Barron’s 100 Most Sustainable Companies

Many companies would love a break on labour, after a year of strife when workers from Hollywood to Detroit flexed their muscle. It may be wishful thinking to expect a reprieve.

A resilient economy isn’t likely to shift leverage from workers to corporate bosses. Despite pockets of layoffs, namely in technology, the job market remains tight, with unemployment near record lows. A backlash against “diversity, equity, and inclusion” initiatives, or DEI, is jumping from colleges to companies— Alphabet and Meta Platforms have reportedly pulled back, for instance. Throw in a virtual lockdown on immigration, combined with a spike in U.S. manufacturing, and many companies may have another rough year of labour challenges.

Some companies are navigating these issues better than others—finding ways to reward workers and meet DEI goals without taking big hits to their profits or reputations for social responsibility. Several of those faring well made it into Barron’s ranking of the 100 most sustainable companies .

To make the list, our seventh annual ranking, companies were scored on a variety of environmental, social, and governance, or ESG, measures. Barron’s worked with Calvert Research and Management, a leader in responsible investing, to rank the companies. The top 100 firms—winnowed from the largest 1,000 publicly traded U.S. companies—achieved the highest scores across 230 ESG metrics, from workplace diversity to greenhouse-gas emissions. (See below for the complete list and more about the methodology.)

Home-products company Clorox sits at the top of the leader board for the second straight year, edging out Kimberly-Clark , CBRE Group , Hasbro , and Agilent Technologies in the top five. The overall lineup spans a wide range of industries, with tech, industrials, and consumer companies all well represented.

Many of the companies delivered solid results for shareholders. The top 100 returned an average 19% in 2023, versus 26%, including dividends, for the S&P 500 index. That doesn’t look great. But the S&P 500 is weighted by market capitalisation and last year’s “Magnificent Seven”— Apple , Microsoft , Amazon.com , Nvidia , Meta Platforms, Tesla , and Alphabet—fuelled almost all the market’s gains. Strip away that influence, and the equal-weighted S&P 500 returned 14%, trailing the 100 most sustainable companies.

Several stocks delivered standout returns in 2023, led by chip maker Nvidia, ranked 41st with a 239% gain. Other tech winners included HubSpot , Intel , Applied Materials , and Lam Research . Strong performers in other industries were Trex , Lennox International , Williams-Sonoma , Insight Enterprises , and Owens Corning .

A big theme in this year’s rankings was progress on corporate governance and labor relations, says Chris Madden, a managing director at Calvert, which is owned by Morgan Stanley Investment Management. “A lot of the companies on this list have done a stellar job dealing with employees,” he says.

Strikes were big in 2023 as Hollywood screenwriters and Detroit auto workers took to the picket lines, winning concessions and pay raises. Pilots and other unionised groups fared well, breathing life back into the organised labor movement, which had been in decline since the 1950s. New technologies such as artificial intelligence and electric vehicles are upending vast industries, prompting workers to demand more protections.

Tensions between companies and employees are spilling over in more public ways, thanks in part to social media; workers are using platforms like X and TikTok to amplify their message or try to shame their employer, says Alison Taylor, clinical associate professor at NYU Stern School of Business and author of a new book, Higher Ground . One of the most interesting recent trends, she says, has been the rise of “strategic leaking, where young employees undercut sunny messaging from the top with their own lived experiences.” She cites the trend of sharing layoff experiences on TikTok as an example.

Battles are also brewing over DEI, including a political backlash by conservatives, complicating corporate efforts to meet their own DEI goals. Last year, a number of high-profile chief diversity officers exited their roles at some of the biggest U.S. companies, including Walt Disney and Netflix . This month, Zoom Video Communications fired a team focused on DEI initiatives as part of a round of layoffs.

The issue is also bubbling up in the presidential race. During a rally in Philadelphia last year, presidential hopeful Donald Trump promised to eliminate all diversity, equity, and inclusion programs “across the entire federal government.”

Many companies say they remain committed to DEI goals. According to a Conference Board survey late last year of chief human resource officers, none planned to scale back their diversity efforts, while 75% said improving the employee experience and organisational culture would be a top focus in 2024. Alphabet said in a statement that it is inaccurate to suggest it is “deprioritising our longstanding efforts for underrepresented communities.”

One company that scored well on labor and other sustainability factors was Walmart . The world’s largest retailer landed at 61 on the list. “Walmart stands out for its strong labor practices,” says Helen Mbugua-Kahuki, Calvert’s director of research. “We’ve seen Walmart do a really good job as it pertains to increasing wages for its workers.”

One of America’s largest employers, with 1.6 million U.S. workers, Walmart raised entry-level pay for store workers last year, taking its average hourly wage to $18, well above the federal minimum of $7.25. The company also increased wages for store managers to an average $128,000, plus better bonuses. A Walmart spokesperson said the retailer has been “investing in its front-line hourly associates for the past several years.”

Walmart’s other positives include education and training benefits, which the company says have saved workers nearly $500 million over the past five years. Calvert gives the company high marks for being more open to worker feedback through new digital forums . “It’s a form of open communication and provision for employees to freely express themselves,” Mbugua-Kahuki says.

Walmart still has its labour critics. The company has faced multiple lawsuits over gender discrimination. None of its roughly 4,700 U.S. stores have unionised, making it the largest U.S. employer without any unionised workers. In January, the National Labor Relations Board’s San Francisco office issued a complaint against a Walmart store in Eureka, Calif., alleging violations of labour rights. The NLRB said there are 21 other unfair labor practice cases open against Walmart.

Walmart has denied the NLRB’s allegations in a legal response . The company didn’t respond to a request for comment.

Other Faces of Sustainability

Calvert says Clorox, whose brands include its namesake bleach, Burt’s Bees cosmetics, and Glad trash bags, took top honours thanks to its strong governance structure and pay equity, among other factors. The firm’s board is diverse, with 50% women and 25% people of color. In 2023, Clorox once again achieved pay equity, which means “no statistically significant differences” in pay by gender globally and race or ethnicity in the U.S., according to Clorox. “Pay equity is important because it creates a better culture,” says Madden.

Clorox’s shares underperformed the market in 2023, in part because of a cyberattack that caused wide-scale disruptions and hurt financial results. But its workers, at least, appear to be well treated, with perks including more flexible time for all. “We really intend for people to use this to refuel their tanks,” says Kirsten Marriner, chief people and corporate affairs officer.

About a fifth of this year’s list consists of newcomers. Game publisher Electronic Arts made the list for the first time, debuting at No. 32. Calvert says the company is making strides in DEI, including a push for better representation of women in its games. EA’s hugely popular Ultimate Team mode saw women football players introduced for the first time last year . Calvert also lauds the company for hiring “underrepresented talent” above the average rate in the industry for the fifth straight year and placing more minorities in executive roles. EA declined an interview but confirmed Calvert’s information.

Also making its debut this year is Trex, landing at No. 68. The company is a leading maker of “wood-alternative” home decking and railings made from a blend of recycled and reclaimed raw materials.

Some companies made a big leap up in this year’s ranking, among them Tetra Tech , which jumped from No. 56 to No. 8. Calvert singled out the consulting and engineering firm for its efforts to remediate toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, better known as “forever” chemicals. But it noted that Tetra Tech “could improve on human-capital management and offer more incentives for its employees.”

How We Ranked the Companies

To build our list of most sustainable companies, Barron’s worked with Calvert, a leader in ESG investing. Starting with the 1,000 largest publicly traded companies by market value—excluding real estate investment trusts—Calvert ranked each one by how it performed in five key constituency categories: shareholders, employees, customers, community, and the planet. Specifically, it looked at more than 230 ESG performance indicators from seven rating companies, including ISS, MSCI, and Sustainalytics, along with other data and Calvert’s internal research.

These data were organised into 28 topics that were then sorted into five categories. In the shareholder category, for example, topics included board structure, business ethics, and executive compensation. For employees, workplace diversity was a key topic. The planet category included greenhouse-gas, or GHG, emissions and related policies; biodiversity; and water stress. Calvert assigned a score of zero to 100 in each category, based on company performance. Then it created a weighted average of the categories for each company, based on how financially material the category was in its industry. To make Barron’s list, a company had to be rated above the bottom quarter in each material stakeholder category. If it performed poorly in any key category that was financially material, it was disqualified.

Imagine if having children came with more than $150,000 in cheap loans, a subsidised minivan and a lifetime exemption from income taxes.

Would people have more kids? The answer, it seems, is no.

These are among the benefits—along with cheap child care, extra vacation and free fertility treatments—that have been doled out to parents in different parts of Europe, a region at the forefront of the worldwide baby shortage. Europe’s overall population shrank during the pandemic and is on track to contract by about 40 million by 2050, according to United Nations statistics.

Birthrates have been falling across the developed world since the 1960s. But the decline hit Europe harder and faster than demographers expected—a foreshadowing of the sudden drop in the U.S. fertility rate in recent years.

Reversing the decline in birthrates has become a national priority among governments worldwide, including in China and Russia , where Vladimir Putin declared 2024 “the year of the family.” In the U.S., both Kamala Harris and Donald Trump have pledged to rethink the U.S.’s family policies . Harris wants to offer a $6,000 baby bonus. Trump has floated free in vitro fertilisation and tax deductions for parents.

Europe and other demographically challenged economies in Asia such as South Korea and Singapore have been pushing back against the demographic tide with lavish parental benefits for a generation. Yet falling fertility has persisted among nearly all age groups, incomes and education levels. Those who have many children often say they would have them even without the benefits. Those who don’t say the benefits don’t make enough of a difference.

Two European countries devote more resources to families than almost any other nation: Hungary and Norway. Despite their programs, they have fertility rates of 1.5 and 1.4 children for every woman, respectively—far below the replacement rate of 2.1, the level needed to keep the population steady. The U.S. fertility rate is 1.6.

Demographers suggest the reluctance to have kids is a fundamental cultural shift rather than a purely financial one.

“I used to say to myself, I’m too young. I have to finish my bachelor’s degree. I have to find a partner. Then suddenly I woke up and I was 28 years old, married, with a car and a house and a flexible job and there were no more excuses,” said Norwegian Nancy Lystad Herz. “Even though there are now no practical barriers, I realised that I don’t want children.”

The Hungarian model

Both Hungary and Norway spend more than 3% of GDP on their different approaches to promoting families—more than the amount they spend on their militaries, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

Hungary says in recent years its spending on policies for families has exceeded 5% of GDP. The U.S. spends around 1% of GDP on family support through child tax credits and programs aimed at low-income Americans.

Hungary’s subsidised housing loan program has helped almost 250,000 families buy or upgrade their homes, the government says. Orsolya Kocsis, a 28-year-old working in human resources, knows having kids would help her and her husband buy a larger house in Budapest, but it isn’t enough to change her mind about not wanting children.

“If we were to say we’ll have two kids, we could basically buy a new house tomorrow,” she said. “But morally, I would not feel right having brought a life into this world to buy a house.”

Promoting baby-making, known as pro natalism, is a key plank of Prime Minister Viktor Orbán ’s broader populist agenda . Hungary’s biennial Budapest Demographic Summit has become a meeting ground for prominent conservative politicians and thinkers. Former Fox News anchor Tucker Carlson and JD Vance, Trump’s vice president pick, have lauded Orbán’s family policies.

Orbán portrays having children inside what he has called a “traditional” family model as a national duty, as well as an alternative to immigration for growing the population. The benefits for child-rearing in Hungary are mostly reserved for married, heterosexual, middle-class couples. Couples who divorce lose subsidised interest rates and in some cases have to pay back the support.

Hungary’s population, now less than 10 million, has been shrinking since the 1980s. The country is about the size of Indiana.

“Because there are so few of us, there’s always this fear that we are disappearing,” said Zsuzsanna Szelényi, program director at the CEU Democracy Institute and author of a book on Orbán.

Hungary’s fertility rate collapsed after the fall of the Soviet Union and by 2010 was down to 1.25 children for every woman. Orbán, a father of five, and his Fidesz party swept back into power that year after being ousted in the early 2000s. He expanded the family support system over the next decade.

Hungary’s fertility rate rose to 1.6 children for every woman in 2021. Ivett Szalma, an associate professor at Corvinus University of Budapest, said that like in many other countries, women in Hungary who had delayed having children after the global financial crisis were finally catching up.

Then progress stalled. Hungary’s fertility rate has fallen for the past two years. Around 51,500 babies have been born there this year through August, a 10% drop compared with the same period last year. Many Hungarian women cite underfunded public health and education systems and difficulties balancing work and family as part of their hesitation to have more children.

Anna Nagy, a 35-year-old former lawyer, had her son in January 2021. She received a loan of about $27,300 that she didn’t have to start paying back until he turned 3. Nagy had left her job before getting pregnant but still received government-funded maternity payments, equal to 70% of her former salary, for the first two years and a smaller amount for a third year.

She used to think she wanted two or three kids, but now only wants one. She is frustrated at the implication that demographic challenges are her responsibility to solve. Economists point to increased immigration and a higher retirement age as other offsets to the financial strains on government budgets from a declining population.

“It’s not our duty as Hungarian women to keep the nation alive,” she said.

Big families

Hungary is especially generous to families who have several children, or who give birth at younger ages. Last year, the government announced it would restrict the loan program used by Nagy to women under 30. Families who pledge to have three or more children can get more than $150,000 in subsidised loans. Other benefits include a lifetime exemption from personal taxes for mothers with four or more kids, and up to seven extra annual vacation days for both parents.

Under another program that’s now expired, nearly 30,000 families used a subsidy to buy a minivan, the government said.

Critics of Hungary’s family policies say the money is wasted on people who would have had large families anyway. The government has also been criticised for excluding groups such as the minority Roma population and poorer Hungarians. Bank accounts, credit histories and a steady employment history are required for many of the incentives.

Orbán’s press office didn’t respond to requests for comment. Tünde Fűrész, head of a government-backed demographic research institute, disagreed that the policies are exclusionary and said the loans were used more heavily in economically depressed areas.

Eszter Gerencsér and her husband, Tamas, always wanted a big family. Photo: Akos Stiller for WSJ

Government programs weren’t a determining factor for Eszter Gerencsér, 37, who said she and her husband always wanted a big family. They have four children, ages 3 to 10.

They received about $62,800 in low-interest loans through government programs and $35,500 in grants. They used the money to buy and renovate a house outside of Budapest. After she had her fourth child, the government forgave $11,000 of the debt. Her family receives a monthly payment of about $40 a month for each child.

Most Hungarian women stay home with their children until they turn 2, after which maternity payments are reduced. Publicly run nurseries are free for large families like hers. Gerencsér worked on and off between her pregnancies and returned full-time to work, in a civil-service job, earlier this year.

She still thinks Hungarian society is stacked against mothers and said she struggled to find a job because employers worried she would have to take lots of time off.

The country’s international reputation as family-friendly is “what you call good marketing,” she said.

Gina Ekholt said the government’s policies have helped offset much of the costs of having a child. Photo: Signe Fuglesteg Luksengard for WSJ

Nordic largesse

Norway has been incentivising births for decades with generous parental leave and subsidised child care. New parents in Norway can share nearly a year of fully paid leave, or around 14 months at 80% pay. More than three months are reserved for fathers to encourage more equal caregiving. Mothers are entitled to take at least an hour at work to breast-feed or pump.

The government’s goal has never been explicitly to encourage people to have more children, but instead to make it easier for women to balance careers and children, said Trude Lappegard, a professor who researches demography at the University of Oslo. Norway doesn’t restrict benefits for unmarried parents or same-sex couples.

Its fertility rate of 1.4 children per woman has steadily fallen from nearly 2 in 2009. Unlike Hungary, Norway’s population is still growing for now, due mostly to immigration.

“It is difficult to say why the population is having fewer children,” Kjersti Toppe, the Norwegian Minister of Children and Families, said in an email. She said the government has increased monthly payments for parents and has formed a committee to investigate the baby bust and ways to reverse it.

More women in Norway are childless or have only one kid. The percentage of 45-year-old women with three or more children fell to 27.5% last year from 33% in 2010. Women are also waiting longer to have children—the average age at which women had their first child reached 30.3 last year. The global surge in housing costs and a longer timeline for getting established in careers likely plays a role, researchers say. Older first-time mothers can face obstacles: Women 35 and older are at higher risk of infertility and pregnancy complications.

Gina Ekholt, 39, said the government’s policies have helped offset much of the costs of having a child and allowed her to maintain her career as a senior adviser at the nonprofit Save the Children Norway. She had her daughter at age 34 after a round of state-subsidised IVF that cost about $1,600. She wanted to have more children but can’t because of fertility issues.

She receives a monthly stipend of about $160 a month, almost fully offsetting a $190 monthly nursery fee.

“On the economy side, it hasn’t made a bump. What’s been difficult for me is trying to have another kid,” she said. “The notion that we should have more kids, and you’re very selfish if you have only had one…those are the things that took a toll on me.”

Her friend Ewa Sapieżyńska, a 44-year-old Polish-Norwegian writer and social scientist with one son, has helped her see the upside of the one-child lifestyle. “For me, the decision is not about money. It’s about my life,” she said.