Assessing the State of Sustainability in the Fortune 100: Corporate Trends in Strategy, Transparency, and Seriousness

Abstract

This research assessed the transparency and quality of corporate sustainability efforts among US Fortune 100 companies using seven indicators: alignment with UN Sustainable Development Goals, use of sustainability reporting standards and programs, inclusion of long-term goals and milestones, presence of senior sustainability leadership, and the quality of sustainability websites and reports. This research used a cross-sectoral analysis of publicly available corporate disclosures, including company websites and annual reports, to evaluate how well sustainability claims reflect meaningful integration within corporate strategy. Results show that while two-thirds of companies demonstrated strong sustainability efforts across most indicators, a significant minority lacked transparency or depth. Companies with higher Fortune 100 rankings tended to perform better, suggesting that size and visibility may influence sustainability outcomes. However, only half were meaningfully engaged with the Sustainable Development Goals, and many used multiple reporting standards without clear alignment. Despite low participation in the UN Global Compact, many companies still performed well. Most sectors had strong performers, but the Financials sector consistently lagged across all indicators. This study provides a detailed, independent benchmark of corporate sustainability practices and highlights how leading US companies are integrating and communicating sustainability in an era of growing stakeholder expectations.

1. Introduction

The concept of sustainability entered mainstream discussion through the Brundtland Commission’s call to balance present needs with the welfare of future generations [1]. By the 1990s and 2000s, sustainability evolved from an ethical aspiration to a business priority, as customers, investors, and other stakeholders began to expect that corporations minimize environmental and social harm [2]. Today, sustainability is embedded in corporate strategy [3], but the demand for visibility has also fueled concerns about greenwashing—instances where firms exaggerate or misrepresent their commitments to gain reputational advantage [4,5,6]. Inaccurate or incomplete claims undermine stakeholder trust and distort market signals, particularly when communications emphasize perception over practice [7,8].

To counter these risks, numerous sustainability reporting standards have emerged, aiming to provide consistency and comparability across companies [9]. Yet, corporate sustainability information remains uneven, often spread across websites and reports with varying levels of depth. Many firms label these efforts under banners such as corporate responsibility, ESG (Environmental, Social, Governance), or citizenship programs [3,10,11]. Whether stakeholders meaningfully consult these materials is unclear, especially in the absence of mandatory third-party auditing. The US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) acknowledge this gap in 2021 by establishing a Climate and ESG Task Force to identify misleading disclosures, later integrating this function into its broader enforcement division [7,12]. At the core, the challenge is one of transparency: markets depend on reliable information, and overstated or vague sustainability claims hinder informed investment and consumer decisions.

This study evaluates the transparency and credibility of sustainability communications among Fortune 100 (F100) companies. Specifically, it asks: where do firms make their sustainability information accessible, what do they communicate, and how robust are their efforts? Because industry context influences both risks and stakeholder expectations, the analysis also compares performance across sectors. To answer these questions, we assess each company using seven indicators: (1) engagement with the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), (2) adoption of sustainability reporting standards (SRSs) and voluntary programs, (3) presence of long-term goals, (4) existence of intermediate milestones, (5) appointment a senior sustainability leader, and the quality of (6) sustainability reports and (7) sustainability websites. Together, these indicators provide a structured framework for examining how effectively leading US firms disclose and substantiate their sustainability strategies.

2. Review of Relevant Literature

In 2016, the United Nations launched the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) as a global framework designed to guide individuals, communities, and nations in working toward sustainable solutions that serve the common good [13]. A list of these SDGs can be found in the Appendix A. To clarify and convey the scope of the SDGs, they are often organized into three broad categories: people and social well-being, the planet and environment, and prosperity and partnerships [13]. The SDGs have demonstrated their effectiveness as a unifying global framework, addressing pressing societal issues like poverty, inequality, climate change, and public health, while also advancing peace, prosperity, and environmental sustainability [14,15,16,17,18]. Achieving the SDGs depends on a joint global effort, with governments, international organizations, businesses, civil society, individuals, and academia all contributing essential roles in advancing sustainable progress [13]. Although certain countries have advanced on specific goals [19,20,21], global progress on the SDGs remains insufficient, with an urgent need to accelerate efforts, particularly in addressing climate change, poverty, and inequality [22,23]. Large corporations also play a vital role in achieving the SDGs by leveraging their innovation, resources, and global influence to drive sustainable change. Although many companies express support for the SDGs, their implementation is uneven, often characterized by ambitious commitments but limited integration, measurement, and tangible impact [24,25,26,27].

The world’s largest initiative for promoting corporate sustainability is the United Nations Global Compact (UNGC) [28]. The UNGC’s primary aim is to promote business alignment with the SDGs by encouraging the adoption of sustainable practices in four key areas: environment, human rights, labor, and anti-corruption. The ten UNGC principles can be found in the Appendix A. The UNGC underscores that companies, regardless of size or sector, possess the capacity to advance the SDG’s [29]. The UNGC calls on business to act responsibly and to address societal challenges through innovation and collaboration [29]. It promotes a principled, value-based approach, stressing that sustainability requires companies to operate responsibly in line with UNGC principles and contribute to society [28]. Embedding these principles into corporate culture depends on executive commitment, regular reporting, and local application across operations [28].

Although the UNGC aspires to global impact, it continues to face criticism for low levels of corporate engagement, insufficient accountability, and ongoing concerns over its credibility and effectiveness. An early critique observed that, despite its broad membership, the UNGC had difficulty engaging major corporations and was largely concentrated in Western Europe [30]. This lack of broad engagement was compounded by weak member compliance with its reporting system, significantly limiting efforts to build a global standard. In 2015, it was reported that although more than 1100 companies had joined the UNGC, including more than 200 large multinationals, participation from US corporations remained notably limited [31].

Although the UNGC’s 10-year report showcased rising membership and program activity, available evidence suggested it had little success in driving member companies to strengthen their sustainability and social responsibility practices or to meaningfully embed UNGC principles into their operations. [32]. These challenges have diminished trust in the UNGC, weakened its public credibility, and made it increasingly dependent on corporate backing, which has ultimately cast doubt on its effectiveness and long-term sustainability. Some scholars counter this criticism by emphasizing the political and historical context of the UNGC, arguing that the alleged promise-performance gap reflects a partial perspective, while still recognizing that the initiative faces challenges requiring attention [33]. For instance, one study found that French investors place significant value on a company’s affiliation with the UNGC, viewing such firms as lower risk [34]. Another study explored the compatibility between Islamic principles and the UNGC, finding broad alignment but highlighting tensions due to the Compact’s voluntary nature, weak enforcement, and reliance on corporate personhood, which contrasts with Islam’s focus on individual moral accountability and rejection of corporations as legal persons [35].

To help companies put its principles into practice, the UNGC developed the Management Model, a structured six-step process that guides organizations from initial commitment through implementation, measurement, and communication of sustainability efforts [36]. The model is designed as a circular, iterative process without a fixed starting or ending point, implying that companies can achieve circular improvement by following it. The model ultimately helps companies align with UNGC principles, thereby naturally steering their corporate strategies toward the SDGs. Progress was noted in a 2017 UNGC study, with 75% of participating companies reporting actions tied to the SDGs [37]. However, the study did not evaluate the quality of these efforts, leaving uncertainty about the frameworks or reporting mechanisms used to track progress, measure impact, and ensure accountability.

Other studies have investigated the relationship between SDG alignment and corporate strategy. One study suggested that corporate foundations can act as brokers to advance SDG achievement within the business sector [38]. Another emphasized that focusing on corporate purpose fosters more sustainable practices by reducing the tension between profit maximization and social benefit, shaping strategies and decision-making toward long-term SDG alignment, and embedding implementation at the management level [39]. Although implementation of the Management Model showed no correlate with company performance or reputation [40], marketing remains essential to supporting corporate sustainability efforts [41]. Together, these studies highlight that communication and transparency are critical components of an effective sustainability strategy.

Two main theories explain why US companies join the UNGC: critics argue that the low barrier to entry and lack of enforcement attract firms primarily interested in enhancing their reputations, while advocates contend that companies participate to pursue learning and improvement in their corporate social responsibility (CSR) practices [42,43]. This research suggest a bridge between the two theories, with companies initially adopting such strategies symbolically under limited transparency and gradually progressing toward genuine adoption as transparency increases [42]. This research reinforced the view that transparency is essential for successful adoption and alignment of sustainability strategies. It also emphasized the need for clear measurement and communication criteria to align corporate sustainability efforts with the SDGs [44].

Reporting on SDG achievement remains challenging for companies. While awareness and reporting are increasing, implementation often lacks depth and clear metrics. One study found that awareness of the SDGs was high within the Italian business community, with most highly traded, liquid, and well-capitalized companies introducing SDG alignment strategies and reporting into their practices [45]. However, clear implementation requirements and defined performance indicators were still absent. Another study of 153 Italian public companies identified a positive relationship between SDG reporting and factors such as the presence of independent directors, experience with non-financial reporting, and report length, with firms in environmentally sensitive sectors providing the strongest reporting [46]. This research suggests that with proper leadership, corporate alignment with the SDGs can contribute meaningful solutions to global sustainability challenges [47]. Yet effective implementation ultimately depends on partnerships and engagement across a wide range of stakeholders. A larger study analyzing sustainability reports from 1370 organizations in 97 countries examined how and why these organizations engaged with the SDGs and what priority they assigned to them [48]. It concluded that most exhibited only superficial engagement, raising concerns about ‘SDG-washing,’ a subset of greenwashing. It is worth noting, however, that the reports analyzed were drawn from the global reporting initiative (GRI) database, meaning filers were already more likely to be aware of and report on the SDGs.

In recent years, stakeholders have broadened their focus beyond economic performance to consider environmental and sustainability impact [49]. Corporate governance is increasingly recognized as a ‘fourth factor’ of corporate sustainability, complementing the traditional triple bottom line of environmental, social, economic factors [50]. A study of manufacturing companies in the Czech Republic developed a composite indicator that incorporated non-financial metrics and distributed key performance indicators across all four factors [50]. This benchmarking approach proved more effective than earlier one-dimensional methods for assessing sustainability performance in manufacturing.

Organizational size has been shown to correlate with the quality of sustainability report. For instance, CSR reports from large financial institutions worldwide are generally of higher quality [51], likely because these firms face greater public visibility, media scrutiny, and regulatory pressure than smaller companies. However, institutions in common-law countries often overlook assurance measures to validate report integrity, and many financial institutions fail to use CSR reports effectively as public relations tools [51]. A related study on US utilities examined the gap between sustainability reporting quality and ESG performance, finding that the adoption of common reporting practices was ineffective as a proxy for evaluating report quality [52]. The study also identified a nonlinear inverted U-shaped relationship between sustainability reporting and ESG performance, with both the weakest and strongest performers showing less interest in transparency, and revealed low transparency in reporting environmental indicators [52].

In summary, four key takeaways emerge from the literature review. First, while many companies—particularly large and visible ones—express support for the SDGs and reference them in reporting, there remains a lack of clarity around implementation requirements, performance indicators, and integration into core business strategies. Second, although the UNGC promotes corporate alignment with the SDGs, it has been criticized for weak participation, limited compliance, and questions of effectiveness, especially in the US. Third, successful adoption of sustainability strategies depends on transparency, stakeholder engagement, and the use of robust reporting and assessment mechanisms. Finally, organizational factors such as company size, industry sensitivity, and governance practices influence the quality of sustainability reporting. Given the inconsistencies in SDG integration, limited accountability in frameworks like the UNGC, and uneven reporting quality, examining what leading US companies disclose is both timely and necessary. This study addresses that need by evaluating trends in strategy, quality, and transparency of corporate sustainability efforts among US Fortune 100 (F100) firms.

3. Methodology

This research employed a cross-sectoral/cross-sectional review of public-facing sustainability-related information provided by US F100 corporations. F100 companies were selected for this assessment because of their high visibility, public accountability, and the extensive availability of sustainability information through their websites and reports. As industry leaders, their practices often set benchmarks for others, making them valuable for identifying best practices and gaps in sustainability transparency. Moreover, their prominence ensures that findings from this analysis will be highly relevant to policymakers, researchers, and corporate stakeholders seeking to understand and improve sustainability disclosure. The research methodology followed the four steps shown in Figure 1. All source identification, assessment, and analysis were done by a single rater and verified by the entire research team.

Step 1 involves identifying source data, included identifying companies in the Fortune 100 listing [53], and then locating their sustainability webpage and sustainability-related reports. It should be noted that company sustainability reporting is not a standardized process [3] and therefore company sustainability information showed up in several different formats; for example, sustainability, ESG, CSR, impact, or climate action reports. This step also included identifying each company’s industry sector, following the Global Industry Classification Standard (GICS) [54]. Data used in this research aligns with the 2021 F100 list and data was collected between October 2021 and June 2022. Therefore, this research provides a cross-sectional view of corporate sustainability practices at that time.

Step 2, assessing information, included locating the specific information for each of the seven sustainability indicators selected for this research (i.e., research questions, as shown in Figure 1). The seven indicators are defined as follows:

• Use of SDGs—evidence of adoption and strategic alignment with UN SDGS in sustainability disclosures;
• Use of SRSs and programs—evidence of adoption of sustainability reporting standards and voluntary programs;
• End goals—presence and quality of long-term sustainability goals;
• Intermediate milestones—existence of near- or mid-term milestones supporting long-term goals;
• Senior sustainability manager—existence of a designated senior leader for sustainability;
• Report quality—depth, coherence, and credibility of corporate sustainability reports;
• Website quality—transparency, clarity, and accessibility of sustainability-related website content.

Each company was evaluated on these indicators using structured rubrics that converted qualitative observations from reports and websites into standardized categorical scores, ensuring consistency and comparability across firms. The detailed process for extracting and scoring information is described in Section 4. Data from company website and reports were cross-checked for internal consistency, with attention to both transparency and quality. The first five indicators were assessed objectively, while the last two involved subjective judgments of overall report and website quality. Charts, data, and measurable results toward sustainability goals were weighted more heavily than anecdotal narratives. Scores for each indicator ranged from 1 to 4 (with 1 being the highest), following approaches to indicator selection and scoring established in prior research [51]. Specific rubrics and criteria for each indicator are further discussed in Section 4.

Step 3, analyzing scores, involved examining the overall patterns and trends emerging from the combined indicator scores. The analysis focused on identifying the extent and quality of sustainability disclosures across the F100 companies for each of the seven research indicators. This step also included exploring variation in performance across companies and industry sectors, and examining relationships between company ranking, indicator scores, and observed transparency.

Step 4, developing recommendations, involved synthesizing the findings to identify broad areas where companies could strengthen their sustainability practices, along with specific, actionable opportunities for improving transparency and performance. This stage served as a bridge between analysis and application, ensuring that insights drawn from the data were translated into practical guidance. The recommendations were designed not only to highlight weaknesses but also suggest realistic pathways for progress making them relevant to both corporate decision-makers and sustainability practitioners.

4. Results

Using the data collected from company websites and reports, we explored each of the selected sustainability indicators to assess the visibility, depth, and credibility of corporate sustainability efforts. These results are organized by indicator to highlight both individual and cross-cutting patterns, revealing where companies are excelling and where transparency is lacking.

4.1. UN Sustainable Development Goals

The UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) were selected as the first indicator because they represent the most widely recognized global framework for sustainability, providing a common language and set of priorities for governments, businesses, and civil society. Their adoption signals whether companies are aligning their strategies with internationally agreed sustainability objectives, and the quality of this alignment serves as a useful proxy for both commitment and credibility. Additionally, the SDGs are the basis for the UNGC.

Table 1. Scoring rubric used for assessing quality of SDG mention.

Category	Label	Meaning
1	strong evidence	convincing usage; detailed, comprehensive information given
2	weak evidence	unconvincing usage; information given on high level and lacking specificity
3	vague mention	unconvincing usage and possibly greenwashing; SDGs simply mentioned
4	no mention	unconvincing usage, although technically non-usage; no SDG reference

shows the scoring rubric that was utilized in this analysis, and each company was assigned a score based on the four category definitions for SDG usage provided. In this assessment, we examined whether companies used the SDGs to guide their strategy by looking for explicit references to the goals and the quality of related efforts. Strong evidence was defined as clearly identifying which SDGs were prioritized and providing detailed information on actions taken—such as charts, infographics, or narratives describing progress toward targets, successes and challenges. Examples include launching a $25M five-year global initiative to improve children’s health and well-being, or committing to source 100% of wood products responsibly by 2025. Weak evidence referred to limited or superficial information, such as noting the importance of SDG 6 and offering minimal discussion of clean water initiatives. Vague mention was when the SDGs were mentioned without any supporting details, while no evidence meant there was no indication of SDG connection at all.

Whether a company engaged with many SDGS or only a few was not ranked. What mattered was the quality of usage, which demonstrated whether the SDGs were being taken seriously overall. A small number could still indicate that a company had carefully assessed the goals and identified those most relevant to its business. Notably, no company showed variation in the quality of use across different SDGs; for instance, none were rated Category 1 for some goals and Category 3 for others. Instead, each company’s quality of use was consistent across the SDGs it addressed.

Figure 2 shows the frequency of SDG use across the F100 companies assessed in this research. Each of the 17 SDGs was mentioned by at least 18 companies, with SDG 13 (Climate Action) and 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth) being the most frequently referenced, followed by SDGs 3 (Good Health and Well-Being), 5 (Gender Equality), and 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production). SDG 14 (Life Below Water) was the least mentioned. These results mirror the findings of the 2017 UNGC study [37], which similarly observed that climate change, economic growth, and health were among the most common priorities. The pattern suggests that companies focus most heavily on SDGs that align closely with their core operations, stakeholder expectations, and direct environmental or social impacts, while SDGs that are more government- or policy-oriented receive comparatively little attention. This indicates that corporate SDG engagement is often driven by perceived business relevance rather than by a holistic embrace of the UN’s global framework. While this pragmatic approach may reflect strategic prioritization, it also risks sidelining goals that require broad cross-sectoral collaboration, thereby limiting the overall transformative potential of the SDG agenda.

Figure 3 shows the number of companies using a particular number of SDGs. Notably, four companies mentioned all 17 SDGs with convincing details, with a fifth company mentioning all 17 with only weak evidence of use. This shows that use of all 17 is possible but rare. Eight companies used between 12 and 16 SDGs, all convincingly. At 11 SDGs and below, more companies used the SDGs unconvincingly. From the usage of seven SDGs down to three (the lowest usage) a smaller portion, only 60% (15/25), of the companies were using them convincingly. Three companies reported using all 17 SDGs but offered no details on how they were applied. These firms were technically ranked as Category 3 but were excluded from the tally of SDG usage (Figure 3) to ensure the count reflected only meaningful engagement. The rationale is that it seems generally unrealistic for a company to be substantively involved in a meaningful way with all 17 goals. This view is reinforced by the fact that, aside from four cases, companies providing convincing details on SDG use identified a focused subset of goals. Although the category of zero usage has been excluded from Figure 3, there were 37 remaining companies not using any SDGs (including the three that unconvincingly claimed blanket usage). Taken together, the figure highlights a clear pattern: companies citing many SDGs without detail or very few SDGs without evidence tend to be less convincing, while those that concentrate on a focused subset are more likely to provide substantive, credible engagement. This reinforces the importance of depth over breadth in SDG adoption and suggests that blanket or symbolic references may signal greenwashing rather than genuine strategic integration.

Table 2. Breakdown of quality of SDG use by F100 quartile (company count).

Category	Label	F100	F1–25	F26–50	F51–75	F76–100
1	strong evidence	48	13	16	11	8
2	weak evidence	7	2	1	0	4
3	vague mention	16	3	4	4	5
4	no mention	29	7	4	10	8

shows that nearly half of the F100 companies (48) had convincing evidence of quality use (Category 1) and gave meaningful evidence that the SDGs were substantively driving the company’s sustainability strategy. The other 52 companies showed unconvincing SDG use (Table 2). A small group (7 companies) used a subset of the SDGs but did not give convincing evidence that they were being used in a real way (Category 2). However, this does not mean that they were not being used effectively either, but rather there was insufficient supporting information. To the extent they were not being used meaningfully, though, this might count as greenwashing. Another small group (16 companies) only mentioned the SDGs vaguely (Category 3), including the three companies that mentioned all 17 SDGs unconvincingly. This category can be considered greenwashing. Finally, 29 companies did not mention the SDGs at all (Category 4).

In addition to the overall F100 split of quality of SDG use, Table 2 shows the corresponding splits of the F100 quartiles. The results indicate a gradual decline in the quality of SDG use as company rank decreases, with top-quartile firms generally showing more effective engagement. Given the large number of SDGs, some variation in usage is expected based on each company’s specific focus, especially since certain SDGs align more naturally with business activities than others. Another likely explanation is the business community’s growing expectation that companies, especially larger and more successful ones, maintain robust sustainability programs. As a result, it is not surprising that companies in the top quartile demonstrated stronger SDG usage, effectively setting the tone for those lower in the ranking that may look to them as sustainability leaders.

The results do not demonstrate an obvious pattern in GICS sector type among top SDG users. The 26 companies that use at least nine SDGs convincingly (see Figure 3) comprise more than half of Category 1 and represent eight of the eleven sectors. The strongest two sectors in Category 1 scoring include Technology and Healthcare, with 6/8 and 11/16 companies, respectively. As shown in Table 2, 45 of the F100 companies either only vaguely mention the SDGs or do not mention them at all (Categories 3 and 4). These 45 companies comprise 9 of the 11 sectors, with Financials being the most conspicuous with 18 companies. This is 72% of representative companies in that sector (18/25), meaning most Financials companies are not using the SDGs convincingly.

It is useful to consider why some SDGs are being used by companies more than others. We note that the least frequently used SDGs are those more closely aligned with government responsibilities, such as poverty reduction, hunger, peace, and institutional governance. In contrast, the goals most often referenced by companies are those connected to business operations and stakeholder expectations, including climate impact, economic growth, workforce well-being, gender equality, and sustainable production and consumption. These areas are closely tied to corporate responsibilities, such as managing carbon footprints, ensuring fair and equitable workplaces, providing quality jobs, and safeguarding employee well-being. Because companies that produce goods are naturally concerned about consumption, it is unsurprising that climate action is the goal most linked with F100 companies. Large companies often operate manufacturing plants, industrial facilities, and large office or research campuses, each of which typically consumes significant energy and contributes to a substantial carbon footprint, thus directly linking their operations to climate-related concerns.

4.2. Sustainability Reporting Standards and External Programs

Adopting established reporting standards or voluntary programs signals a company’s commitment to transparency, comparability, and accountability. These frameworks reduce selective disclosure and help stakeholders evaluate firms on consistent terms. This indicator assessed which sustainability reporting standards (SRSs) and programs Fortune 100 companies referenced in their public disclosures.

At the time of data collection, the most frequently cited standards were developed by the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB) [55], Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) [56], Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) [57], and Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) [58]. SASB emphasized financially material ESG data [55], GRI focused on broader development impacts [56,59], TCFD created a structure for climate-risk reporting [57], and CDP supported disclosure of environmental impact [58]. Prior work has shown that use of GRI in particular enhances report credibility [60], while SASB and GRI are often treated as complementary [61]. Since then, the reporting landscape has shifted: SASB was consolidated into the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) in 2022 [62,63], and oversight of TCFD was transferred to the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) Foundation in 2023 [57,64]. As a cross-sectional study, this research reflects the frameworks most commonly in use between 2021 and 2022.

In addition to reporting standards, two voluntary initiatives were included: the United Nations Global Compact (UNGC) [36] and Science-Based Targets Initiative (SBTi) [65]. The UNGC seeks to encourage responsible corporate behavior and alignment with SDGs, but its reporting process has been criticized for weak requirements and limited enforcement, raising questions about its credibility as an accountability mechanism [36]. By contrast, the SBTi offers a more technical approach, providing third-party validation for emission-reduction targets consistent with climate science and the Paris Agreement [65]. Both programs were used by some Fortune 100 firms, but overall adoption was less frequent than for the main reporting standards. Other initiatives exist but were referenced too rarely to be included in this analysis.

Scoring for this indicator measured the extent of company engagement with sustainability reporting standards and external programs, serving as a proxy for overall sustainability seriousness.

Table 3. Rubric for assessment of SRS/program use and results (company count).

Category	Label	Description	Count
1	full use	all SRS/programs	55
2	good use	multiple SRS/programs	24
3	weak use	only one SRS/program	12
4	no use	no SRS/programs	9

summarizes the rubric, with placed firms into four categories based on the number of frameworks used. Full use referred to adoption of all six, while good use captured participation in several. Although Categories 1 and 2 do not directly indicate effectiveness, broader adoption generally reflects greater effort. By contrast, limited or no use suggests weaker commitment. Table 3 shows the results of this assessment, revealing that most companies adopted a broad approach: nearly 80% used multiple SRSs and programs, and about half engaged with all six. While this demonstrates strong participation, it may also create inefficiency, as overlapping frameworks can increase reporting burdens without adding clarity. Overall, these findings suggest that while F100 companies are highly engaged with reporting frameworks; the breadth of adoption does not necessarily translate into clearer or more effective sustainability communication.

The analysis also examined how many companies used each reporting standard or program, as shown in

Table 4. Use of SRSs and programs by F100 quartile (company count).

Program	F100	F1–25	F26–50	F51–75	F76–100
SASB	82	20	22	20	20
TCFD	77	19	22	20	16
GRI	68	16	19	15	18
CDP	64	16	14	18	16
SBTi	48	14	11	10	13
UNGC	35	11	8	8	8

. SASB and TCFD were the most widely adopted, with more than three-quarters of Fortune 100 firms referencing them. This aligns with their focus on financially relevant disclosures—SASB on broader ESG issues and TCFD on climate risk—both highly salient to large corporations. GRI and CDP followed closely, each used by at least two-thirds of companies, reflecting continued interest in broader sustainability impacts and carbon reporting.

By contrast, fewer than half of the companies mentioned SBTi or the UNGC. Their limited uptake suggests that many large firms do not view these programs as essential. Both are designed to encourage sustainability thinking and provide defensible targets, yet only about a third of Fortune 100 firms referred to the UNGC. Given their size and resources, many appear capable of developing goals internally, reducing the perceived need for external frameworks. For SBTi, whose primary value lies in guiding companies through target setting, its relevance may also be diminished at this scale. In practice, third-party certification remains the main benefit—but even that was rarely pursued. The role of such programs in large-company context may therefore warrant further examination.

Further analysis showed that only 25 of the 35 companies claiming alignment with the UNGC were formally enrolled at the time of data collection [66]. This may reflect informal alignment with broader initiatives, but it could also signal greenwashing. Since then, five additional F100 companies have joined. Table 4 also breaks program used down by quartile, revealing a consistent pattern across rankings. Unlike the slight decline in SDG use among lower quartiles, adoption of reporting programs did not vary significantly by company rank.

The analysis also examined the number of SRSs and external programs used by each company, with results shown in Figure 4. Nearly two-thirds adopted four or more frameworks, including 17 that used all six. At the other extreme, six companies used none and another 17 used only one or two. One of the non-users was a holding company without a corporate-level sustainability site, meaning its subsidiaries may have participated but were outside the F100 scope. Beyond simple counts, the combinations reveal different priorities. For example, nine companies used SASB without TCFD, consistent with viewing climate as already covered under ESG, while four did the reverse, suggesting a more climate-specific focus. Overall, Figure 4 highlights both the enthusiasm with which large firms embrace multiple frameworks and the inefficiencies created by overlap. While broad adoption may signal credibility and stakeholder responsiveness, it also reflects the lack of clarity in the reporting landscape at the time, reinforcing the need for consolidation of standards so that breadth of reporting contributes to transparency rather than duplication.

The overlap among major reporting standards raises the question of why some firms adopt all of them. Companies may do so out of uncertainty about each framework’s distinct role or from a perception that wider adoption signals greater credibility [67,68]. Although this study did not directly investigate such motivations, the findings provide a basis for future research. Since data collection, the reporting landscape has shifted significantly. The International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB), established through the UN Climate Change Conference, has absorbed SASB, TCFD, and several other frameworks [63]. CDP has also moved toward ISSB alignment [63], while GRI has emerged as the most widely used standard globally [69,70]. In Europe, the new mandatory European Sustainability Reporting Standard (ESRS) is being aligned with GRI [71]. Together, these developments reflect a broader global push toward standardization, which may ultimately reduce duplication and improve comparability in corporate disclosures.

4.3. Sustainability Goals/Targets

Long-term sustainability goals indicate whether companies are making strategic, outcome-oriented commitments. Clear, dated goals reflect seriousness and help stakeholders assess ambition and direction. While setting goals is relatively easy, only well-defined goals have the potential to drive meaningful action and accountability. To be effective, these goals should be timely enough to matter to the current generation of leaders, specific enough to be measurable, and supported by interim milestones to track progress. Long-term targets (e.g., 20 years into the future) can lack impact if there are no clear steps along the way to evaluate whether the company is on track. Milestones operationalize long-term goals into actionable steps, ensuring continuity and accountability across management cycles. Without milestones, long-range commitments risk being symbolic or unmeasurable. This indicator evaluates the overall quality of corporate sustainability goals and milestones based on these ideas. Company websites and reports were reviewed for prominent commitments to a major sustainability goal or target, generally to be achieved between 2030 and 2050. These goals represent the ultimate objective of a company’s sustainability strategy and were most commonly framed as commitments to carbon neutrality or significant emissions reductions.

There was a wide and often confusing range of terms used to describe corporate carbon goals, many of which sound similar but differ in meaning. Common examples included net zero, carbon neutral, zero emissions, carbon free, carbon negative, and variations like net zero carbon emissions or net zero operational emissions. Some companies used more ambiguous phrases such as reducing environmental impact or low-carbon future. Others set percentage-based reduction targets instead of aiming for full elimination or compensation. Many goals were tied to Scope 1, 2, or 3 emissions, referring to direct emissions, purchased energy, and supply chain emissions, respectively. Some companies also set targets for reducing water use, waste, or increasing recyclability. These aspirational carbon-related terms are not strictly standardized, and therefore companies use a variety of phrases. The lack of clear definition can confuse stakeholders and enable companies to use terms in ambiguous or misleading ways. As noted in the literature review, the SEC Climate and ESG Task Force was established to monitor and expose ESG misbehavior in company disclosures [7], indicating that US regulators have recognized the risks associated with the vague and inconsistent use of sustainability-related terms. This relates to the previous SRS indicator, as standardizing the terminology used in corporate goals could help minimize confusion and reduce the potential for misrepresentation.

The scoring rubric used to assess the quality of company end goals and intermediate milestones is shown in

Table 5. Scoring rubric used for assessing quality of end goals and intermediate milestone mention.

Category	End Goals	Intermediate Milestones
1	strong, challenging, stretch goal(s)	multiple meaningful milestones
2	a goal, but: not as visible as it could be only weakly numeric, or otherwise lacking in specificity too far away to be meaningful or real	one meaningful milestone
3	vague mention, few details, appearance of greenwashing	vague mention of a milestone
4	nothing mentioned, or no associated timeline	nothing mentioned

. The quality of a company’s goals was determined based on their timeline and the specificity or seriousness of their commitments. Major transformational goals set before 2030 were considered insufficiently serious, given the scale of change required for a large company to achieve a significant transition (e.g., carbon neutrality). Conversely, targets beyond 2040 were viewed as too distant to drive meaningful action by current management. Most companies chose decade benchmarks—2030, 2040, 2050, and occasionally even 2060; some selected 2035. For scoring purposes, only goals set for 2030, 2035, or 2040 were considered sufficiently meaningful. Goals, whether firm or nebulous, that were stated without dates were put in Category 4. Companies were also assessed for intermediate targets or milestones to support their long-term goals. These are widely recognized as essential, both for breaking large objectives into manageable steps and for maintaining consistency and accountability across leadership transitions. Together, this rubric ensures that both long-term ambitions and short-term actions are evaluated not just for their presence, but for their realism, specificity, and capacity to drive meaningful accountability.

Table 6. End goals and intermediate milestone use (company count).

Category	End Goals	Milestones	Same Category
1	55	62	42
2	27	15	4
3	1	5	0
4	17	18	13

shows the results of the assessment of company goals and milestones. More than half of F100 companies (55) provided evidence of strong sustainability goals and milestones (Category 1). Table 6 also shows the number of companies that scored in the same category for both end goals and intermediate milestones. This alignment indicates that, for many companies, there is coherence between their long-term ambitions and the short-term actions needed to achieve them. For the 42 companies with both strong goals and milestones, this suggests a more intentional and integrated approach to sustainability planning. It is notable that only one company was put in Category 4 for end goals because they didn’t have any dates defined for their goals. This indicates that when a company identifies a goal, they also normally provide a target timeframe with it. It is also noted that five companies had no milestones defined, but since their main goal was in 2030 (i.e., reasonably close) they were put in Category 1 for milestones as well.

This indicator reveals that more than half of the F100 companies have established serious, well-defined sustainability goals or milestones, and nearly half have both. However, a significant portion still fall short. For example, companies in Category 2 have goals that are either too distant to drive near-term action or too vague to be considered actionable. Given the scale, visibility, and resources of these leading US companies, one would reasonably expect more consistent and credible goal setting. The fact that nearly half lack meaningful goals raises concerns about how seriously some companies are approaching sustainability. Notably, almost 20% of firms provide only vague aspirations with no target dates or omit sustainability goals altogether.

4.4. Senior Sustainability Managers

The presence of a senior leader (ideally at the C-suite level) signals organizational prioritization of sustainability. Leadership accountability reflects whether sustainability is embedded into corporate governance rather than delegated to peripheral functions. This indicator assessed whether F100 companies identified a senior sustainability manager or officer. Leadership at this level is critical, and the presence of a high-ranking individual responsible for sustainability typically reflects a company’s commitment to advancing its goals. The more senior the position, the greater the sustainability program’s visibility and influence, both internally and externally. In large companies, responsibility tends to follow organizational accountability; so, without a designated senior manager, it is unlikely that sustainability efforts are prioritized. Because company websites serve as key communication tools, the absence of a named sustainability leader, despite having a dedicated sustainability site, raises questions about the seriousness of the company’s commitment. As such, this indicator reflects how seriously the company treats sustainability as a strategic priority and whether it has embedded that responsibility within its senior leadership structure.

The rubric used for categorizing sustainability leadership is shown in

Table 7. Rubric for assessment of sustainability leadership and results (company count).

Category	Leadership Role	Count
1	CSO or equivalent	45
2	SVP or VP	14
3	director	28
4	nothing found	13

. The four leadership categories reflect varying degrees of influence and institutional commitment to sustainability within the corporate hierarchy. Category 1 represents the highest integration, where sustainability is embedded at the C-suite level and thus directly connected to executive decision-making. This is commonly a Chief Sustainability Officer (CSO), or equivalent position, that reports directly to the Chief Executive Officer (CEO). Category 2 includes senior leadership roles, such as a Senior Vice President (SVP) or Vice President (VP), which may carry significant influence but are often one step removed from top-level strategy. Category 3 captures mid-level positions like directors or managers, indicating operational oversight but limited strategic authority. Finally, Category 4 includes companies with no identifiable sustainability leader, suggesting that sustainability is not formally assigned within the leadership structure, thus raising questions about the seriousness of their efforts. This progression indicates how well sustainability is positioned within each company’s decision-making framework, beyond what title alone may convey. Because leadership roles shape organizational priorities and resource allocation, the presence (or absence) of a senior sustainability manager serves as a practical proxy for how deeply sustainability is embedded into strategy. Companies with C-suite sustainability officers are more likely to integrate environmental and social goals into core decision-making, whereas firms without a named leader risk treating sustainability as symbolic or peripheral.

Table 7 also shows the results of the leadership assessment for this research. The interpretation of this indicator contrasts with that of the goals indicator discussed previously, where any score below Category 1 was considered a shortcoming. In this case, however, the scale operates more gradually; while a CSO represents the strongest commitment, even a director-level role reflects a meaningful assignment of responsibility. For large companies (i.e., F100 companies), a sustainability director is still a significant position; however, placing sustainability responsibility into the hands of a VP or C-suite executive signals even greater organizational priority and influence. The results indicate that nearly half of the companies had a senior sustainability manager at the C-suite level, treating sustainability as a core strategic issue rather than merely a compliance or communications function. An additional 42 companies had a senior sustainability manager in some capacity, leaving only 13 without any publicly identified sustainability leader on their websites. While these latter companies may still engage in sustainability activities, the absence of a named individual suggests that sustainability is not prioritized enough to warrant a transparent leadership assignment.

4.5. Report and Website Quality

Sustainability-based reports are formal disclosures that convey depth, detail, and credibility of sustainability action. High-quality reports demonstrate transparency, allow for evaluation of progress, and provide evidence that sustainability is being integrated into strategy. On the other hand, websites are the most accessible and public-facing channel for stakeholders. A well-developed sustainability website reflects a company’s willingness to communicate openly and regularly, while low-quality or absent websites suggest weak engagement or possible greenwashing. The sixth and seventh indicators assess the quality of each company’s sustainability report and website. Companies often maintain both because they serve distinct but complementary functions: the formal report provides detailed, structured disclosures for stakeholders, while the website serves as a more accessible, regularly updated platform to communicate key initiatives to the public. Together, these channels reflect a company’s commitment to transparency and signal that sustainability is treated as a significant and ongoing strategic priority. Thus, in this research the quality of F100 sustainability websites and reports was examined. As with the leadership indicator, the underlying assumption is that companies committed to sustainability will invest in clear, high-quality communication. Given the resources available to F100 firms, well-designed, substantive reports and websites serve as a reasonable indicator of the priority they place on sustainability.

A four-tier scale was used to assess the quality of company sustainability websites and reports, reflecting the overall depth, coherence, and credibility of their sustainability content. Category 1 (high) was assigned to reports and websites demonstrating significant effort and substance, featuring detailed data, charts, and tables that clearly communicated the company’s efforts and progress toward stated sustainability goals. Category 2 (medium) applied to sustainability content that was generally solid but lacked either sufficient detail or strong presentation, making it harder to engage with or fully understand. Category 3 (low) reflected weak or superficial content, often with signs of greenwashing. Category 4 (none) was reserved for companies that provided little to no meaningful sustainability information.

The results of the quality of the website and report analysis are shown in

Table 8. Rubric and results for quality of sustainability website and report (company count).

Category	Label	Report	Website	Same Category
1	high	34	19	16
2	medium	34	36	18
3	low	27	30	12
4	none	5	15	4

. Although the quality of the reports and websites was distributed across the four different categories, the quality of sustainability reports was generally better than for sustainability websites. It is important to recognize that sustainability reports and websites serve different purposes and are not simply interchangeable formats. Financial reports carry legal, tax, and market implications, where misrepresentation can have serious consequences, including criminal liability. In contrast, websites function more as public-facing communication tools, often serving marketing or branding purposes. Although sustainability reporting is not (yet) held to the same legal standard as financial reporting, companies generally treat these reports as formal documents that require careful preparation and attention to detail. This discrepancy highlights an important tension: the information most accessible to the public (websites) is often less rigorous than the information reviewed by investors and regulators (reports). As a result, stakeholders who rely primarily on websites may receive a less complete or even misleading picture of corporate sustainability performance. Aligning the quality of both formats is therefore critical to ensuring transparency and avoiding perceptions of greenwashing.

The results in Table 8 also show the number of companies that had the same category score for both their website and report. This shows that half of the companies consistently approached communicating sustainability efforts across these platforms, no matter the level of quality The only real notable trend is that if a company had a high-quality website, they most likely had a high-quality report, but not the other way around. A total of 16 companies (approximately 1 out of 6) had both high-quality reports and websites. Conversely, this means that there were 18 companies that had high quality sustainability reports that did not put the same effort into their sustainability websites. In fact, of the 34 companies that had high quality reports, 12 had medium quality websites and 6 even had low quality websites. This generally supports the idea mentioned previously that reports are maintained at a higher quality than websites. However, this isn’t always true. Of the three companies that had high-quality websites with weaker reports (i.e., 19 minus 16), one had a medium-quality report, one low, and one didn’t even have a report available at all. It seems to suggest potential greenwashing to have quality public-facing websites, but low-quality or no formal reports, available.

On the other end of the quality scale there were five companies without a sustainability report and fifteen without a sustainability website. This is again consistent with the idea that reports are treated more critically than websites. On the other hand, sustainability reporting is not subject to the same auditing requirements as financial reporting. Assuming that the public is more likely to look at a corporate sustainability website than a corporate sustainability report, and that even companies with minimal sustainability engagement will still typically care about their public image, it is surprising that so many companies put more effort into their reports than websites. Yet, eight companies without a sustainability website had low-quality reports, and another three with medium-quality reports. Four companies had neither a sustainability report nor a sustainability website.

If Category 1 reflects strong transparency and Category 4 reflects an open lack of engagement, then Categories 2 and 3 represent varying degrees of limited transparency. Approximately two-thirds of the companies fell into these middle categories, suggesting that their sustainability efforts were either underdeveloped or not clearly communicated. In a context where transparency signals credibility, this lack of openness raises questions about the strength and sincerity of their commitments.

5. Analysis

The analysis builds on the indicator-level scoring by evaluating overall performance across all seven indicators, examining potential relationships between sustainability performance and company rank, and identifying cross-sectoral patterns. Specifically, we developed a composite sustainability indicator score for each company, explored how those scores correlate with F100 rankings, and analyzed performance by industry sector.

5.1. Sustainability Effort Scoring

In this research, seven indicators were selected for assessing effectiveness of F100 company sustainability programs: (1) use of SDGs, (2) use of SRSs and external programs, (3) end goals, (4) intermediate milestones, (5) presence of a senior sustainability manager, and quality of (6) sustainability reports and (7) sustainability websites. A composite indicator was calculated for each company by accumulating the indicator scores across all seven indicators. Because each indicator was scored from 1–4, with 1 being the best, companies with top marks for all seven indicators scored 7, implying a very strong sustainability program. Conversely, companies with poor marks across all indicators scored 28, implying no sustainability program (at least not publicly available). Figure 5 shows the results of the composite indicator scores for all companies. This had an effective scoring range of 22 points (from 7 to 28), which we divided into terciles (three categories) for reporting the overall results. The three terciles include the following ranges: 7–14, 15–21, and 22–28.

Figure 5 shows that five companies had ‘perfect’ scores (i.e., 7), with nine companies just one point behind. Encouragingly, the distribution of scores shows a rough bell-shaped curve that is heavily skewed to the right (the ‘unfavorable’ score side). A total of 66/100 companies averaged indicator scores of 1 and 2 in all seven categories and ultimately scored in the first (i.e., most favorable) tercile. This means that only one-third of companies scored in the second and third terciles, as shown in Figure 5. These results suggest that overall F100 companies are taking their sustainability programs seriously. By combining all seven indicators into a single composite score, the analysis highlights not just isolated strengths or weaknesses but the degree of integration across strategy, leadership, goals, and transparency. The right-skewed distribution indicates that while most companies have embraced sustainability in a substantive way, there remains a long tail of firms with weaker or more superficial engagement. This variation underscores the importance of distinguishing between leaders and laggards, as the credibility of corporate sustainability as a whole depends not only on the best performers but also on the extent to which lower-scoring companies improve.

5.2. Confirmatory Factor Analysis

The key construct of sustainability seriousness is not directly observable but is being inferred by the seven indicators which are observable. To test the validity of this model, we performed a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to see how the seven indicators load onto this latent factor of sustainability seriousness. The results of the CFA with ordinal data estimation methods yielded a comparative fit index (CFI) of 0.986 and a Tucker–Lewis Index (TLI) of 0.979. Fit indices above 0.95 indicate good model fit. The root mean squared error of approximation (RMSEA) is 0.074, suggesting fair fit, and the standardized root mean squared residual (SRMR) is 0.058, suggesting good fit. Additionally, the chi-squared statistic is 557.83 (df = 21, p = 0). Therefore, our single factor of sustainability, modeled by the seven indicators, is confirmed. The CFA confirms that we have a good model fit and can therefore add the seven indicator scores to form a composite indicator score, as demonstrated in Section 5.1.

To further confirm the model fit, we performed a sensitivity analysis by removing the weakest of the seven indicators from the model, which was CSO, and redoing the CFA. This resulted in a worse fit, indicating that the full seven-indicator model was better than this six-indicator model. This means that all seven indicators are justified in describing a company’s sustainability efforts.

5.3. Correlation Analysis

We further investigated the relationship between a company’s F100 ranking and its sustainability score. In other words, does a higher F100 ranking (a lower number) correspond with a better composite indicator sustainability score (lower number)? Because the data for the seven indicators consisted of ordinal data, we used Spearman’s rho test to assess this potential correlation. Spearman’s rho for these two variables is 0.149, with p = 0.139. The correlation is therefore not statistically significant (using p = 0.05 as the cutoff), meaning one cannot predict a company’s sustainability score from its F100 ranking, or vice versa. This should not be surprising. The companies in the F100 are diverse with different markets, goals, investors, corporate cultures, and management styles. We additionally tested for correlation between the seven individual indicators and F100 ranking. None of these relationships were statistically significant. We also tested for inter-indicator correlations (multicollinearity). The Spearman’s rhos for these pairings were all statistically significant between 0.3 and 0.6, meaning weak correlation, with two pairings being below 0.3 which suggests no correlation. These two non-correlated pairings are goals-CSO and goals-website. One would expect a mild correlation between these indicators as they are all measuring sustainability efforts in some way. The three indicator pairs with the highest multicollinearity are between goals-milestones, reports-websites, and reports-milestones. This higher correlation between these pairings is not surprising, but they are nevertheless weak correlations. In summary, all but two of the indicators are only weakly inter-correlated, with two not being correlated. This means they can be used as separate indicators.

5.4. Sector Analysis

To move beyond aggregate scores, we next analyzed performance at the sector level to explore whether industry context shaped sustainability outcomes. We conducted a sector analysis to examine whether certain GICS industry sectors [54] were performing better than others in terms of sustainability focus. The goal was to identify potential cross-sectoral patterns that could inform improvement strategies for weaker performing companies.

Table 9. Analysis of total composite indicator score by sector (company count).

Sector	Tercile 1	Tercile 2	Tercile 3	Total	Average
Materials	1	0	0	1	9.00
Technology	8	0	0	8	10.25
Consumer Discretionary	8	1	0	9	11.33
Industrials	11	1	0	12	12.08
Consumer Staples	10	3	1	14	12.43
Communication Services	5	2	0	7	13.14
Energy	3	2	0	5	13.80
Utilities	1	1	0	2	14.50
Healthcare	10	4	3	17	15.29
Financials	9	6	10	25	18.28
Real Estate	0	0	0	0	n/a
Totals	66	20	14	100

presents the results, with companies sorted into three terciles based on their total composite indicator scores. Clear sector-level differences emerged when examining which of the 11 GICS industry sectors were most represented in the highest and lowest sustainability performance groups. A total of 56/66 companies in the top tercile (scores between 7–14) came from six of the eleven sectors—Industrials, Consumer Staples, Healthcare, Financials, Technology, and Consumer Discretionary—each contributing between 8 and 11 companies. Real Estate was the only sector not represented at all in the Fortune 100, while all other sectors had at least some presence in the top tercile. Given the large number of companies scoring in tercile 1, it is not surprising that most sectors performed reasonably well overall. However, certain sectors stand out for their particularly strong presence—specifically Technology, Consumer Discretionary, and Industrials, with 8/8, 8/9, and 11/12 of their companies, respectively, landing in the top tercile. In contrast, Healthcare and Financials showed more mixed results; while both had a notable number of companies in the top group, they represented a smaller share of their sector totals, with just 10/17 and 9/25 companies scoring in tercile 1, respectively.

This analysis shows that performance varies by sector, indicating that industry context influences how companies approach and prioritize sustainability. Sectors with strong consumer visibility or significant operational footprints—such as Technology, Industrials, and Consumer Discretionary—appear more likely to invest in robust sustainability programs, reflecting both stakeholder expectations and regulatory pressures. By contrast, Healthcare and especially Financials show uneven results, suggesting that firms in these sectors may perceive sustainability as less central to their core operations. These differences highlight that sectoral pressures, risk profiles, and stakeholder demands strongly shape corporate engagement. Understanding these cross-sectoral patterns is important not only for benchmarking but also for developing targeted strategies that encourage weaker-performing sectors to close the gap.

One of the most notable findings from the sector analysis is that the lowest-performing companies in sustainability were largely concentrated in the Financials sector. While Financials clearly ranked lowest across the seven indicators, the Healthcare sector also showed a significant share of lower-performing companies (see Table 9). A staggering 10/14 companies in tercile 3 and 6/20 in tercile 2 came from the Financials sector. In short, the Financials sector was disproportionately represented among the lowest performers. This raised the question: what made Financials the weakest performing sector overall? We explored whether specific indicators were driving these low scores, but no clear anomalies or outliers emerged. Instead, the weakness appeared broad-based, suggesting that many financial institutions may view their own operational footprint as modest and their role in sustainability as primarily indirect, through financing and investment. This perspective can lead to weaker disclosures and less visible leadership structures. By contrast, Healthcare’s mixed results may reflect competing operational priorities that dilute sustainability focus. The disproportionate underperformance of Financials is particularly concerning given the sector’s central role in enabling sustainable transitions across the economy.

Table 10. Average indicator scores for GICS sectors.

Sector	Goals	Milestones	Leader	Report	Website	SRSs	SDGs	Average
Materials	2.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	2.00	1.29
Technology	1.25	1.13	1.38	1.50	1.75	1.50	1.75	1.46
Consumer Discretionary	1.44	1.33	1.78	1.44	2.11	1.44	1.78	1.62
Industrials	1.33	1.25	1.75	2.00	2.00	1.33	2.42	1.73
Consumer Staples	1.43	1.43	1.79	1.79	2.14	1.79	2.07	1.78
Communication Services	1.00	1.71	2.29	1.71	2.29	1.86	2.29	1.88
Energy	1.60	1.60	2.60	1.40	1.80	2.20	2.60	1.97
Utilities	3.00	2.50	2.00	2.00	1.50	1.50	2.00	2.07
Healthcare	2.12	2.24	2.35	2.29	2.82	1.47	2.00	2.18
Financials	2.48	2.36	2.48	2.64	3.08	2.24	3.00	2.61
Real Estate	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a

shows the average sector score for all seven indicators assessed in this research. The results show that the F100 is generally taking sustainability seriously. However, as noted previously, the Financials sector seems to lag in their approach to sustainability seriousness. The Financials sector’s indicator scores ranged from 2.24 to 3.08, averaging 2.61. These results are closer to a score of 3, which would typically signal a lack of seriousness or even superficial or greenwashed efforts. The remaining industries are generally closer to an average score of 2, which reflects incomplete but earnest attempts. For Financials, no single indicator stands out as the issue; rather, all scores reflect a generally weak level of performance. Improving would require a coordinated, sector-wide effort across all areas rather than minor adjustments. Still, the sector average does not tell the whole story. Many Financials companies did score well, with nine in the top tercile (see Table 9). This challenges the idea that financial companies are inherently limited in their ability to perform well on sustainability, as essentially just as many are doing well as are doing poorly. This suggests that strong sustainability performance is achievable in the sector and that no indicator is inherently out of reach for firms that prioritize it.

This variation also makes it difficult to offer sector-wide recommendations for Financials, as the issues are not concentrated in any one area. For many of these companies, improving sustainability performance may simply require greater commitment and effort. While the exact reasons for the Financials sector’s low sustainability performance are unclear, one possible explanation is that this type of company primarily operates modern office buildings, which have lower energy demands than the manufacturing, industrial, or retail facilities common in other sectors. As a result, some may have been slower to prioritize sustainability, given their relatively limited environmental footprint. Additionally, some financial firms may view their role in sustainability as supporting clients’ efforts rather than focusing on their own operations, an outlook that may reflect earlier views of sustainability as relevant only to high-impact industries. Moving forward, the sector may benefit from rethinking this perspective, with stronger performers leading the shift toward a more proactive and accountable approach.

In a holistic sense, the seven indicators cannot be treated as separate efforts to be selectively addressed by companies seeking to improve their sustainability programs, or simply their public image. They are interconnected; doing one well often requires doing others well. Without a senior sustainability manager who has clout within the organization, it is difficult to allocate the time and resources needed to produce quality reports or websites or accomplish meaningful goals. A long-term quality goal requires appropriate milestones along the way if it is to be achieved. These milestones, in turn, must be measured, thus contributing to the development of strong reports and websites that communicate progress effectively and credibly. Quality reports and websites also require real projects to showcase, and the SDGs offer a useful and widely recognized framework for defining such initiatives. To report results credibly, companies naturally turn to widely accepted sustainability reporting standards, while the SBTi lends additional credibility to what might otherwise appear as arbitrary or unsubstantiated targets. The sector analysis ultimately suggests that industry context plays a significant role in shaping how companies prioritize and implement sustainability practices.

6. Conclusions

This study set out to objectively evaluate the sustainability practices of Fortune 100 companies by assessing their performance across seven key indicators: use of the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), adoption of sustainability reporting standards (SRSs) and external programs, presence of long-term sustainability goals and intermediate milestones, appointment of senior sustainability leaders, and the quality of sustainability-related websites and reports. Unlike prior studies that relied on self-reported survey data, this research independently reviewed publicly available disclosures, providing a more rigorous benchmark of how the largest US companies approach sustainability.

A model was developed that used seven observable indicators to infer a company’s sustainability seriousness. This model was found to be valid using a confirmatory factor analysis, with each individual indicator being demonstrated as an appropriate independent variable. Therefore, this model can be used to assess the seriousness of other companies’ sustainability efforts.

6.1. Major Findings

Overall, the results show that sustainability engagement is widespread but uneven. Roughly two-thirds of F100 companies (66/100) scored in the top tercile of performance, indicating credible commitments, measurable goals, senior leadership, and substantive use of reporting standards. However, a substantial minority lagged behind, often with vague targets, weak transparency, or no visible programs. Higher-ranked firms were consistently stronger performers, suggesting that greater resources and public scrutiny are power drivers of sustainability leadership.

Sectoral patterns were also notable. Technology, industrials, and consumer-facing firms dominated the top tercile, while the Financials sector was disproportionately represented among the weakest performers, with 40% of firms in the bottom tercile companies in the lowest tercile and an average indicator score approaching superficial levels. This gap is especially concerning given the Financials sector’s growing role in shaping capital flows that directly affect sustainability outcomes.

Another key insight was the inconsistent use of global frameworks. While 94% of companies used at least one SRS—most often SASB or TCFD—many adopted multiple overlapping frameworks, raising questions about efficiency and clarity. By contrast, fewer than half meaningfully referenced the SDGs, and nearly half of all companies either ignored or only superficially mentioned them. Yet companies that substantively engaged with the SDGs were also the strongest performers across the other indicators, underscoring the value of using the SDGs as a credible strategic framework. Membership in the UNGC was even less common, with only 35 firms citing alignment, suggesting limited perceived value.

These findings demonstrate that large US companies are capable of strong sustainability performance, but credibility depends on holistic integration. The most effective firms combine clear long-term goals with actionable milestones, embed sustainability leadership at the C-suite level, adopt relevant reporting frameworks without unnecessary duplication, and communicate progress through high-quality reports and websites. Companies that treat these elements as interconnected rather than symbolic build greater trust with stakeholders and are better positioned to create measurable impact.

6.2. Research Contributions

The value of this research is threefold. First, this analysis adds detail to the 2017 UNGC study [37], which was vague, self-reported, and did not highlight the limited number of participating companies or the lack of reported results. While that report may have been intended as a motivational tool, this study takes a different approach, offering an external, academically grounded assessment.

Second, this study demonstrates that large US multinationals are performing relatively well in their sustainability efforts, despite largely not participating in the UNGC. The reasons for this are unclear but may include a cultural tendency, reflected in US business practices, to be cautious of external bodies like the UN or other global NGOs prescribing standards or directives. Successful businesses tend to act rationally; when asked to adopt initiatives that require additional effort or cost, managers typically want to understand how those efforts will enhance shareholder value. For some aspects of sustainability, particularly those promoted by the UNGC, this link remains difficult to quantify. This may explain the limited involvement of US companies, including those in the F100.

This raises related questions: Why have Western European companies joined the UNGC in greater numbers? What value do they see that others may not? The 2017 UNGC report [37], which focused primarily on its Western European members, contrasts with this study’s broader assessment of the 100 largest US-based companies, regardless of affiliation. Despite their limited participation in the UNGC, many of these companies demonstrated meaningful engagement with sustainability. This supports earlier critiques suggesting that UNGC membership is not a reliable indicator of sustainability program quality. The organization’s lack of enforceable reporting standards, minimal accountability mechanisms, and low adoption in key markets, especially the US, raise valid questions about its ongoing relevance [30,31,32]. Our data reinforces this view, showing that UNGC participation among US F100 companies remains low.

Third, the Financials sector lagged all others by a wide margin. While some financial companies demonstrated strong sustainability programs, nearly all the lowest-performing F100 firms came from this sector. Their poor performance spans all seven indicators, suggesting that a fundamental shift in how financial companies approach sustainability may be needed. As influential market leaders, F100 firms help set the standard for corporate behavior and should lead the way in integrating sustainability into business practices. Encouragingly, several financial firms were already doing well, showing that improvement is possible. The reasons for underperformance are unclear but may stem from a historical perception that financial companies, unlike heavy industry, have minimal environmental impact. However, this no longer holds true. For example, many now operate energy-intensive data centers that support technologies like artificial intelligence, which consume significant power and water. Moreover, with sustainability now encompassing a broader scope, as reflected in the 17 SDGs, many goals are directly relevant to the financial sector. These companies must recognize their evolving impact and responsibility.

6.3. Recommendations

Considering the findings, the following recommendations aim to help companies enhance the credibility, integration, and communication of their sustainability initiatives. These recommendations reflect the broader goal of supporting companies in aligning with meaningful actions and improving transparency in a rapidly evolving sustainability landscape. Although this study explored the sustainability practices of F100 companies, the recommendations are broadly applicable to any sized organization seeking to strengthen their sustainability programs. The underlying principles of transparency, strategic integration, and accountability, are relevant across industries and can guide both emerging and established companies in creating and improving quality efforts.

Underperforming companies, especially within the Financials sector, should look to better-performing peers for models of sustainability goal setting, communication, leadership, and transparency. Companies should strive for consistent, high-quality reporting and website communications to avoid perceptions of greenwashing and improve stakeholder trust. Companies should also work to improve the quality and specificity of goals and milestones and should ensure their sustainability goals are not just aspirational but also actionable, with defined interim targets and clear measurement frameworks. These things should be done to ensure that their businesses themselves are sustainable as society becomes more attuned to the importance of sustainability and starts to expect sustainable business practices from the companies whose products and services they choose to use. This change in public attitude has already started, and companies that are not taking sustainability seriously should consider catching up to remain relevant to consumers and their evolving sensitivities. Beyond any motivations to improve because of its impact on stakeholder relations, adopting the SDGs into company culture is the right thing to do for the sake of humanity [22]. High-performing companies increasingly understand that strong business outcomes and positive societal impact are not mutually exclusive but can be pursued in tandem.

Although many companies are broadly using established sustainability reporting standards and programs, they often take a grab bag approach. This results in companies applying multiple frameworks without clearly aligning them to their specific business needs, potentially resulting in wasted effort and unnecessary reporting. Rather than using multiple overlapping SRSs, companies should align with the most relevant frameworks and communicate clearly why specific standards are used. Similarly, companies should be more deliberate about using the SDGs strategically and authentically. This would mean focusing on a subset of SDGs that align with their core operations and provide detailed reporting on progress, rather than blanket references without substance. At a minimum, being more deliberate with SRSs can reduce wasteful duplicative reporting effort. Being more deliberate with SDG choice can also free up resources to focus only on those that are tied to core business. Ultimately, companies should stay abreast of current developments with SRSs in an ever-evolving landscape of sustainability disclosure requirements.

6.4. Future Research

This research focused primarily on corporate transparency, but future studies should examine company motivations and strategic decision-making. Areas for further exploration include understanding what drives large companies to pursue sustainability programs and whether those programs, in their current form, are themselves sustainable. This could further include investigating other company cultural factors such as legal frameworks and leadership styles, which could also significantly influence performance and reporting. Similarly, given the evolving landscape of sustainability reporting, additional efforts should explore how sustainability reporting processes have been affected by recent sustainability reporting standards changes. Finally, future research could also investigate why the Financials sector underperforms, how US multinationals perceive the UNGC, and what factors influence companies’ choices in aligning with specific SDGs and selecting particular SRSs.

6.5. Limitations

This research was based solely on information made public on company websites and in their posted reports. It is possible that companies are doing more but have not communicated it effectively. However, given the increasing need for public transparency, and strong industry pressure regarding documentation and communication of corporate sustainability efforts, it is likely that companies that are doing well are reporting those efforts. Additionally, some of the assessments made in this study were categorical and therefore necessarily subjective. We feel that internal consistency was maintained throughout this research, since only one person made the assessments, each company’s materials were thoroughly reviewed, and the research process remained the same for each company. However, although some data consisted of countable variables (e.g., numbers of SDGs and SRSs/external programs mentioned, presence of senior sustainability managers, etc.), any information with a quality component relied on the effectiveness of our scoring rubrics and was open for subjective interpretation (e.g., quality of websites and reports, quality scoring of SDG usage, determination of meaningful goals, etc.).

The context of sustainability measuring and reporting is in flux and corporate sustainability programs are constantly evolving. For example, even during the performance of this research SRSs started consolidating and the SEC Task Force on ESG was repositioned, as explained in the paper. Future attempts to use the results of this research to improve corporate sustainability programs would need to account for relevant changes.

One might suggest strengthening external validity by linking the indicator results to independent benchmarks such as third-party ESG ratings, verifiable GHG disclosures, or realized emission reductions. Unfortunately, the F100 companies do not consistently use external auditors to validate the reporting on their sustainability programs. In the USA there are no generally accepted third-party ESG rating standards. This contrasts with Europe, where companies are now required to report sustainability metrics under the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive. Further analysis along these lines could be useful in assessing non-US-based companies.