Newsweek's World's Greenest Companies 2025
The world's growing climate crisis—exacerbated by factors like increased greenhouse gas emissions and deforestation—is one of humanity's greatest threats, according to scientists. This January was the warmest globally on record, according to the World Meteorological Record. As temperatures and sea levels rise across the globe, extreme weather phenomena may happen more frequently and precipitation patterns may become more unpredictable, causing either severe droughts or increased flooding.
Despite the challenges ahead, businesses are stepping up to reduce their carbon footprint. And that's why Newsweek and Plant-A Insights Group are proud to recognize the World's Greenest Companies 2025, featuring companies like ASR Nederland, Dayforce, Paragon Banking Group, Sopra Steria and Vonovia who are prioritizing environmental sustainability.
Newsweek has partnered with Plant-A Insights and GIST Impact to spotlight businesses worldwide who are determined to mitigate their climate impact. The ranking is based on research of publicly available data provided by GIST Impact as available through March 1, 2025.
We hope this ranking helps environmentally conscious consumers identify which companies go above and beyond in their efforts to minimize their ecological impact, seeking to foster a sustainable tomorrow.
Licensing
Are you on the list? Claim your award and learn how to use it.
LICENSING
Are you on the list? Claim your award and learn how to use it.
METHODOLOGY
Newsweek's World's Greenest Companies 2025 recognizes the top 750 publicly listed companies across 26 countries for their environmental sustainability performance. The ranking is based on a comprehensive analysis of self-disclosed sustainability data conducted by GIST and Plant-A Insights Group. Over 8,000 companies were evaluated, and 750 were selected for inclusion based on their environmental sustainability performance. Eligibility required companies to meet the minimum sustainability standards established by the European Union—widely regarded as the most advanced globally—and to have publicly available sustainability disclosures and more than 1,000 employees.
The companies were evaluated and scored on more than 25 parameters based on the following 4 categories:
Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions
Water Usage
Waste Generation
Sustainability Data Disclosure and Commitments
About GIST Impact:
GIST Impact is a globally-recognized impact intelligence provider that has been measuring and quantifying corporate impact for over 16 years. With a team of 100+ scientists, engineers, data scientists and environmental economists, GIST Impact delivers market-leading impact platforms and datasets, covering 14,500+ companies with location-specific, time-series data.
DISCLAIMER
Rankings Placement
Placement in the Rankings (defined below) is a positive recognition based on research of publicly available data sources the time. Newsweek, Plant-A Insights Group LLC ("Plant-A"), and GIST Impact make no claim or warranty, either express or implied, with respect to the accuracy, completeness, or reliability of the information or data related to the companies examined. Nor do they warrant the fitness of this information for a particular purpose or guarantee that it is error-free. It is important to note that the absence of any particular company from this ranking does not constitute a dispute regarding the quality of those companies.
The underlying research is based on data provided by GIST Impact as available through March 1, 2025, at the close of its data collection period. Data published after this date may not be included in the analysis.
Intellectual Property Rights
All content within the rankings ("Rankings") is the exclusive property of Plant-A Insights Group LLC ('Plant-A'). This work, including all data, analyses, and derived rankings, is copyrighted under United States and international copyright laws. Unauthorized use, including but not limited to the publication, reproduction, modification, distribution, transmission, or display of any material without the prior written consent of Plant-A, is strictly prohibited.
Nature of the Rankings
The Rankings are prepared by Plant-A and reflect an editorial content piece, based on both primary and secondary market research. This includes publicly available data and specific data provided directly to Plant-A. These Rankings are published in conjunction with Newsweek and should be viewed as an editorial work, not as definitive financial or business guidance.
Data Accuracy and Periodicity
The Rankings are generated from data sources deemed reliable and are formed based on a methodological analysis of such data spanning the last 24 months. They are inherently a reflection of historical data and may not include subsequent developments, unforeseen events, or additional data not covered during the research period.
No Endorsement or Quality Assurance
Plant-A, Newsweek and GIST do not endorse or validate the business practices or the standing of the ranked companies. The inclusion or exclusion of any company in the Rankings should not be used as a basis for investment, business, or other decisions. All decisions based on any information presented in the Rankings should be made in conjunction with other available information and independent advice.
Disclaimer of Liability
Plant-A, Newsweek and GIST, and their respective officers, directors, employees, and agents (collectively, the "Plant-A Parties") disclaim all liability and responsibility for any errors or omissions in the Rankings or for any actions taken based on the contents of this publication. Plant-A, Newsweek and GIST do not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of the information contained in the Rankings.
By accessing, using, or relying upon the Rankings, you waive all claims and have no recourse against Plant-A Parties for any alleged or actual infringements of any rights of any party, including privacy rights, proprietary rights, intellectual property rights, rights of publicity, rights of credit for material or ideas, or any other rights, including the right to approval of uses such as copy that may be deemed to be distorted, derogatory, or offensive.
This disclaimer is intended to be as broad and inclusive as permitted under the law. If any portion hereof is held invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of the disclaimer shall nonetheless remain in full force and effect. This disclaimer constitutes the entire agreement between you and Plant-A regarding the use of the Rankings.
Copyright © 2025 Plant-A Insights Group LLC. All rights reserved
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
32 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Newsweek Magazine July 18, 2025 Issue
For today's global workforce, the most valued employers offer more than competitive salaries. They also create cultures of respect, purpose and belonging. That's why Newsweek, in partnership with the Best Practice Institute, is proud to recognize the Global Most Loved Workplaces® 2025. This annual list highlights exceptional companies where employees genuinely love to work.
Miami Herald
2 hours ago
- Miami Herald
Asia Map Shows US Coast Guard Ships Given to China's Neighbors
The United States recently completed the transfer of 10 former Coast Guard ships to four Asian countries, including two involved in territorial disputes with China, a Newsweek map shows. The handover of cutters held both practical and politically symbolic significance in response to China's assertiveness in the South China Sea, where it claims sovereignty over most of the waters, naval analyst Collin Koh told Newsweek. Newsweek has contacted the U.S. Coast Guard and China's Foreign Ministry for comment via email. In June, the former U.S. Coast Guard ship USCGC Mellon-one of 12 Hamilton-class high-endurance cutters-arrived in Vietnam to continue its service with the Southeast Asian nation's coast guard, marking the third transfer of this class of cutter to the country. Three other Hamilton-class ships are serving in the Philippine navy. Both Hanoi and Manila have overlapping sovereignty claims with Beijing in the South China Sea, where China maintains a persistent presence with the world's largest coast guard fleet. China has rapidly expanded its military footprint across the Indian Ocean, and Bangladesh and Sri Lanka have also received a pair of Hamilton-class ships for their navies. Following the transfer of the final high-endurance cutter to Vietnam, the U.S. Coast Guard announced last week that all Hamilton-class ships had been handed over to their respective foreign recipients as "excess defense articles"-including two vessels delivered to Nigeria. Such transfers of decommissioned vessels align with the country's Indo-Pacific strategy, the U.S. Coast Guard said, as they help bolster security and build partnerships in the region. The 2,700-ton Hamilton-class ships, commissioned between the 1960s and 1970s, have been replaced by the Legend-class national security cutters. Considered the largest and most advanced vessels in the U.S. Coast Guard, they are capable of supporting a wide range of missions. Koh, a senior fellow at the Institute of Defense and Strategic Studies in Singapore, described the U.S.'s transfer of Hamilton-class cutters to Southeast Asian countries as significant, adding the right type of maritime asset while strengthening their fleets of offshore patrol vessels. Citing challenges-such as higher sea states, vast distances from shore infrastructure and the need for wide-area surveillance and enforcement-the analyst said the offshore patrol vessel was the quintessential asset for missions in the disputed waters of the South China Sea. While the Pentagon has assessed that the Chinese coast guard possesses more than 150 patrol vessels weighing more than 1,000 tons, Koh argued that neither Vietnam nor the Philippines has a practical need to match China "vessel for vessel" to project a sustained presence. A handful of cutters transferred to these countries would represent a significant leap in their ability to maintain what the analyst called a "sustained peacetime constabulary presence" in the South China Sea as this class of ship is larger and offers greater range and endurance. The U.S. Coast Guard said in a news release on June 27: "Excess Defense Articles (EDA) transfers help to develop relationships with partner nations and allies to enhance the pursuit of cooperatively shared maritime safety and security goals. In addition to building maritime capacity among strategic partners, the EDA program has saved the Coast Guard around $41 million in disposal costs for the decommissioned high endurance cutter fleet." Collin Koh, a senior fellow at the Institute of Defense and Strategic Studie, told Newsweek: "The [Hamilton-class] ship itself sends a veritable signal of these countries' determination to hold their ground against Chinese transgressions, and also reflects their growing security ties with Washington-which in some ways complicates Beijing's intentions and plans in its exercise of coercion against these [Southeast Asian] rivals." The U.S. is expected to continue its defense cooperation with allies and partners across the Indo-Pacific region. It remains to be seen whether additional military equipment, including decommissioned naval and coast guard ships, will be transferred to countries in the region. Related Articles Map Shows Major US Naval Presence in West Pacific Amid China RivalryIran Sets Terms for Nuclear Talks With Army Prepares For New AttackWhat the Industrial Revolution Can Teach Americans About the AI Revolution 2025 NEWSWEEK DIGITAL LLC.
Miami Herald
2 hours ago
- Miami Herald
Donald Trump Vowed 90 Deals in 90 Days. He's Only Made One
With only days remaining before the 90-day pause on President Donald Trump's Liberation Day tariffs expires, the administration has yet to unveil even a fraction of the trade deals that were promised at the outset. Members of his cabinet initially aimed to secure "90 deals in 90 days," but are now poised to fall short of this goal, having only secured one bona fide deal, a single set of preliminary agreements, while hinting that a handful more are on their way. On April 2, the president put markets into a tailspin and the United States' trading partners on notice by announcing country-specific "reciprocal" tariffs on nations accused of taking advantage of America to the tune of billions of dollars. When these were paused only a week later, the administration stated that countries would now have the opportunity to approach the U.S. with more favorable terms and strike deals to permanently reduce these high duties. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said early on that "more than 75" nations had approached the administration to this end, later stating that negotiations would focus on "18 important trading partners." But so far, the United Kingdom is the only country to cement a deal with the U.S.—heralded as "historic" by both leaders—under which its goods will be subject to a 10 percent tariff when entering the U.S., with 100,000 British cars per year tariffed at this rate rather than the 25 percent duty on cars announced by Trump in April. The U.S. and China have also agreed on preliminary trade terms and a framework for further negotiations. While details are scarce, Bessent said that this will likely mean easier access to Chinese magnets and rare earth minerals. India is also close to striking a deal that could bring down the 26-percent duties imposed on it in April, according to officials from both countries. In a recent interview with Newsweek, External Affairs Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar expressed optimism that an agreement could soon be reached. President Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One on Tuesday that, should India grant American firms greater access to its markets, the country would secure a deal "for much less tariffs." However, far from new, mutually advantageous trading terms, snags in negotiations have also seen certain countries facing even harsher trading restrictions than before the pause. After criticizing Japan's reluctance to accept U.S. rice exports, which Tokyo considers a threat to its agricultural sector, Trump said he was considering imposing a tariff of "30 percent of 35 percent" on Japan's imports if a deal is not struck before next week's deadline, well above the original, 24-percent reciprocal rate. "I'm not sure we're going to make a deal. I doubt it," Trump said of Japan on Tuesday, while calling the country "very tough" and "very spoiled." Ryan Young, a senior economist at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, told Newsweek that the conspicuous lack of new deals may stem from an international guessing game, and countries' inability to know what the Trump administration is seeking from negotiations, whether support for U.S. manufacturing, action on drug trafficking, or simply a reduction in bilateral trade deficits. "With that kind of policy incoherence, trading partners might feel that their best option is to wait out Trump's term and put up with a few years of their companies exporting less to Americans," Young said. "Then they can negotiate with a more stable future administration." With dozens of agreements still in their early stages and the deadline fast approaching, the administration has also begun providing differing views on both what will be achieved by July 9 and how trade policy will evolve beyond this date. As these questions began to emerge in late April, Trump told Time magazine he had made "200 deals," without clarifying who they were with. However, last week the president acknowledged the difficulty of cementing deals with so many countries in such a short time frame, when such negotiations typically span months or years. "You know, we have 200 countries—you could say 200 countries plus," Trump told reporters on June 27. "We can't do that. So at a certain point, over the next week and a half or so, or maybe before, we're going to send out a letter. We talked to many of the countries, and we're just going to tell them what they have to pay to do business in the United States." A day earlier, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt described the July 9 deadline as "not critical," adding that the president could extend this if he wishes, or simply "provide these countries with a deal if they refuse to make us one by the deadline." Leavitt said this would involve Trump "pick[ing] a reciprocal tariff rate that he believes is advantageous for the United States." "I'm going to send letters. That's the end of the trade deal," Trump told Fox News on Sunday, when asked what would happen before the 90 days were up. "Dear Mr. Japan, here's the story: You're going to pay a 25 percent tariff on your cars." In May, Bessent said that countries which failed to reach a deal with the U.S. would see tariffs revert to their Liberation Day rates, telling CNN, "If you do not negotiate in good faith, you will ratchet back up to your April 2 level." However, earlier this month, Bessent told the House Ways and Means Committee that those countries that are negotiating in "good faith" would likely be able to continue negotiations past the July 9 deadline without their tariff rates reverting to those announced on Liberation Day. Both Bessent and Trump have framed the impending deadline as not set in stone. The president told reporters last week that "We can do whatever we want. We could extend it, we could make it shorter." In an interview with Fox News, Bessent said that the majority of America's critical trade deals would be inked by Labor Day, September 1. Young believes the deadline will be pushed back for the majority of trading partners for two main reasons. "One, negotiating trade agreements are taking longer than the administration expected. Policy is complicated, and you can't just bulldoze through it," he told Newsweek, comparing the hyperbolic promises of dozens of trade deals to those regarding DOGE's cost-cutting abilities, or Trump's campaign pledge of a 24-hour solution to the Russia-Ukraine conflict. "Two, financial markets will revolt if they expect Trump to go through with his full Liberation Day tariffs," he said. For those countries that can secure a deal, either before next Monday or beyond this point, Young believes these will likely resemble that announced with the U.K., a 10-percent baseline rate, with a few specific exemptions. "The bottom line result will be higher tariffs than before Trump took office," he added. Related Articles Colombian Ambassador: When Alliances Matter Most, Look South: Colombia and the US-Partners Against Transnational Crime | OpinionZohran Mamdani Responds to Donald Trump Deportation ThreatIran Ready to Enrich Uranium Up to Bomb-Grade Levels: "We Can Do That"No Tax on Tips Passes in Trump's Big Beautiful Bill: What to Know 2025 NEWSWEEK DIGITAL LLC.
