Mapped: The Countries With the Most Sustainable Corporate Giants
From plastic-filled oceans to unequal pay, sustainability is a hot topic these days. Many people are wondering how we’ll move the needle on these important issues, and the business world is being pressured to take action.
Society is demanding that companies, both public and private, serve a social purpose. To prosper over time, every company must not only deliver financial performance, but also show how it makes a positive contribution to society.
— Larry Fink, CEO of BlackRock, the world’s largest asset manager
Which of the world’s largest companies are stepping up to the plate on these issues?
The Global 100 Index
Today’s visualization pulls data from Corporate Knight’s 2019 Global 100 report, which ranks the most sustainable corporations in the world.
Any public company with revenue of at least $1B USD is screened for various factors such as sufficient sustainability reporting. The resulting corporations are scored on an industry-specific mix of performance metrics in the following areas:
- Resource Management
- Employee Management
- Financial Management
- Clean Revenue
- Supplier Performance
The final ranking represents the top companies from each sector, with the number from each sector based on the relative size of its market capitalization.
Sustainable Corporations by Country
Here’s all the countries that had companies on the list:
|Country||Number of Companies on the Global 100|
The U.S. tops the list with 22 companies – far more than any other country. European countries also dominate the list and have 51 companies on the G100 overall. Notably, the populous countries of India and China have no representation on the list.
The Top 10 Companies
So, which individual companies made the list? Here’s a snapshot of the star players:
|1||Chr. Hansen Holding A/S||Denmark||Food or other Chemical Agents||82.99%|
|2||Kering SA||France||Apparel and Accessories||81.55%|
|3||Neste Corporation||Finland||Petroleum Refineries||80.92%|
|5||GlaxoSmithKline plc||United Kingdom||Biopharmaceuticals||79.41%|
|6||Prologis, Inc.||United States||Real Estate Investment Trusts||79.12%|
|7||Umicore||Belgium||Primary Metals Products||79.05%|
|8||Banco do Brasil S.A.||Brazil||Banks||78.15%|
|9||Shinhan Financial Group Co.||South Korea||Banks||77.75%|
|10||Taiwan Semiconductor||Taiwan||Semiconductor Equipment||77.71%|
Chr. Hansen Holding A/S leapt from #66 in 2018 to the top spot this year. According to CEO Mauricio Graber, the company develops “cultures, enzymes, probiotics and natural colors for a rich variety of foods, confectionery, beverages, dietary supplements and even animal feed.”
A staggering 82% of Chr. Hansen’s revenue contributes to the United Nations’ Sustainability Goals. The company is using good bacteria to reduce antibiotic use, crop pesticides, and food waste. Over the last three years, the company has reduced yogurt waste by 400,000 tonnes.
What’s in it for Companies?
While societal pressure is certainly one motivating factor, Harvard Business Review notes that corporate sustainability has many benefits:
- Drives competitive advantage through stakeholder engagement
- Improves risk management
- Fosters innovation
- Improves financial performance
- Builds customer loyalty
- Attracts and engages employees
It’s clear that sustainability is a strong differentiator in the business community. The world’s largest – and smartest – companies are leading the charge towards a greener, more equitable future.
Mapping the Flow of the World’s Plastic Waste
Every year, the United States exports almost one million tons of plastic waste, including ‘recycled’ materials. Where does all of this waste go?
Mapping the Flow of the World’s Plastic Waste
The first plastic material, Bakelite, was invented in 1907. It made its way into everything you can imagine: telephones, chess pieces, Chanel jewelry, and electric guitars.
But it was in 1950 that our thirst for plastic truly began. In just 65 years, plastic production soared almost 200 times, resulting in about 6,300 million metric tons of waste today.
How does the world deal with this much debris? The truth is, a lot of plastic waste—both trash and recycled materials—is often shipped overseas to become someone else’s problem.
The Top Exporters and Importers of Plastic Waste
In honor of International Plastic Bag-Free day, today’s graphic uses data from The Guardian to uncover where the world’s plastic waste comes from, and who receives the bulk of these flows.
|Top Exporters, Jan-Nov 2018||Top Importers, Jan-Nov 2018|
|🇺🇸 United States||961,563 tons||🇲🇾 Malaysia||913,165 tons|
|🇯🇵 Japan||891,719 tons||🇹🇭 Thailand||471,724 tons|
|🇩🇪 Germany||733,756 tons||🇻🇳 Vietnam||443,615 tons|
|🇬🇧 United Kingdom||548,256 tons||🇭🇰 Hong Kong||398,261 tons|
The U.S. could fill up 68,000 shipping containers with its annual plastic waste exports. Put another way, 6,000 blue whales would weigh less than this nearly one million tons of waste exports.
Given the amount of plastic which ends up in our oceans, this comparison is just cause for alarm. But one interesting thing to note is that overall totals have halved since 2016:
- Top 21 total exports (Jan-Nov 2016): 11,342,439 tons
- Top 21 total exports (Jan-Nov 2018): 5,828,257 tons
- Percentage change (2016 to 2018): -49%
The world didn’t suddenly stop producing plastic waste overnight. So what caused the decline?
China Cuts Ties with International Plastic Imports
Over recent years, the trajectory of plastic exports has mimicked the movement of plastic waste into China, including the steep plummet that starts in 2018. After being the world’s dumping ground for decades, China enacted a new policy, dubbed “National Sword”, to ban foreign recyclables. The ban, which includes plastics, has left the world scrambling to find other outlets for its waste.
In response, top exporters quickly turned to other countries in Southeast Asia, such as Malaysia, Vietnam, and Thailand.
That didn’t completely stop plastic waste from seeping through, though. China previously imported 600,000 tons of plastic monthly, but since the policy only restricted 24 types of solid waste, 30,000 tons per month still entered the country post-ban, primarily from these countries:
- 🇮🇩 Indonesia: 7,000 tons per month
- 🇲🇾 Malaysia: 6,000 tons per month
- 🇺🇸 United States: 5,500 tons per month
- 🇯🇵 Japan: 4,000 tons per month
Many countries bearing the load of the world’s garbage are planning to follow in China’s footsteps and issue embargoes of their own. What does that mean for the future?
Recycle and Reuse; But Above All, Reduce
The immense amounts of plastic waste sent overseas include recycled and recyclable materials. That’s because most countries don’t have the means to manage their recycling properly, contrary to public belief. What is being done to mitigate waste in the future?
- Improve domestic recycling
Waste Management is the largest recycling company in the United States. In 2018, it put $110 million towards building more plastic recycling infrastructure.
Meanwhile, tech giant Amazon invested $10 million in a fund that creates recycling infrastructure and services in different cities.
- Reduce single-use plastics
Recycling on its own may not be enough, which is why countries are thinking bigger to cut down on “throwaway” culture.
The European Union passed a directive to ban disposable plastics and polystyrene “clamshell” containers, among other items, by 2021. More recently, California passed an ambitious bill to phase out single-use plastics by 2030.
IMO 2020: The Big Shipping Shake-Up
IMO 2020, which sets ambitious emissions limits, is about to shake up maritime shipping. Today’s graphic covers the environmental and economic impacts
IMO 2020: The Big Shipping Shake-Up
Over 90% of all global trade takes place on our oceans.
Unfortunately, the network of 59,000 vessels powering international commerce runs on sulfur-laden bunker fuel, and resulting emissions are causing problems on dry land.
As today’s infographic by Breakwave Advisors demonstrates, new emissions regulations taking effect in 2020 will have a big impact on the world’s massive fleet of marine shipping vessels.
The Regulatory Impact
The International Maritime Organization (IMO) – the UN agency responsible for ensuring a clean, safe, and efficient global shipping industry – will be implementing new regulations that will have massive impact on maritime shipping.
The regulations, dubbed IMO 2020, will enforce a 0.5% sulfur emissions cap worldwide starting January 1, 2020 ─ a dramatic decrease from the current emissions cap of 3.5%.
Here are a few ways marine fuel will likely be affected by these regulations:
- High-sulfur fuel oil will drop in price as the demand drops dramatically after January 1, 2020
- Diesel, a low-sulfur fuel oil, will be in higher demand and should see a price increase
- Refiners should also expect higher profits as refining runs increase to satisfy the new regulations
The Economic Impact
IMO 2020 will be one of the most dramatic fuel regulation changes ever implemented, with a significant impact on the global economy.
New regulations are certain to influence freight rates ─ the fees charged for delivering cargo from place to place. These rates can fluctuate depending on:
- Time and distance between ports
- Weight and density of the cargo
- Freight classification
- Mode of transport
- Tariffs and taxes
- Fuel costs
Rising fuel costs means rising freight rates, with much of these costs being passed to consumers.
In a full compliance scenario, we estimate the total impact to consumer wallets in 2020 could be around US$240 billion.
─ Goldman Sachs
The Environmental Impact
Not surprisingly, the world’s 59,000 transport ships, oil tankers, and cargo ships have a consequential impact on the environment.
Bunker fuel accounts for 7% of transportation oil consumption (~3.5 million barrels/day). Burning this fuel generates about 90% of all sulfur oxide and dioxide (SOx and SO2) emissions globally. In fact, the world’s 15 largest ships produce more SOx and SO2 emissions than every car combined.
These sulfur emissions can cause several harmful side effects on land ─ acid rain, smog, crop failures, and many respiratory illnesses such as lung cancer and asthma.
Changing Currents in the Shipping Sector
As IMO 2020’s implementation date nears, shippers have a few courses of action to become compliant and manage costs.
1) Switch to low-sulfur fuel
Bunker fuel use in the shipping industry was 3.5 million barrels per day in 2018, representing roughly 5% of global fuel demand.
Annual bunker fuel costs are predicted to rise by US$60 billion in 2020, a nearly 25% increase from 2019. Price increases this significant will directly impact freight rates ─ with no guarantee that fuel will always be available.
2) Slower Travel, Less Capacity
The costs of refining low-sulfur fuel will increase fuel prices. To offset this, shippers often travel at slower speeds.
For example, large ships might burn 280-300 metric tons of high-sulfur fuel oil (HSFO) a day at high speeds, but only 80-90 metric tons a day at slower speeds. Slower travel may cut costs and help reduce emissions, but it also decreases the capacity these vessels can transport due to longer travel times, which shrinks overall profit margins.
3) Refueling Detours
Adequate fuel supply will be a primary concern for shippers once IMO 2020 takes effect. Fuel shortages would cause inefficiencies and increase freight rates even more, as ships would be forced to detour to refuel more often.
4) Installing Scrubbers
A loophole of IMO 2020 is that emissions are regulated, not the actual sulfur content of fuel itself.
Rather than burning more expensive fuel, many shippers may decide to “capture” sulfur before it enters the environment by using scrubbers, devices that transfer sulfur emissions from exhaust to a disposal unit and discharges the emissions.
With IMO 2020 looming, only 1% of the global shipping fleet has been retrofitted with scrubbers. Forecasts for scrubber installations by mid-2020 run close to 5% of the current ships on the water.
There are a few reasons for such low numbers of installations. First, scrubbers are still somewhat unproven in maritime applications, so shippers are taking a “wait and see” approach. As well, even if a ship does qualify for a retrofit, cost savings won’t take effect until several years after installation. On the plus side, ships with scrubbers installed will still be able to use the existing, widely-available supply of bunker fuel.
No matter which route shippers choose to take, the short-term impact is almost certainly going to mean higher freight rates for the marine shipping industry.
Markets6 months ago
The Jeff Bezos Empire in One Giant Chart
Maps8 months ago
Mercator Misconceptions: Clever Map Shows the True Size of Countries
Advertising5 months ago
Meet Generation Z: The Newest Member to the Workforce
Misc7 months ago
24 Cognitive Biases That Are Warping Your Perception of Reality
Advertising4 months ago
How the Tech Giants Make Their Billions
Technology6 months ago
The 20 Internet Giants That Rule the Web
Environment5 months ago
The World’s 25 Largest Lakes, Side by Side
Chart of the Week6 months ago
Chart: The World’s Largest 10 Economies in 2030