{"id":6927,"date":"2026-10-07T10:42:42","date_gmt":"2026-10-07T08:42:42","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.capkelenn.com\/?p=6927"},"modified":"2026-10-07T11:04:47","modified_gmt":"2026-10-07T09:04:47","slug":"sustainable-company-time-statista-ranking-2026","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.capkelenn.com\/en\/blog\/sustainable-company-time-statista-ranking-2026\/","title":{"rendered":"Moncler 3rd, Herm\u00e8s 26th: what makes a company truly sustainable?"},"content":{"rendered":"

The TIME \u00d7 Statista 2026 ranking mostly scores what companies promise and publish. It measures neither product lifespan nor team sustainability. I read its methodology: here is what it teaches us about retail.<\/em><\/p>\n

This is the result of the TIME \u00d7 Statista ranking of the world’s 750 most sustainable companies, 2026 edition, reported by the Journal du Luxe<\/a>. Moncler scores 94.41 out of 100, Herm\u00e8s 87.78.<\/p>\n

A down jacket ahead of the saddler that repaired more than 200,000 items in 2024? I wanted to understand, so I read Statista’s official methodology. It raises a question that concerns all of us in retail management: what makes a company sustainable, and how do we measure it?<\/strong><\/p>\n

What the ranking really measures<\/h2>\n

Statista starts with more than 5,800 large companies and keeps 750. Fossil fuel sectors and companies linked to deforestation are excluded from the outset. The others are scored on more than 20 indicators, grouped into 3 blocks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Block<\/th>\nWeight<\/th>\nWhat is scored<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
Commitments and ratings<\/td>\n40%<\/td>\nCDP score, climate targets validated by the SBTi, UN Global Compact, DJSI and S&P indices, MSCI ESG rating<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Reporting and transparency<\/td>\n20%<\/td>\nThird-party verified ESG report, compliance with GRI, ISSB, TCFD, ESRS frameworks<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Environmental and social performance<\/td>\n40%<\/td>\nEmissions, energy, waste, a few social indicators<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

First finding: 60% of the score is based on what the company promises and publishes<\/strong>, not on what it does. And the performance data is self-reported: it comes from the companies’ own reports.<\/p>\n

Sustainable means, first of all, produced to sustain over the years, and last<\/h2>\n

Let’s go back to the original meaning of the word. Sustainable is what lasts.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Herm\u00e8s sells bags that people carry for 30 years, then pass on. Its workshops repaired more than 200,000 items in 2024. That is the most sustainable act in the whole industry: make less, but make things that last. And it is consistent with what the house says about itself<\/strong>: craftsmanship, the long term, passing things on.<\/p>\n

No indicator in the ranking captures this. Not product lifespan, not repair, not resale.<\/p>\n

Team sustainability, the blind spot<\/h2>\n

There is another dimension the grid does not really include: the sustainability of teams<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

The social component accounts for only about 16% of the total score. It relies on a few indicators: diversity, pay gap, workplace safety, turnover. Nothing, as far as I know, on absenteeism, burnout or the working atmosphere.<\/p>\n

Yet turnover alone can be misleading. In luxury, people can stay out of pride in the brand while burning out. We sometimes see it in the field, at headquarters or in prestigious boutiques: few departures, and yet a tense atmosphere and managers at the edge of burnout.<\/p>\n

So a company can get an excellent score with teams that cannot last. Is it truly sustainable?<\/p>\n

For me, the answer comes down to one word: consistency<\/strong>. A brand that talks about respect, excellence and the long term must be able to prove it in store, in the way it treats its clients and its client advisors. That is where sustainability is tested, not in an ESG report.<\/p>\n

2 questions to ask yourself on Monday morning<\/h2>\n