The category “Developed Asia-Pacific excl. US” includes Australia, Canada, Hong Kong (China), Japan, Macau, New Zealand, Singapore, South Korea 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. “Middle East and Africa” includes jurisdictions classified as “Middle East and Central Asia” in IMF’s World Economic Outlook Database. Excluding those already considered in “Developed Asia-Pacific excl. US” and Israel. “Emerging and Developing Asia excl. China” includes all jurisdictions in Asia that are classified as emerging market and developing economies in IMF’s World Economic Outlook Database excluding China. “Others” includes jurisdictions that are not represented in the other categories in the figure (e.g., Türkiye).
Global Corporate Sustainability Report 2025
A.1.1. Regional classification
A.1.2. Listed companies
The information on the number of listed companies and their market capitalisation is based on LSEG Screener and the following criteria are used to clean the data:
Security type classified as “units” and “trust” are excluded.
For firms with multiple listings, only primary listings are kept.
For firms with multiple observations but different countries of domicile, their true country of domicile is manually checked to remove the duplicates.
Firms trading on over-the-counter (OTC) markets and those listed on multilateral trading facilities (MTFs) or SME/growth markets are excluded. SME/growth markets included in the analysis are: Korea Exchange (KOSDAQ), New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) and Nasdaq Capital Market (NASDAQ).
Special Purpose Acquisition Companies (SPACs) are excluded.
Investment funds are excluded.
Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs) are excluded.
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, sustainability risks faced by companies, highest emitting companies, green R&D and green patents, companies with high green innovation, 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, companies with public benefit objectives, policies on shareholder engagement, employee representation on the board, trade unions, turnover rates, training hours, disclosure on stakeholder engagement, artificial intelligence ethics policies, disclosure of human rights information, financials, GHG emissions, carbon offsets / credits / allowances, lobbying disclosure and lobbying-related practices, environmental R&D and CapEx, double materiality assessments, .
The dataset’s coverage varies depending on the specific datapoint but, for instance, it includes information on more than 16 829 companies listed on 89 markets with a total USD 120 trillion market capitalisation at the end of 2024 with respect to whether they disclosed sustainability information or not in 2024 or 2025. Out of the 44 152 listed companies, the difference of 27 323 listed companies represents the companies for which the information is unavailable in the commercial databases used to develop the OECD Corporate Sustainability Dataset.
The main data sources (LSEG, Bloomberg and MSCI) were controlled against each other to ensure consistency and complementarity. Information was retrieved as of September 2025.
Sustainability disclosure by trusts, funds or special purpose acquisition companies was excluded from the universe under analysis. Sustainability disclosure for years prior to 2023 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. The figure also presents the change with respect to 2022 in percentage points regarding this metric.
Figure 2.2 displays the share of companies that reported sustainability information by market capitalisation (and by no. of companies in Annex Figure A A.1) among all listed companies in each industry. For instance, out of the 5 704 basic materials companies globally with a total market capitalisation of USD 6.5 trillion, 1 550 basic materials companies with USD 5.7 trillion of market capitalisation report sustainability information, accounting for 88 % of the total market capitalisation of the industry.
Source: OECD Corporate Sustainability dataset, LSEG, Bloomberg, MSCI.
Figure 2.3, Panel A 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. Panel B displays the shares of companies for which third party estimations of scope 1 and 2 GHG emissions are available. In some cases, these estimations are only available if the company has not reported the information itself, so the shares of companies for which either reported or estimated information is available are slightly higher than the shares visible in Panel B.
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 A.2) among all listed companies in each industry. For instance, out of the 5 704 basic materials companies globally with a total market capitalisation of USD 6.5 trillion, 1 355 basic materials companies with USD 5.5 trillion of market capitalisation report scope 1 and 2 emissions information, accounting for 84% 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.
Source: OECD Corporate Sustainability dataset, LSEG, Bloomberg, MSCI.
Figure 2.5, Panel A 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. Panel B displays the shares of companies for which third party estimations of scope 3 GHG emissions are available. In some cases, these estimations are only available if the company has not reported the information itself, so the shares of companies for which either reported or estimated information is available are slightly higher than the shares visible in Panel B.
Figure 2.6 displays the shares of companies that disclosed scope 3 GHG emissions (by market capitalisation and by no. of companies in Annex Figure A A.3) among all listed companies in each industry. For instance, out of the 5 704 basic materials companies globally with a total market capitalisation of USD 6.5 trillion, 815 basic materials companies with USD 4.3 trillion of market capitalisation report scope 3 emissions information, accounting for 67% of the total market capitalisation of the industry.
Source: OECD Corporate Sustainability dataset, LSEG, Bloomberg, MSCI.
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. This includes companies that had either their sustainability report, or their GHG emissions, or other sustainability information assured by a third party For instance, in the case of the global category, out of the 12 890 worldwide listed companies that disclosed sustainability‑related information with a market capitalisation of USD 114.3 trillion, 5 458 companies with a market capitalisation of USD 92.5 trillion had their sustainability information assured by an independent third party, accounting for 81% in terms of market capitalisation.
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 5 458 worldwide listed companies that had their sustainability information verified by an independent third party with a market capitalisation of USD 92.5 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 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 5 458 worldwide listed companies that had their sustainability information verified by an independent third party with a market capitalisation of USD 92.5 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 2.10 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 5 458 companies that had their sustainability information assured by an independent third party with a market capitalisation of USD 92.5 trillion, 3 650 disclosed the name of the independent third party, among which 1 985 identified an auditor and 1 665 other assurance providers. The independent third party was classified as an auditor right away if it appeared more frequently in financial statements than in sustainability reports. A series of checks was conducted on the other independent third parties to determine whether they are auditors or not.
Figure 2.11 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 3 650 companies that disclosed the name of their assurance provider with a market capitalisation of USD 74.8 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 2.12 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 did not report compliance with any specific reporting standard among the ones highlighted in the figure.
Figure 2.13 displays the shares of companies that disclosed GHG emission reduction targets and targets related to energy use (by no. of companies and by market capitalisation) among all listed companies within each region. GHG emission reduction targets mainly include specific GHG emission reductions but can also include related targets that are aimed at reducing GHG emissions (except such targets related to energy use, which make up the other category). Targets related to energy use typically aim to reduce energy consumption or to increase the share of renewable energy in that consumption. They might be implicitly aimed at reducing GHG emissions but were classified separately here. If such a target was expressed in a unit measuring the resulting GHG emissions reduction, it was classified as a GHG target rather than an energy use target. Overall, targets from a targets database were classified into either category using information such as the intended scope of the target, the unit of the target or the presence of some key words in the description of the target. Targets with a target year set prior to 2024 or a baseline year set in the future were not taken into account.
Figure 2.14 displays the shares of companies that have their earliest GHG emission reduction target set before 2030, in 2030, and after 2030 (by no. of companies and by market capitalisation) among all listed companies that disclosed GHG emission reduction targets, within each region. Contrarily to Figure 2.13, targets related to energy use were not taken into account, nor were GHG emission reduction targets associated with no specific year. Targets with a target year set prior to 2024 or a baseline year set in the future were not taken into account. “Earliest target” means the target with the earliest target year among all targets disclosed by a company. For instance, in the case of the global category, the share is calculated over 5 504 listed companies with a market capitalisation of USD 95.5 trillion that disclosed GHG emission reduction targets associated to a target year set in 2024 or after, and associated either to no baseline year or to a baseline year set before 2025.
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. Only targets with a baseline year inferior to their target year were counted as having a baseline year. For each company, the targets considered here are only the earliest ones. For companies with several targets set in their earliest target year, having at least one target associated to a baseline year was counted as having a baseline year. Contrarily to Figure 2.13, targets related to energy use were not taken into account, nor were GHG emission reduction targets associated with no specific year. Targets with a target year set prior to 2024 or a baseline year set in the future were not taken into account. For instance, in the case of the global category, the share is calculated over 5 504 listed companies with a market capitalisation of USD 95.5 trillion that disclosed GHG emission reduction targets associated to a target year set in 2024 or after, and associated either to no baseline year or to a baseline year set before 2025.
Figure 2.16 displays the shares of companies using targets expressed in absolute amounts of GHG emissions and targets expressed in GHG emissions intensity (by no. of companies and by market capitalisation) among all listed companies that disclosed GHG emission reduction targets, within each region. Targets expressed in absolute terms are goals directly expressed in total amounts of GHG emitted by one part or all of the company, for a given scope of emissions or for several, etc. Targets expressed in GHG emissions intensity are goals set in terms of emissions per unit of something (typically a unit of revenue, or some type of production unit). For each company, the targets considered here are only the earliest ones. For companies with several targets set in their earliest target year, the type of each target was taken into account, meaning that a company can count towards both categories. Contrarily to Figure 2.13, targets related to energy use were not taken into account, but contrarily to Figure 2.14 and Figure 2.15, GHG emission reduction targets associated with no specific year were taken into account. Targets with a target year set prior to 2024 or a baseline year set in the future were not taken into account. For instance, in the case of the global category, the shares are calculated considering the metrics disclosed by 5 524 listed companies with a market capitalisation of USD 95.6 trillion that disclosed GHG emission reduction targets associated either to no target year or to a target year set in 2024 or after, and associated either to no baseline year or to a baseline year set before 2025.
Figure 2.19 displays the 100 listed companies with the highest total disclosed GHG emissions, which includes scope 1, 2 and 3 GHG emissions. They are broken down by region and by industry. The percentages are based on the number of companies in each category, not the market capitalisation.
Figure 2.20 displays the type of investors that hold shares of the 100 listed companies with the highest total disclosed GHG emissions. Percentages are obtained for each region and investor class combination by dividing the sum of the shares owned by that investor class in each company of the list from that region (with the shares owned expressed as a percentage of total shares for each company), by the total number of companies of the list from that region. Hence, companies of the list are treated as if they were the same size in market capitalisation, i.e. owning 1% of the shares in company A is counted as equivalent to owning 1% of the shares in company B.
Figure 2.21 displays, for each region, the average percentage of shares held by the largest shareholder, 3 largest shareholders, 5 largest shareholders, 20 largest shareholders, and 50 largest shareholders, for companies which are part of the 100 listed companies with the highest total disclosed GHG emissions.
Figure 2.22 displays the breakdown by regions of the total global number of patents held by listed companies and the total global number of green patents held by listed companies. Patents are attributed to regions and countries based on the company’s country of exchange. The number of patents totals 3.7 million for the 44 152 listed companies globally, out of 8.9 million of patents included in the MSCI dataset, which also includes patents held by non-listed companies. Patents are available for almost 5 300 companies among the 44 152 listed companies, with patents being available, for instance, for 4% of companies in China, 25% in Japan, 37% in the United States, and 50% in Switzerland. The figure also presents the percentage of green patents among all patents for each region. Patents are classified as green based on MSCI’s low-carbon patent classification which relies on the Cooperative Patent Classification (CPC), developed by the European Patent Office (EPO), the International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD) and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), and further helped by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)). Low-carbon patents are those falling in subclasses Y02 and Y04 of the CPC (respectively "technologies or applications for mitigation or adaptation against climate change" and “information or communication technologies having an impact on other technology areas” which comprises smart grids).
Figure 2.23 displays the 100 listed companies with the highest number of green patents. They are broken down by region and by industry. The percentages are based on the number of companies in each category, not the market capitalisation.
Figure 2.24 displays the type of investors that hold shares of the 100 listed companies with the highest number of green patents. Percentages are obtained for each region and investor class combination by dividing the sum of the shares owned by that investor class in each company of the list from that region (with the shares owned expressed as a percentage of total shares for each company), by the total number of companies of the list from that region. Hence, companies of the list are treated as if they were the same size in market capitalisation i.e. owning 1% of the shares in company A is counted as equivalent to owning 1% of the shares in company B.
Figure 2.25 displays, for each region, the average percentage of shares held by the largest shareholder, 3 largest shareholders, 5 largest shareholders, 20 largest shareholders, and 50 largest shareholders, for companies which are part of the 100 listed companies with the highest number of green patents.
Figure 2.26 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 2.27, Panel A displays the share of companies that have a board-level oversight of climate-related issues and risk management (by no. of companies and by market capitalisation) among all listed companies within each region. Panel B displays the share of companies that have a board-level oversight of management of health and safety risks, beyond simply signing a health and safety policy. Panel C displays the share of companies that have a board-level oversight of human rights, i.e. if the oversight responsibility and resources to ensure respect for human rights is assigned to a member or committee of the board.
Figure 2.28, Panel A displays the share of companies that have a performance-oriented compensation policy based on sustainability factors or goals (by no. of companies and by market capitalisation) among all listed companies that have any type of performance-oriented compensation policy within each region. The compensation policy includes remuneration for the CEO, executive directors, non-board executives, and other management bodies. Panel B displays the share of companies that have some executive compensation based on climate-related goals and performance (by no. of companies and by market capitalisation) among all listed companies. Contrarily to Panel A, shares for Panel B are computed among all listed companies, not just the ones with a performance-oriented compensation policy.
Figure 2.29 displays the number of private and listed companies with public benefit objectives incorporated in Delaware and France as of 2021, 2023 and 2025. 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 sourced from 2022 and 2024 reports from the Observatoire des sociétés à mission, as well as from the organization’s website. The thirteen listed sociétés à mission are (in alphabetical order) Arverne Group (Arverne Drilling), Clariane, Danone, Electricité de Strasbourg, Frey, LNA Santé, Obiz, Ramsay Générale De Santé, Realites, Teract, Versity (Les Agences de Papa), Voltalia, Vranken Pommery Monopole.
Figure 2.30 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 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.
Figure 2.31, Panel A 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, by region. Panel B shows those shares by industry. The employee representation includes the board members who serve as designated employee representatives. Data is sourced mainly from the company’s primary corporate governance filing, and is complemented with information from other corporate filings, company websites or other sources.
Figure 2.32, Panel A displays the share of companies that disclosed the share of their employees represented by independent trade union organisations or covered by collective bargaining agreements (including disclosed shares of 0%) (by no. of companies and by market capitalisation). Panel B provides the mean, median and quartiles of this metric for each region. Panel C shows these same statistics for this same metric by industry.
Figure 2.33, Panel A displays the share of companies that disclosed their employee turnover rate (including disclosed rates of 0%) (by no. of companies and by market capitalisation). Panel B provides the mean, median and quartiles of this metric for each region. Panel C shows these same statistics for this same metric by industry.
Figure 2.34, Panel A displays the share of companies that disclosed their average training hours per employee (including disclosed averages of 0 hours) (by no. of companies and by market capitalisation). Panel B provides the mean, median and quartiles of this metric for each region. Panel C shows these same statistics for this same metric by industry.
Figure 2.35, Panel A 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. 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. Panel B shows the share of companies that have undertaken stakeholder engagement on human rights issues. Companies taken into account are the ones for which there is clear evidence of ongoing engagement/consultation with affected stakeholders (or representatives) to address and uphold human rights concerns and interests.
Figure 2.36, Panel A displays the number of listed companies that have disclosed an artificial intelligence policy by industry. Panel B shows the share of listed companies that have disclosed such a policy for each industry, by market capitalisation. This metric takes into account ethical guidelines or compliance activity linked to a company's commitment to AI that minimises bias and promotes inclusive representation.
Figure 2.37 displays the share of companies, by region, that have disclosed having in place each of the following policies or processes (by number of companies and by market capitalisation):
a policy to ensure the respect of human rights in general (Panel A)
a policy to avoid the use of child labour (Panel B)
a policy to avoid the use of forced labour (Panel C)
processes to ensure the freedom of association of its employees (Panel D).
Figure 2.38 and Figure 2.39 display the share of companies that have taken each of the following actions/disclosed each of the following information:
Clear allocation of human rights responsibilities: whether the company has a clear process of assigning daily tasks and necessary resources to relevant departments for the supervision and protection of human rights
Identification of salient human rights issues: whether the company has identified and disclosed which specific human rights could be impacted by its business activities
Formal human rights grievance mechanism: whether the company has formal grievance mechanisms which cover human rights explicitly, guarantee confidentiality or anonymity, and are available to internal and external stakeholders
Disclosure on avoidance, prevention and mitigation measures: whether the company has taken actions in response to human rights risks to its business
Disclosure on supplier monitoring outcomes and responses: whether the company discloses the results from the monitoring or auditing of its suppliers and from investigations to identify and evaluate the non-compliance related to social responsibilities within their operation.
Disclosure on instances of human rights violations: whether the company discloses incidents of human rights violations and responses to them, or states that no incidents occurred in the reporting period.
Figure 3.1, Panel A displays the sum of scope 1 (direct CO2 and CO2 equivalent emissions), scope 2 (indirect CO2 and CO2 equivalent emissions resulting from the energy consumed by the company and produced by another actor) and scope 3 (other indirect CO2 and CO2 equivalent emissions) GHG emissions disclosed by companies. For each region, this metric is shown for all energy companies, oil & gas companies only, and for energy companies as a percentage of all listed companies. For instance, globally energy companies disclose emitting 23 352 MtCO₂e annually, of which 13 382 MtCO₂e are emitted by oil & gas companies. As all listed companies disclose emitting 75 069 MtCO₂e annually, energy companies are responsible for 31% of these emissions. Panels B and C follow the same logic, presenting respectively total assets and market capitalisation.
Figure 3.2, Panel A displays the shares of companies that disclosed scope 1 and 2 GHG emissions (by no. of companies and by market capitalisation) among all listed energy companies within each region. Only the companies that reported both scope 1 and scope 2 GHG emissions are counted in the analysis. It also shows the share of all listed energy companies that are oil & gas companies disclosing both scope 1 and scope 2 GHG emissions. For instance, out of the 2 475 listed energy companies 37% (915 companies) disclosed scope 1 and 2 emissions, and 16% (still of the 2 475 listed energy companies) (386 companies) are oil & gas companies that have disclosed scope 1 and 2 GHG emissions. Panel B follows the same logic, displaying the share of companies that reported scope 3 GHG emissions.
Figure 3.3 displays, in absolute terms, by region, for all energy companies and for oil & gas companies, scope 1 GHG emissions, scope 2 GHG emissions, scope 2 GHG emissions using the location-based method only, scope 2 GHG emissions using the market-based method only, scope 3 GHG emissions, and scope 3 category 11 GHG emissions (emissions from the use of sold products), respectively in Panel A, Panel B, Panel C, Panel D, Panel E, and Panel F.
Figure 3.4 displays the total scope 1, scope 2 and scope 3 GHG emissions (respectively Panel A, Panel B and Panel C) of listed energy companies that are SOEs, and of listed energy companies that are not SOEs, by region. The SOE categorisation corresponds to companies that are either owned or controlled by the government or any governmental body, if the latter has more than 25% of shares, or 50% of votes, or has a golden share in the company, which gives it veto power.
Figure 3.7, Panel A displays, for each region, by number of companies, the share of listed energy companies that had their GHG emissions assured to a “limited” assurance level by an independent third party, the share that had their GHG emissions assured to a “reasonable” assurance level by an independent third party, the share that had their GHG emissions assured but for which the level of assurance could not be found, and the share that did not have their GHG emissions assured. The shares are computed among listed energy companies that disclosed either their scope 1 and scope 2 GHG emissions or their scope 3 GHG emissions. For instance, in the case of the global category, the shares are calculated over 909 listed energy companies that disclosed either their scope 1 and 2 emissions or their scope 3 emissions. Among these 924 companies, 412 (45%) did not assure their GHG emissions, 224 (24%) assured their emissions but the level of assurance could not be found, 183 (20%) had their emissions assured by an independent third party to a “limited” level, and 105 (11%) had their emissions assured by such a third party to a “reasonable” level. If for the same company some scopes were assured but not others, its GHG emissions were considered to be assured to the level of the assured scope. If for the same company some scopes were assured to a “limited” level and others to a “reasonable” level, GHG emissions were considered to be assured to a “reasonable” level for that company. 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”. For Panel B, see A.1.4.6 below.
Figure 3.8, Panel A displays the equivalent of the CO₂ offsets, credits and allowances purchased and/or produced by listed energy companies during the fiscal year. Companies evolving in certain sectors have a limit on the amount of emissions if they exceed this limit, they purchase credit to balance it and if they are short from this limit, they can sell the remainder of the allowance. Only carbon credit purchased and produced are considered. Investments in green projects reported as carbon offsets are also in scope. The figure also presents this amount as a share of the total GHG emissions reported by listed energy companies. For Panel B, see A.1.4.6 below.
Figure 3.9, Panel A displays, for each region, the share of listed energy companies that disclose their position on climate-related public policy and regulation (by no. of companies and by market capitalisation). Panel B shows the share of listed energy companies that disclose the general trade or business associations of which they are members and those associations' positions on climate, by region. Panel C presents, for each region, the share of listed energy companies that have a policy or commitment statement to ensure consistency between their climate change policy and the positions taken by the trade associations of which they are members. For Panel D, see A.1.4.6 below.
Figure 3.11, Panel A 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 research and development costs for the development of products and services focusing on improving the environmental impact reduction and innovation. Panel B shows that same information for listed energy companies only (share of companies that disclosed environmental R&D among all listed energy companies within each region).
Figure 3.12, Panel A displays, for each region, the ratio between the sum of environmental/green R&D expenses incurred by all listed energy companies and the sum of all R&D expenses incurred by these companies (the two sums are computed independently for each region, then the ratio is calculated, so this is not an average of the ratios of each individual company). R&D expenses represent expenses for research and development of new products and services by a company in order to obtain a competitive advantage. It represents the portion expensed during the year, and excludes the portion capitalised to tangible or intangible assets. Capitalisation of research and development expenditure is rare for US companies. In cases where this measure was not available, it was complemented by an estimate from the Institutional Brokers' Estimate System. Environmental R&D expenses include research and development costs for the development of products and services focusing on improving the environmental impact reduction and innovation. Companies reporting a higher amount for green R&D than for total R&D were excluded from the computation. For Panel B, see A.1.4.6 below.
Figure 3.13, Panel A displays the share of companies disclosing the current percentage or amount of capital expenditures (CapEx) that they deploy to climate-related opportunities, among all listed companies, by region. Panel B shows that same information for listed energy companies only (share of companies that disclosed environmental CapEx among all listed energy companies within each region).
Figure 3.15, Panel A displays the evolution of the sum of the net cash provided by operating activities of all listed energy companies in 2024, from 2015 to 2024. Panel B shows the evolution of the sums of dividends paid and of net repurchase of shares by the same companies over the same period. Dividends paid represents all cash dividends paid to common and preferred stockholders (it can also include stock dividends if the company reports them as a cash distribution). Net repurchase of shares means the net cash outflow obtained by subtracting cash inflows due to issuance of common or preferred stock from cash outflows due to repurchase or retirement of stock. In addition, the dashed line in the panel represents the total net cash outflow for all of those companies for each year, obtained by summing dividends paid and net repurchase of shares. Panel C presents the evolution of the main components of the net cash used in investing activities, with each one summed for all listed energy companies from 2015 to 2024. These components are (i) capital expenditures, (ii) net acquisition of business assets, and (iii) investments excluding loans, CapEx and business acquisition. Capital expenditures (or CapEx) here are the net cash outflows from the purchase (or sale) of property, plant and equipment, and intangible assets (they might also include financial investments for companies that do not break down their net cash used in investment activities enough to distinguish between the necessary components). Cash flows linked to the purchase or sale of investment property are also included in CapEx for property companies only. Net acquisition of business assets represents the net cash outflow from the sale or purchase of new businesses. Investments excluding loans, CapEx and business acquisition are the net cash outflows linked to the purchase or sale of investment Property excluded from capital expenditures and of unclassified investment securities. In addition, the dashed line in the panel represents the total net cash used in investing activities for all companies for each year, obtained by summing components (i) – (iii). Beyond these three components, companies occasionally report other cash flows from investing activities. However, these cumulatively account for only ~0.5% of total net cash used in investing activities for all listed companies according to LSEG and are therefore excluded from Panel C. Panel D displays the evolution of the sum of R&D expenses for all listed energy companies from 2015 to 2024. R&D expenses represent expenses for research and development of new products and services by a company in order to obtain a competitive advantage. It represents the portion expensed during the year, and excludes the portion capitalised to tangible or intangible assets. Capitalisation of research and development expenditure is rare for US companies. In cases where this measure was not available, it was complemented by an estimate from the Institutional Brokers' Estimate System
Figure 3.16, Panel A displays the share of companies that have any type of performance-oriented compensation policy for the CEO, executive directors, non-board executives, or other management bodies (not specifically a sustainability-related one). Panel B shows the share of companies that have a performance-oriented compensation policy for these same actors based on sustainability factors or goals. Panel C presents the share of companies that have such a remuneration policy which incorporates climate change performance and goals as KPIs. Panel D displays the share of companies that have remuneration arrangements for its CEO or other members of the executive committee that incorporate progress towards achieving the company’s GHG reduction targets as a KPI determining compensation. For all panels, shares are computed separately among all listed companies and among energy listed companies. Each panel presents those shares for each region by no. of companies and by market capitalisation.
Figure 3.18 and Figure 3.19, the OECD identified 48 EU-listed companies operating in the energy sector and registered in the Accounting for Transparency’s Sustainability Reporting Navigator. All but one had conducted a DMA and 42 companies explicitly mapped material IROs to the ten ESRS topics. The final sample of 42 listed energy companies includes companies headquartered in 18 EU Member States and one from the United Kingdom. By SICS industry classification, 19 fall under Electric Utilities & Power Generators, 14 under Oil & Gas (e.g. Exploration & Production, Midstream, etc.), and nine under diverse industries such as Engineering & Construction Services and Wind Technology & Project Developers. On average, the companies in the sample report EUR 42 million in total assets (CSRD threshold: 25 million), EUR 25 million in annual revenue (threshold: 50 million), and 21 000 employees (threshold: 250).
A.1.4. 100 energy companies’ sample
1. Purpose and scope
The methodology detailed below was applied for the 100 listed energy companies sample used in Chapter 3 in addition to the data sample about all listed energy companies. Chapter 3 focuses on corporate sustainability disclosures by energy companies globally. The assessment covers publicly listed energy companies and focuses on five governance-relevant metrics directly related to sustainability: (i) greenhouse-gas emissions, (ii) lobbying, (iii) executive remuneration, (iv) research and development, and (v) capital expenditure. The data cut-off for documents reviewed was August 2025.
2. Company selection
The sample of companies comprises publicly listed energy companies, including SOEs, with primary activities in upstream, midstream, downstream, power generation, integrated utilities, or diversified energy technology. The first step consisted of ranking all the energy firms listed by market capitalisation. This list was then segmented in three categories based on the companies’ total assets: large, medium and small-sized companies.
The initial target sample covered 50 companies, with one-third drawn from each category (17/17/16). The sample was later extended to 100 companies while keeping the same proportions (see 4. Prompt development and 5. Data extraction below). Among each group, companies were picked randomly ensuring a balanced distribution across world regions based on the country of exchange.
If a company’s disclosures were unobtainable, not machine-readable, or not reasonably translatable, it was replaced by another firm from the same category.
3. Metric selection
For comparability and replicability, metrics divided into five categories were developed:
1. GHG emissions: disclosures of scope 1, 2, 3 and additional fields capture baselines, interim/long‑term targets, carbon credits and assurance.
2. Lobbying: disclosures of direct and indirect lobbying, jurisdictions in which the company lobbies, amount of funds dedicated to lobbying, climate-related positions, a code of conduct application to lobbying activities.
3. Executive remuneration: linkages with transition goals, KPI sustainability-related goals for senior executives and all employees.
4. Research & Development: disclosed total R&D and, when disclosed, the share dedicated to low‑carbon/transition technologies.
5. Capital expenditures: disclosed CapEx and, when disclosed, allocation to low-carbon vs carbon‑intensive assets.
4. Prompt development
To enhance consistency and efficiency across heterogeneous documents, a standardised instruction set (“the prompt”) to guide a generative AI model (“the GenAI”) to extract the data matching was developed. The development of the prompt was iteratively refined by analysing the mistakes it made when extracting the data. Revisions focused on the prioritisation of the sources it extracted (e.g., hierarchy of sources, year of the document) and the quality of the data it extracted (e.g., repeated mistakes relating to the unit used, material understanding of a notion).
The standardised prompt instructed the AI to extract targeted information from the most recent corporate disclosures (from fiscal years 2023, 2024, or 2025). To ensure consistency, the prompt also requested the exact source (report type, page number, and hyperlink if available) and contextual notes (e.g. currency conversions, partial disclosures, or discrepancies). These details enabled human verification of the extracted data for 100 companies.
While the primary working language of the AI model was English, documents in other languages were reviewed when sufficiently machine-readable translations were available. However, limited access to high‑quality translations may have constrained full analysis of disclosures from certain non-Anglophone jurisdictions. In fact, in the few cases where reliable translation was not possible, or where important difficulties in obtaining company reports were encountered, the company was replaced with another one from the top part of the random list of the size group to which the company belonged.
The objective of the prompt was to get the GenAI to produce five tables corresponding to the developed metrics that could be extracted on excel.
5. Data extraction
The data extraction occurred in three phases:
Phase 1: Extraction of information for 20 companies (7/7/6). Each metric was independently (a) manually researched by an analyst, then (b) extracted by AI, then (c) manually checked by confronting results by an analyst.
Phase 2: Extension of the sample of 30 additional companies (10/10/10), amounting to a total of 50 companies (17/17/16). Each metric was (a) extracted by AI, then (b) manually checked by confronting results by an analyst.
The process followed in phase 1 and 2 allowed the calculation of an AI accuracy rate of 69%.
Phase 3: Extension of the sample of 50 additional companies (17/16/17), amounting to a total of 100 companies (34/33/33), by using the Deepsearch feature. Each metric was (a) extracted in a batch by AI using the Deepsearch feature, then (b) manually checked by confronting results by an analyst. This process allowed the calculation of a Deepsearch AI accuracy rate of 80%.
For quantitative metrics, conversions were operated to standardise units, and spot exchange rates were used to standardise currencies. For “yes/no” metrics, both “no” and “NA” (not applicable / not available) answers were considered as negative answers for the purpose of the present report. When computing the percentage of companies doing X for instance, the percentage is the percentage of “yes” for metric X among all 100 companies including both the companies which explicitly say they do not do X (“no”) and the ones for which any officially disclosed information on whether they do X or not (“NA”) was found.
6. Figures
Figure 3.5, Panel A displays the average amount of scope 1 and scope 2 GHG emissions reported by large companies from the sample for their baseline year (the year that they are using as a baseline against which to measure their progress towards their reduction target), the current year, their interim target year, and their long-term target year. Averages for interim and long-term target years were obtained by first computing the amount of scope 1 and scope 2 GHG emissions emitted by the company during that year if it reached exactly its reduction target for these scopes (target often expressed in percentage). Net‑zero targets were interpreted as a 100% reduction in GHG emissions of the relevant scope. Only companies that reported each metric / target could be included in that average, hence the number of companies taken into account for each average varies. On the right-hand side scale, the panel shows the percentage of companies from the sample that disclosed each of the aforementioned metrics/targets for each of the two scopes. Panels B and C follow the same logic for medium and small companies, respectively.
Figure 3.6, Panel B displays the average amount of scope 3 GHG emissions reported by large companies from the sample for their baseline year (the year that they are using as a baseline against which to measure their progress towards their reduction target), the current year, their interim target year, and their long-term target year. Averages for interim and long-term target years were obtained by first computing what would be the amount of scope 3 GHG emissions emitted by the company during that year if it reached exactly its reduction target for these scopes (target often expressed in percentage). Net-zero targets were interpreted as a 100% reduction in GHG emissions of the relevant scope. Only companies that reported each metric/target could be included in that average; hence, the number of companies taken into account for each average varies. On the right-hand side scale, the panel shows the percentage of companies from the sample that disclosed each of the aforementioned metrics/targets for each of the two scopes. Panels B and C follow the same logic for medium and small companies, respectively.
Figure 3.7, Panel B displays, for each of the three market capitalisation category, the share of companies from the sample that disclosed having their GHG emissions assured to a “limited” assurance level by an independent third party, the share that disclosed having their GHG emissions assured to a “reasonable” assurance level by an independent third party, and the share that did not report having their GHG emissions assured. For Panel A, see A.1.3 above.
Figure 3.8, Panel B displays the total of CO₂ offsets, credits and allowances that were purchased, retired, or produced by the companies from each category of the sample during the fiscal year, as reported by companies. It also shows, for each category, that same number as a share of the total GHG emissions reported by companies from that category. For Panel A, see A.1.3 above.
Figure 3.9, Panel D displays the average amount of funds allocated to lobbying reported by companies from each category of the sample for the fiscal year. It also shows the share of companies from each category that disclosed the amount of funds they dedicate to lobbying. For Panels A, B and C, see A.1.3 above.
Figure 3.10 displays, for each category of the sample, the percentage of companies that disclosed any lobbying activities, that disclosed direct lobbying activities, that disclosed indirect lobbying activities, that disclosed energy or climate-related activities, that disclosed the amount of funds they used in the fiscal year for lobbying, that have or disclosed having a lobbying code, that disclosed the jurisdictions in which they lobby, that disclosed providing training programs to employees involved in lobbying, that conducted or disclosed conducting an annual review of their lobbying activities, and that disclosed the goal of their lobbying activities.
Figure 3.12, Panel B displays the ratio between the sum of environmental/green R&D expenses incurred by all large companies from the sample and the sum of all R&D expenses incurred by these companies (the two sums are computed independently for each region, then the ratio is calculated, so this is not an average of the ratios of each individual company). For environmental R&D expenses, only R&D expenses reported as green or low-carbon by the company or explicitly associated with green or low-carbon projects were taken into account. Companies reporting a higher amount for green R&D than for total R&D were excluded from the computation. Similarly, companies reporting a green R&D amount but no total R&D amount were excluded from the computation. The computation could not be done for the medium and small categories of the sample, as the data was too scarce. For Panel A, see A.1.3 above.
Figure 3.14 displays, for each category of the sample, the share of capital expenditures reported as being green/low-carbon capital expenditures among the total of reported capital expenditures. For each category, this was computed by taking the total of capital expenditures and the total of low-carbon capital expenditures reported by companies from that category and then dividing the second by the first. Hence, ratios were not computed separately for each company, and the fact that companies report their total capital expenditures much more often than their low-carbon capital expenditure can drive the ratios down, especially for the medium and small categories. When a company did not explicitly report a number called “capital expenditures”, the total capital expenditures of the company were assumed to be the sum of cash used to purchase property, plant and equipment and cash used to purchase intangible assets (only cash outflows were considered, hence gross capital expenditures were used and not net capital expenditures). For low-carbon / green CapEx, only amounts explicitly reported by the company as low‑carbon / green CapEx or CapEx used for green projects were considered.
Figure 3.17 displays extra-financial remuneration KPIs and displays the number of companies of the 100 companies’ sample having at least one remuneration KPI in each of the 10 chosen KPI categories. These categories are “Health, Safety & Environment (HSE)”, “Carbon emissions and Energy transition”, “Governance, Ethics, Risk management & Compliance”, “Diversity, Equity & Inclusion (DEI)”, “Employee Engagement & Culture”, “Customer & Stakeholder Relations”, “ESG Ratings”, “Reporting & Strategy, Efficiency of resources usage (energy or water)”, “Pollution & Environmental Incidents”, and “Innovation & R&D”. The “Carbon emissions and Energy transition” category includes KPIs linked to GHG emissions, carbon management, renewable energy, and energy transition. “Pollution & Environmental Incidents” notably include KPIs linked to fluid spills.
© 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 five 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.
Certain information contained herein (the “Information”) is sourced from/copyright of MSCI Inc., MSCI ESG Research LLC, or their affiliates (“MSCI”), or information providers (together the “MSCI Parties”) and may have been used to calculate scores, signals, or other indicators. The Information is for internal use only and may not be reproduced or disseminated in whole or part without prior written permission. The Information may not be used for, nor does it constitute, an offer to buy or sell, or a promotion or recommendation of, any security, financial instrument or product, trading strategy, or index, nor should it be taken as an indication or guarantee of any future performance. Some funds may be based on or linked to MSCI indexes, and MSCI may be compensated based on the fund’s assets under management or other measures. MSCI has established an information barrier between index research and certain Information. None of the Information in and of itself can be used to determine which securities to buy or sell or when to buy or sell them. The Information is provided “as is” and the user assumes the entire risk of any use it may make or permit to be made of the Information. No MSCI Party warrants or guarantees the originality, accuracy and/or completeness of the Information and each expressly disclaims all express or implied warranties. No MSCI Party shall have any liability for any errors or omissions in connection with any Information herein, or any liability for any direct, indirect, special, punitive, consequential or any other damages (including lost profits) even if notified of the possibility of such damages.
In addition to the terms and conditions of any license agreement for MSCI information, services or products (“MSCI Products”) entered into with MSCI Inc. and/or its affiliates (“MSCI”) by customers (“Customer(s)”), each Customer must comply with the terms and conditions required by third party suppliers (“Supplier(s)”) regarding Customer’s use of Supplier content, data, software and other materials (“Materials”) within MSCI Products. Customers may also be required to pay additional fees associated with Supplier Materials. If a Customer does not comply with a Supplier’s terms, a Supplier may enforce such terms and/or require MSCI to terminate Customer’s access to that Supplier’s Materials, without any remedy to Customer.
Additional terms and conditions required by Suppliers with respect to its Materials are provided in the expanders below. If Customer receives Materials from a Supplier not listed below via MSCI Products, additional terms and conditions related to such Materials may apply. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary set forth below, none of the additional terms and conditions of MSCI Suppliers shall supersede (nor shall MSCI waive) any MSCI proprietary and/or intellectual property rights in MSCI Products.
The ownership figures for publicly listed companies are based on OECD calculations using firm-level information from the FactSet Ownership database. The data are complemented and verified using LSEG and Bloomberg. Data are collected at the end of 2024 in current USD, thus no inflation adjustment is needed. Market information for each company is collected from LSEG. The dataset includes the records of owners for 46 086 companies listed across 98 countries covering 99% of the world market capitalisation. For each of the countries/regions presented, the information corresponds to all listed companies in those countries/regions with available information.
The records of owners are 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 name, among other things.
The table below presents the five categories of owners defined and used in this report following De La Cruz, Medina and Tang (2019[1]). Different types of investors are grouped into these five categories of owners. 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 public sector, and sovereign wealth funds (SWFs) are also included in that same category.
References
[1] 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.