SYDNEY, 11 June 2025 – Australian supermarket brand Woolworths leads the nation with a Sustainability Perceptions Value (SPV) value of AUD978 million, according to the Sustainability Perceptions Index 2025 report by Brand Finance, the world’s leading brand valuation consultancy. The report quantifies the financial value of sustainability perceptions and highlights the gaps between brand reputation and actual ESG performance.
Brand Finance’s research data shows Woolworths is widely recognised in its home market as a brand deeply committed to environmental and social responsibility, as well as strong governance. These perceptions are underpinned by tangible ESG actions and transparent progress reporting.
Despite strong ESG performance, Woolworths has nearly AUD132 million in untapped value tied to clearer sustainability communications, according to Brand Finance's market research.
With an SPV of AUD955 million, Commonwealth Bank ranks second in Australia, recognised for its strong environmental commitment, social responsibility, and sound governance, based on responses from Australians.
Another standout performer from the nation, Telstra, with an SPV of AUD594 million is ranked among the top 20 telecoms brands, globally while NRMA Insurance holds an SPV of AUD138 million and is also regarded as a brand committed to society, in addition to being well managed and governed, based on input from respondents within Australia.
Mark Crowe, Brand Finance Australia Managing Director, commented:
"It’s encouraging to see homegrown brands like Woolworths, Commonwealth Bank, and Telstra being recognised by Australians not just for their commercial strength, but also for their commitment to doing business responsibly. Australians care deeply about environmental and social impact, and they reward brands that lead by example. At the same time, there’s still room for brands to unlock even greater value through more effective ESG communication.”
Additionally, another Australian supermarket brand, Harris Farm Markets, leads on environmental sustainability, emphasising locally sourced and natural products for consumers seeking lower-footprint options.
The latest report also credits Worley, an engineering firm, for its social sustainability initiatives in Australia’s infrastructure transformation while premium skincare brand Aesop is recognised for social and governance sustainability, aligned with the brand’s use of clean ingredients and minimalist, refined image.
Notably, automobile brand Toyota, with an SPV of AUD11.8 billion, is perceived by Australian respondents as a well-managed and governed brand with strong environmental commitment, according to Brand Finance’s research.
Global Insights
Apple retains the highest total SPV of any brand at AUD56.7 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 of nearly AUD8.3 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.
Tesla has lost over AUD10.6 billion in sustainability-driven brand value. In 2023, Brand Finance identified AUD6.0 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 AUD96.3 billion to AUD62.6 billion, with its Sustainability Perceptions Value (SPV) falling from AUD25.9 billion to just AUD15.2 billion.
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 AUD145 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.
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.
