisdictions%20have%20adopted,them%20into%20their%20regulatory%20frameworks.
[11] Observatoire des sociétés à mission (2024), Portrait des sociétés à mission, https://www.observatoiredessocietesamission.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/BAROMETRE-8-web.pdf.
[10] Observatoire des sociétés à mission (2022), Portrait et chffres clés des sociétés à mission, https://www.observatoiredessocietesamission.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/OBS_CEM_infograph_8.pdf.
[12] OECD (2025), Behind ESG ratings: Unpacking sustainability metrics, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/3f055f0c-en.
[1] OECD (2025), OECD Corporate Governance Factbook 2025, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/f4f43735-en.
[9] OECD (2024), Global Corporate Sustainability Report 2024, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/8416b635-en.
[13] OECD (2023), G20/OECD Principles of Corporate Governance 2023, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/ed750b30-en.
[14] OECD (2023), OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises on Responsible Business Conduct, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/81f92357-en.
[6] OECD (2023), Sustainability Policies and Practices for Corporate Governance in Latin America, Corporate Governance, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/76df2285-en.
[5] Public Safety Canada (2025), International Reporting on Modern Slavery Forced Labour and Child Labour, https://www.securitepublique.gc.ca/cnt/cntrng-crm/frcd-lbr-cndn-spply-chns/ntrntnl-rprtng-frcd-lbr-chld-lbr-tmplt-en.aspx.