Apple remains top-ranked for sustainability perceptions; Microsoft has over $5.6 billion of brand value to gain through stronger ESG communication
Tesla has lost over USD7.3 billion in sustainability-driven brand value, according to the Brand Finance Sustainability Perceptions Index 2025 report. The annual study measures the financial value of sustainability perceptions and reveals where brand reputation and ESG performance are out of sync.
In 2023, Brand Finance identified USD4.1 billion of sustainability value at risk for Tesla, due to a widening gap between its strong environmental image and weaker governance and social performance. That risk has now become reality. Tesla’s total brand value has dropped from USD66.2 billion to USD43.0 billion, with its Sustainability Perceptions Value (SPV) falling from USD17.8 billion to just USD10.4 billion.
While the brand is still associated with environmental innovation, sustainability perceptions have declined significantly across global markets. According to Brand Finance research, China, Norway, and Denmark saw double-digit drops in perceived environmental commitment, with further declines of more than 5% in key markets such as the US, UK, and Australia. The fall in perception follows growing scrutiny of Tesla’s labour practices, supply chain oversight, and the public actions of its CEO.
Apple retains the highest total SPV of any brand at USD39.0 billion. This reflects strong consumer belief that Apple is acting sustainably, despite ongoing criticism around labour conditions and environmental impact. The Index assesses perception, not performance, and Apple’s position highlights the power of belief in shaping brand value.
Microsoft ranks second in overall value but leads on untapped potential. With a positive Gap Value exceeding USD5.6 billion, Microsoft’s actual sustainability performance is significantly stronger than it is perceived to be. This gap represents brand value that could be unlocked through clearer communication of ESG progress.
Robert Haigh, Strategy & Sustainability Director at Brand Finance, commented:
“Brands are increasingly walking a tightrope on sustainability. Overstating progress creates reputational risk, but failing to communicate genuine action means leaving millions in brand value on the table. As pressure from investors and regulators grows, clarity and consistency will become the key differentiators.”
Greenhushing, where brands hold back from communicating genuine ESG achievements to avoid criticism, remains widespread. Brand Finance analysis shows that 98 of the 500 brands have a positive Gap Value of over USD100 million, revealing a significant amount of unrealised value.
Sustainability continues to influence brand choice, particularly in premium sectors. In the luxury auto category, sustainability accounts for 23% of brand choice, double the figure for the broader automotive market. Similarly high drivers are seen in champagne and luxury cosmetics, where sustainability plays a stronger role than in their respective mass-market counterparts.
In B2B markets, sustainability is also gaining ground. In IT services, where brands such as Infosys, TCS, and HCL have long invested in ESG messaging, sustainability now accounts for 16% of brand choice.
Brands with strong and consistent sustainability communications continue to lead. Huel, Dove, Trader Joe’s, Patagonia, The North Face, and Tata are among those with the highest sustainability perceptions in their sectors.
Note to Editors
The Brand Finance Sustainability Perceptions Index 2025 is based on research with over 150,000 respondents across 40 countries. Brand Finance calculates Sustainability Perceptions Value and Gap Value by combining survey data with ESG performance ratings from CSRHub.
The full ranking, additional insights, charts, more information about the methodology, and definitions of key terms are available in the Brand Finance Sustainability Perceptions Index 2025.
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 evaluating marketing investment, stakeholder equity, and business performance, 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.
