Brand Finance data reveals fewer industries are seeing a decline in sustainability influence compared to 2025, signalling limits to the ‘ESG backlash’
LONDON, 19 March 2026 – Sustainability’s influence as a driver of consumer choice is stabilising across industries globally, according to the latest iteration of the Sustainability Perceptions Index from Brand Finance, the world's leading brand valuation consultancy. Of 48 sectors analysed, 24 saw a decline in sustainability influence between 2025 and 2026, compared to 38 in the previous cycle.
Robert Haigh, Strategy & Sustainability Director at Brand Finance, commented:
“Although there has been a continued decline in the role of sustainability in 2026, this is less pronounced than in 2025, suggesting limits to the so called ‘ESG backlash’ and perhaps a shift towards more focused and credible sustainability engagement on the part of brands.”
Google has the highest proportion of brand value tied to its perceived commitment to sustainability, at USD41.9 billion. This shift comes as AI innovation and investment continue to surge across the tech and wider business communities.
It is important to reiterate that this huge value does not reflect its sustainability performance, nor does it imply that Google is perceived to have an exceptional commitment to sustainability. Rather, it reflects the fact that the preponderance of consumers around the world believe that Google is taking suitable action to minimise its negative impacts and invest in positive planet and community initiatives.
Meanwhile, Apple has the highest ‘Gap Value’ of any brand in the Sustainability Perceptions Index, exceeding USD2.6 billion. The Gap Value represents the difference between perceived sustainability and actual sustainability performance. A positive value indicates that a brand’s sustainability performance is better than its perceptions would suggest. This implies that Apple could potentially generate even more value from proactive communication about its sustainability initiatives.
Conversely, Tesla’s reputation has declined for the third-year running, losing USD7.7 billion in sustainability-led brand value. From 2024 to 2026, perceptions of Tesla’s environmental commitment declined in almost all markets tracked by Brand Finance, with most recording double-digit percentage drops over the three-year period. The largest declines over this period occurred in the UK, Denmark, U.S., Norway, France, Canada, Netherlands, and Germany.
Robert Haigh, Strategy & Sustainability Director at Brand Finance, commented:
“Tesla has undoubtedly played a major role in accelerating global EV adoption and advancing sustainability. However, its sustainability scores lag the sector average due to governance and labour concerns and continued controversies surrounding Elon Musk. Brand Finance’s research shows the decline extends beyond the environmental dimension, with Tesla’s social and governance scores falling just as much. As we previously warned, this deterioration has had a significant financial impact: Tesla’s brand value fell from USD66.2 billion in 2023 to USD27.6 billion in early 2026, while sustainability-linked value dropped from USD17.8 billion to USD2.7 billion. This clearly highlights that EV leadership alone is no longer enough to protect the Tesla brand, even as climate awareness continues to rise.”
Regional leaders
In the U.S., apparel brands Patagonia and The North Face lead with the highest sustainability perceptions scores.
In the UK, The Body Shop and LUSH achieve the highest sustainability perceptions, while Rolls-Royce is well perceived on governance. In Germany, health food grocer Alnatura leads on environmental and social sustainability perceptions; dm leads on governance. In France, Michelin and La Roche-Posay lead in both environmental and social sustainability; luxury atelier Hermès leads on governance
In India, Tata Group, Taj, and Amul rank among the country’s best-perceived brands for sustainability, reflecting India’s strong tradition of corporate social responsibility. In China, BYD and State Grid excel on environmental sustainability, while Huawei scores highly on governance. Goodman and Aesop stand out for environmental sustainability perceptions in Australia, while Australia Post has high governance perceptions.
Brand Finance is the world’s leading brand valuation consultancy. Bridging the gap between marketing and finance, Brand Finance evaluates the strength of brands and quantifies their financial value to help organisations make strategic decisions.
Headquartered in London, Brand Finance operates in over 25 countries. Every year, Brand Finance conducts more than 6,000 brand valuations, supported by original market research, and publishes over 100 reports which rank brands across all sectors and countries.
Brand Finance also operates the Global Brand Equity Monitor, conducting original market research annually on 6,000 brands, surveying more than 175,000 respondents across 41 countries and 31 industry sectors. By combining perceptual data from the Global Brand Equity Monitor with data from its valuation database — the largest brand value database in the world — Brand Finance equips ambitious brand leaders with the data, analytics, and the strategic guidance they need to enhance brand and business value.
In addition to calculating brand value, Brand Finance also determines the relative strength of brands through a balanced scorecard of metrics, compliant with ISO 20671.
Brand Finance is a regulated accountancy firm and a committed leader in the standardisation of the brand valuation industry. Brand Finance was the first to be certified by independent auditors as compliant with both ISO 10668 and ISO 20671 and has received the official endorsement of the Marketing Accountability Standards Board (MASB) in the United States.
Brand is defined as a marketing-related intangible asset including, but not limited to, names, terms, signs, symbols, logos, and designs, intended to identify goods, services, or entities, creating distinctive images and associations in the minds of stakeholders, thereby generating economic benefits.
Brand strength is the efficacy of a brand’s performance on intangible measures relative to its competitors. Brand Finance evaluates brand strength in a process compliant with ISO 20671, looking at Marketing Investment, Stakeholder Equity, and the impact of those on Business Performance. The data used is derived from Brand Finance’s proprietary market research programme and from publicly available sources.
Each brand is assigned a Brand Strength Index (BSI) score out of 100, which feeds into the brand value calculation. Based on the score, each brand is assigned a corresponding Brand Rating up to AAA+ in a format similar to a credit rating.
Brand Finance calculates the values of brands in its rankings using the Royalty Relief approach – a brand valuation method compliant with the industry standards set in ISO 10668. It involves estimating the likely future revenues that are attributable to a brand by calculating a royalty rate that would be charged for its use, to arrive at a ‘brand value’ understood as a net economic benefit that a brand owner would achieve by licensing the brand in the open market.
The steps in this process are as follows:
1 Calculate brand strength using a balanced scorecard of metrics assessing Marketing Investment, Stakeholder Equity, and Business Performance. Brand strength is expressed as a Brand Strength Index (BSI) score on a scale of 0 to 100.
2 Determine royalty range for each industry, reflecting the importance of brand to purchasing decisions. In luxury, the maximum percentage is high, while in extractive industry, where goods are often commoditised, it is lower. This is done by reviewing comparable licensing agreements sourced from Brand Finance’s extensive database.
3 Calculate royalty rate. The BSI score is applied to the royalty range to arrive at a royalty rate. For example, if the royalty range in a sector is 0-5% and a brand has a BSI score of 80 out of 100, then an appropriate royalty rate for the use of this brand in the given sector will be 4%.
4 Determine brand-specific revenues by estimating a proportion of parent company revenues attributable to a brand.
5 Determine forecast revenues using a function of historic revenues, equity analyst forecasts, and economic growth rates.
6 Apply the royalty rate to the forecast revenues to derive brand revenues.
7 Discount post-tax brand revenues to a net present value which equals the brand value.
Brand Finance has produced this study with an independent and unbiased analysis. The values derived and opinions presented in this study are based on publicly available information and certain assumptions that Brand Finance used where such data was deficient or unclear. Brand Finance accepts no responsibility and will not be liable in the event that the publicly available information relied upon is subsequently found to be inaccurate. The opinions and financial analysis expressed in the study are not to be construed as providing investment or business advice. Brand Finance does not intend the study to be relied upon for any reason and excludes all liability to any body, government, or organisation.
The data presented in this study form part of Brand Finance's proprietary database, are provided for the benefit of the media, and are not to be used in part or in full for any commercial or technical purpose without written permission from Brand Finance.
