Corporate Reputation Rankings 2016: and the Winner Is?

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) and sustainability initiatives, actions, and communication are strategic aspects in establishing corporate reputation. Each year, numerous rankings are published which measure corporate reputation on a global scale. In this study, 20 global companies were assessed based on five of those rankings, 2016 Global RepTrak ® 100: The World’s Most Reputable Companies ; 2016 Global CSR RepTrak ® Leaders; Global 100 2016 ; Dow Jones Sustainability Index 2016 ; and Newsweek Green Ratings 2016 to establish which company has the best reputation for 2016, all criteria and rankings combined. Communication of CSR/sustainability actions was also assessed through the corporate websites. This paper confirms the need for coherent and consistent CSR/sustainability criteria and metrics to accurately establish which company is the most reputable.


Introduction
Traditionally, company reputation has been based on past performance, word-of-mouth, and satisfied stakeholders. In the last few decades, there has been a clear shift from reputation as simply a profit making tool to reputation as built from specific 'honorable' actions which the company has embarked upon. These actions are defined as Corporate Social Responsibility, or CSR. According to the European Commission [1], CSR is 'the responsibility of enterprises for their impacts on society … to integrate social, environmental, ethical, human rights, and consumer concerns into their business operations and core strategy' [2], p. 6. Sustainability was defined in the Brundtland Report [3] as 'meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs' (p.1). Today, the communication of CSR/sustainability actions and initiatives has become a key strategy for increasing corporate reputation and, in many cases, profits. If 'social is profitable and profitable is social' [4][5], and socially responsible practices transform into higher profits, a virtuous circle is created [5]. In effect, financially successful companies can afford to spend more money on CSR/sustainability initiatives, but these same initiatives drive financial performance [5].
This paper analyzes the reputation of 20 global companies who have ranked on two or more of the five most prestigious and reliable CSR/sustainability rankings Newsweek Green Ratings 2016. This study investigates the criteria used in these rankings and the relationship between CSR/sustainability communication online, corporate reputation, and rankings on a global scale and addresses the challenges in trying to establish which company has, indeed, the highest reputation ranking for 2016. The premise is that the companies with the highest reputations would have the most complete CSR/sustainability information available to stakeholders accessible on their corporate websites and specific communicators to share their messages. Finally, this study will attempt to establish which company has the highest reputation 2016 based on all the rankings and criteria combined.
The discussion of defining the terms 'CSR' and 'sustainability' as well as a company's obligation to embark on CSR/sustainability initiatives has evolved over the last six decades. What was once referred to as social responsibility (SR), has mutated into CSR, corporate social performance (CSP), and corporate citizenship [27]. In effect, there are as many interpretations of CSR/sustainability as there are business leaders and academics who discuss them [27][28][29]. Further, different industries raise different issues and, subsequently, adopt different approaches to CSR/sustainability [28]. Previous research cited corporations such as Johnson & Johnson [27 -29] and Nestle [28] as examples of CSR/sustainability best practices, with Johnson & Johnson's earliest publication of their CSR Credo appearing in the 1940's [29]. In this Credo, they stated that their 'primary stakeholders were the customers, employees and communities they operated in-in that order, and explicitly ahead of its stockholders' (29, p. 6). This example was revolutionary for the time as most companies focused on making profit and receiving a fair return on investment.
Over the decades, the discussion of the terms CSR/sustainability as well as the issues it entailed has broadened, with the help of reports such as the Brundtland report in the late 1980's which established the principles of sustainable development [3,29], the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) in 1997 which developed globally applicable sustainability reporting guidelines [29], and the creation of the Dow Jones Sustainability Indexes (DJSI) in 1999 which tracked the financial performance of leading sustainability-driven companies worldwide [29]. The initial stakeholder skepticism of the need for companies to engage in philanthropic actions [27] has developed into skepticism when companies do not make sustainable choices or seem to be involved in too many CSR/sustainability actions which do not 'fit' with the company's core business . Back in 1953, Bowen published a book called 'Social Responsibilities of the Businessman' and raised the following question: 'What responsibilities to society may businessmen reasonably be expected to assume?' [27, p. 25]. This same question is just as pertinent today.
All of the elements which traditionally increased corporate reputation (e.g. employee well-being, helping local neighborhoods, protecting the environment, etc.) are embodied by and, subsequently, are communicated today as CSR and sustainability actions and initiatives. To measure their impact, rankings were established to benchmark CSR/sustainability initiatives and the link with corporate reputation. DJSI introduced the world's first global sustainability benchmark in 1999 [31] and utilizes a best-in-class approach to compare industries and companies. The first decade of the 21 st century witnessed the introduction of other CSR/sustainability benchmarks such as Global 100 in 2005 [24], Global  [25]. These benchmarks allow stakeholders to judge a company's reputation not just on profits or goods and services, but also on their engagement with the social aspect of conducting business in a global society. 'The more a company is perceived as ethical and transparent, the more likely it is to generate admirations and trust in the minds of most stakeholders-and hence build reputation' [30, p. 7]. With all else equal, the tipping scale for the stakeholders could be the company's engagement with and its impact on society as a whole. Companies which best combine profit, people, and planet will, inevitably, enhance their reputation and thrive in today's global market.
In the present day, there can no longer be a separation between corporate reputation and CSR/sustainability actions and initiatives. With each year, there are fewer available natural resources; thus, companies demand increasingly efficient use of scarce resources [28] and innovative solutions for the future of the company and the generations which will follow. Over time, the question has shifted from why companies should communicate CSR/sustainability actions to how companies can communicate their CSR/sustainability actions most effectively to improve their reputation and, inevitably, stakeholder loyalty and profits. The decades of more talk, less action in regards to CSR/sustainability [27] has been replaced by more CSR/sustainability action, and more dialogue between stakeholder groups and companies. Yet the question remains: what does your company mean by CSR/sustainability? The response should be: let's discuss this together with the stakeholders to establish some common ground and make the 'best' decisions for the present and the future.  Table 1).

Indicator 1: Combined Energy Productivity
Weight: 15% In the first step, each company's Energy Productivity is calculated for 2014, with Energy Productivity defined as Revenue ($US) / Total Energy Consumption (GJ). Each company's Energy Productivity is then percent-ranked against that of all Industry Group peers in the CKC research universe and multiplied by 0.75. The Global Industry Classification Standard (GICS) definition of "Industry Group" will be used. In the second step, the change in each company's Energy Productivity from 2012-2014 is calculated and percent-ranked against that of all same-Industry Group peers within the CKC research universe. In the third step, the values from the first and second steps are totaled. Indicator 2: Combined Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Productivity Weight: 15% In the first step, each company's GHG Productivity is calculated for 2014, with GHG Productivity defined as Revenue ($US) / Total Greenhouse gas (GHG) Emissions (CO2e). Only Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions are included according to the GHG Protocol. Each company's GHG Productivity is then percent-ranked against that of all Industry Group peers in the CKC research universe and multiplied by 0.75. In the second step, the change in each company's GHG Productivity from 2012-2014 is calculated and percent-ranked against that of all same-industry group peers within the CKC research universe.

First Screen: sustainability disclosure
The first screen eliminates companies that are not keeping pace with the sustainability reporting trends in their specific industry. Companies that fail to disclose at least 75% of the "priority indicators" for their respective GICS Industry Group are eliminated at this point in the project. A priority indicator is any of the 12 key performance indicators (KPIs) that are disclosed by at least 10% of all large companies in a given GICS Industry Group. Large companies are defined as those with a market capitalization of at least US$ 2 billion. Companies classified in Industry Groups where all 12 KPIs are priority indicators will need to disclose at least 9 (12 x 75% = 9) KPIs in order to pass this screen.

Second screen: F-Score
The Piotroski F-Score consists of nine individual tests. Each test scores one for a pass and zero for a fail. The tests are: 1. Net profit is positive; 2. Operating cash flow is positive; 3. Net profit ÷ total assets at beginning of year, minus the same number for the previous year is positive; 4. Operating cash flow is greater than net profit; 5. Long term debt ÷ by average assets has not increased; 6. The current ratio has increased (the change is more than zero, so even a negligible increase passes the test); 7. No raising of ordinary (common) equity over the previous year: this test is passed if the company did not issue any ordinary shares (excluding shares from dividend reinvestment plans); 8. Gross margin has improved over the previous year; and 9. Asset turnover has increased. Companies have to score at least 5 to pass this screen. In the third step, the values from the first and second steps are totaled and then multiplied by 0.9. In the fourth step, if the company disclosed Scope 3 GHG emissions in 2014, a score of 100% is attributed and then multiplied by 0.1. Otherwise, a score of 0% is given. In the final step, the scores from the third and fourth steps are added.

Indicator 3: Combined Water Productivity
Weight: 15% In the first step, each company's Water Productivity is calculated for 2014. Water Productivity is defined as Revenue ($US) / Total water use (m3). Each company's Water Productivity is then percent-ranked against that of all Industry Group peers in the CKC research universe and multiplied by 0.75. In the second step, the change in each company's Water Productivity from 2012-2014 is calculated and percent-ranked against that of all same-industry group peers within the CKC research universe. In the third step, the values from the first and second steps are totaled.

Indicator 4: Combined Waste Productivity
Weight: 15% In the first step, each company's Waste Productivity is calculated for 2014. Waste Productivity is defined as Revenue ($US) / [Total waste generated (metric tonnes) -waste recycled/reused/composted (tonnes)]. Each company's Waste Productivity is then percent-ranked against that of all Industry Group peers in the CKC research universe and multiplied by 0.75. In the second step, the change in each company's Waste Productivity from 2012-2014 is calculated and percent-ranked against that of all same-industry group peers within the CKC research universe. In the third step, the values from the first and second steps are totaled.

Third screen: product category
Companies with a GICS Sub-Industry classification equal to "Tobacco" are eliminated. Companies with a GICS Sub-Industry classification equal to "Aerospace & Defence" are revenue tested; if a company derives a majority of its revenue from its Defence business group (e.g. weapons manufacturing), it is eliminated.
Fourth screen: Sanctions Companies that remain in contention after the first three screens are subjected to the sanctions screen, which looks at the dollar amount that companies have paid out on a trailing one year basis in sustainability-related fines, penalties or settlements. The sanctions screen only considers monetary fines, penalties and settlements that are definitive i.e. the company has reached a point where all possible options have been exhausted and it has no other choice but to pay the set amount. Therefore, amounts associated with legal claims are not considered.

KPIs
Energy productivity This metric looks at how much revenue companies can squeeze out of every unit of energy they use, and shows which companies are best able to adapt to our changing energy future. Equation: Revenue ($US) / Energy use (Gigajoules)

Carbon productivity
This metric divides a company's total revenue by total GHG emissions, and gives us a sense of how companies are exposed to the new GHG regulatory environment. Equation: Revenue ($US) / Greenhouse gas emissions (Greenhouse gas protocol Scopes 1 +2)

Water productivity
This indicator divides revenue by water withdrawal, providing a first level measure of how well-positioned companies are to respond to water scarcity challenges.

Equation: Revenue ($US) / Water withdrawal (cubic metres)
Waste productivity This metric divides revenue by total non-recycled waste, and helps identify companies that are managing their waste intelligently. Equation: Revenue ($US) / Non-recycled/reused waste generated (metric tonnes)

Innovation capacity
This metrics looks at the amount of money companies are investing in R&D as a percentage of their revenue.

Indicator 5: Green Revenue Score
Weight: 20% The Green Revenue Score is calculated by HIP (Human Impact + Profit) Investor Inc., an investment adviser and portfolio management firm involved in impact investing, ratings, portfolio construction and consulting. The Green Revenue Score analyzes the revenue associated with each line of business reported by the company, and is multiplied by its associated "Industry Segment Green Rating" for each line of revenue disclosed. The Industry Segment Green Rating is based on HIP Investor's assessment of the environmental and social impacts during production, consumption and post-usage lifecycle of those products and services.

Indicator 6: Sustainability Pay Link
Weight: 10% A mechanism to link the remuneration of any member of a company's senior executive team with the achievement of environmental performance targets. The existence of such a link is awarded a score of 100%. A score of 0% is attributed if there is no such mechanism in place.

Indicator 7: Sustainability Board Committee
Weight: 5% The existence of a committee at the Board of Directors level whose mandate is related to the sustainability of the company, including but not limited to environmental matters. A score of 100% is awarded if such a committee exists, and a score of 0% is given in cases where such a committee is absent.

Indicator 8: Audited Environmental Metrics
Weight: 5% The company provides evidence that the latest reported environmental metrics are audited by a third party. A score of 100% is awarded if such an audit has been performed, and a score of 0% is given in cases where such an audit was not performed.

Percentage tax paid
The metric measures the amount of tax that companies pay out as a percentage of their EBITDA (for financial services companies, operating income  [24][25]. Global 100 2016 applies 12 criteria, or KPIs to assess a company's sustainability performance (energy productivity, carbon productivity, water productivity, waste productivity, innovation capacity, percentage tax paid, CEO to average worker pay, pension fund status, safety performance, employee turnover, leadership diversity, and clean capitalism pay link) to all publicly traded companies with a market capitalization of at least 2 billion USD [24]. (See Table 1). They report only the top 100 performers.
Newsweek Green Rankings 2016 evaluates eight key performance indicators (combined energy productivity, combined greenhouse gas productivity, combined water productivity, combined waste productivity, green revenue score, sustainability pay link, sustainability board committee, and audited environmental metrics) to compare the performance of the 500 largest publicly traded companies in the world [25]. The specific calculations and weight of each criterion can be found on Table 1.
DJSI 2016 is assessed by RobecoSAM who evaluates a range of criteria covering economic, environmental, and social dimensions across 60 different industries. This ranking is the most complicated as each company may have 6-10 broad criteria and 2-10 questions for each depending on the industry. The company receives a Sustainability Score between 1-100 and are ranked against other companies in their industry [26]. For the criteria and dimensions of all five rankings, see Table 1.
As seen on Table 1, the five reputation rankings are measured in different ways. 2016 Global RepTrak®100 applies all seven indicators established by the Reputation Institute, while 2016 Global CSR RepTrak® Leaders applies only three: workplace which emphasizes the health and well-being of employees and equal opportunities at work; governance which focuses on transparent communication of company behavior and encourages ethical and fair business practices; and citizenship which demonstrates how a company acts responsibility toward the greater society and acts for positive social change. Of the five rankings, the indicators for 2016 Global RepTrak®100 and 2016 Global CSR RepTrak® Leaders are the simplest to understand and have been confirmed as valid measures of company reputation [30]. The RepTrak® criteria can be compared to the much more detailed DJSI 2016 rankings prepared in collaboration with RobecoSAM. The DJSI 2016 rankings are based on three broad dimension, economic, environmental, and social, which are further broken down into 29 potential sub-topics under economic, 25 sub-topics under environmental, and 22 sub-topics under social. When compared with RepTrak® criteria, DJSI dimensions can be found in six of the seven indicators; the only RepTrak® indicator which is not obviously represented in DJSI is 'leadership'. However, comparing RepTrak® criteria with the Global 100 and Newsweek Green Ratings, the most evident link is that of citizenship, or how to act responsibly in a global economy. Similar to DJSI rankings, Global 100 and Newsweek Green Ratings assess sustainability, rather than the one element of sustainability which is CSR.
The three sustainability rankings, DJSI 2016, Global 100, and Newsweek Green Ratings share comparable criteria in the environmental dimension such as water, waste, and energy productivity or efficiency. The strongest comparison can be made between Global 100 and Newsweek Green Ratings which were both established by Corporate Knights. These rankings involve numerous steps or screens before the actual sustainability score is calculated. Newsweek Green Ratings calculates 8 indicators, including two economic indicators called the Green Revenue Score and the Sustainability Pay Link. For Global 100, there are four preliminary screens after which 12 KPIs are applied. Within their KPIs lie economic indicators such as percentage tax paid, CEO to average worker pay, and clean capitalism pay link, but they also include innovation capacity, safety performance, pension fund status, employee turnover, and leadership diversity, criteria which are not directly assessed in Newsweek Green Ratings.
All 20 companies in the present study appeared on 2016 Global RepTrak®100 and 2016 Global CSR RepTrak® Leaders rankings, with Rolex placing first in 2016 Global RepTrak® 100: The World's Most Reputable Companies and 9 th in 2016 Global CSR RepTrak® Leaders. Rolex did not, however, place in any of the other rankings. For all company rankings, see Table 2. Benz and LEGO Group, remained the same (at five and six respectively). The remaining 10 companies improved their reputations and, subsequently, their rankings by one (Adidas Group and The Walt Disney Co.) to nine places (Rolex). The reason for these moves, however, are unclear from the rankings themselves; a future study would need to be conducted to investigate this phenomena.
In With different criteria and dimensions across the industries, in the DJSI 2016, no one global list is available to rank the companies. Of the 20 companies examined in this study, five companies were named 'Sustainable Yearbook Member' (i.e. The Walt Disney Company, Microsoft, Intel, Adidas Group, and Johnson & Johnson) which signifies they scored within the top 15% of their industry. Rolls-Royce Aerospace held the top ranking of all 20 companies by receiving the Gold Class Award (scoring within 1% of industry leader's score) and being named both an industry leader and industry mover. Samsung Electronics also received a Gold Class Award, and Nestle received a Silver Class Award (scoring between 1 and 5% from the industry leader).

Corporate Websites and CSR/Sustainability Content
In conducting the content analysis of the corporate website, one of the criteria was to identify by title and task the person or people responsible for CSR/sustainability communication. Of the 20 companies in the present study, eight websites did not provide accessible information on this role or the person who fills it. Although all eight companies were then contacted by e-mail to follow up, only Intel and IKEA responded with this information. For the companies where this information was available through the corporate website or from personal communication, titles ranged from Executive Vice President and Chief Communications Office  Table 3. Nonetheless, identifying the specific title or group responsible for communicating CSR/sustainability on the corporate website did not appear to affect the rankings as the top two companies (See Table 3) did not provide this information.

Social and Environmental (SEA) Team
The SEA team works closely with other global Group functions and is informed about any human rights, social and environmental issues at an early stage to proactively address any potential risks as well as health, safety and environmental liabilities directly with the Executive Board and the Sourcing management team as needed.
The team is directly involved in developing and updating corporate policies and operating procedures related to social accountability, product safety and compliance with environmental laws and regulations,…, to deliver the Group-wide Environmental Strategy 2015.
( While identifying the titles and responsibilities of CSR/sustainability officers/communicators may have proven challenging, the corporate websites offered a range of readily accessible CSR initiatives and level of information (See Table 3 Behind the initial tab on the website, the companies provided information on their CSR/sustainability initiatives and causes (See Table 3). As seen in the literature review, one of the most important elements in effective engagement and improved corporate reputation is communicating CSR/sustainability actions which are in line with the company's purpose. For instance, companies like Nintendo, Canon, Apple, IKEA, and Intel emphasized environmental concerns such as recycling, product packaging, and supply chains. This could be linked to the seemingly 'short' life of their products; hence, they promote specific initiatives which reduce the carbon footprint and waste through recycling, sustainable supply chains, and cleaner energy.
Of all the companies, Rolex was the only company to emphasize just one element of CSR, that of philanthropy. From their company website, the philanthropic projects were emphasized, but no other CSR could be found. This begs the question regarding their first place ranking for 2016 Global RepTrak® 100: The World's Most Reputable Companies. However, as both this ranking and the 2016 Global CSR RepTrak® Leaders are based on how the public views the company and the emotional attachment they feel towards this company, Rolex's philanthropic actions might suggest a successful strategy for other companies to implement.
Some companies created a slogan to summarize their CSR/sustainability philosophy: 'Shaping-helping-supporting' (Daimler Mercedes Benz); 'Our positive impact promise' (Lego); 'Diversity + inclusion = success' (Microsoft); 'do more using less' (Rolls Royce Aerospace); 'Creating a healthier world one community at a time' (Johnson & Johnson); 'Create positive change for people everywhere, helping them to live a better life full of possibilities' (Samsung); 'Work-create-donate' (Ferrero); 'Creating Shared Value' (Nestle); and 'putting smiles on the faces of everyone Nintendo touches' (Nintendo). Three or four word slogans seem to be the most effective as stakeholders can easily retain short and snappy phrases. While these slogans may help stakeholders associate a brand with its values, the slogans themselves do not seem to affect the corporate rankings and are, therefore, not suggested as an immediate addition to company communication strategy.
CSR/sustainability reporting differed from one website to another. Nine of the companies publish a sustainability report, five provide a CSR report, three offer a GRI report, and two use the general term of 'reporting'. The depth of information and format of the reports varies from two to over 100 pages. As seen in the literature, reporting is optional, so companies can choose whether to publish this information or not. For a stakeholder, however, finding this information to compare one company to another is a complicated task, and, even if CSR/sustainability reporting is available, there are no guarantees that the stakeholders will read them. Thus, companies need to choose the CSR/sustainability information, format, and communication channel strategically to increase the chances that stakeholders will read their information and positively engage with the company's core business and social initiatives.
All of the 20 companies offered social media platforms to communicate their CSR/sustainability actions, but this, too, varied from one company to another. Of the social media accessible from the corporate website homepage, LinkedIn and Twitter are used by 18 of the 20 companies; Facebook by 17 companies; YouTube by 15; Instagram by 13; and Google + by 9. In regards to other social media platforms such as Xing, Flickr, Glassdoor, Pinterest, Youku, Douban, Vimeo, Tumblr are utilized by one to three companies. Four companies offer a personalized social media platform: WeChat (Rolex), Daimler Blog, iQIntel, and Canon Community. Of the four companies who figure on all five CSR ranking lists, all companies have accounts with Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, and YouTube. Instagram is accessible on Intel, Samsung, and Nestle's sites; Intel also utilizes Pinterest. Nestle has the greatest social media presence (8) with Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Instagram, LinkedIn, Tumblr, Flickr, and Google+. Intel is present on Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, YouTube, Instagram, and Pinterest, but is the only company of the four to offer their own version of social media, iQ Intel.
Although the social media platforms easily accessible from the company website are listed here, the depth and breadth of the content published online was not evaluated in this study nor the effects of minimal versus abundant information on stakeholder engagement and company reputation. As seen above, on the official company websites, some companies are more forthcoming with CSR/sustainability information, while others remain discreet. This does not, however, seem to affect a company's ability to place highly in CSR/sustainability rankings. Thus, the necessity of CSR/sustainability information published online and its link to corporate reputation rankings remains unknown. For the purposes of this paper, the corporate rankings and the specific information on the companies' CSR/sustainability actions and initiatives was actively sought out which may not be the case for the stakeholders when visiting a company website. There is no way of knowing if all stakeholders would seek this same information with the same rigor. In fact, it is much more likely that a stakeholder would peruse the information out of sheer interest or when it directly affected him/her. Companies may need to accept that their stakeholders are currently unaware of their CSR/sustainability rankings and develop communication strategies to use these rankings to their advantage by highlighting the CSR/sustainability actions they are taking and their positive effects on the global society.
And the winner is… Of the 20 companies analyzed in the present study, seven companies appeared on the two initial rankings for the present study; six companies appeared on three of the rankings; three companies appeared on four of the rankings; and only four companies appeared on all five rankings: Intel, Johnson & Johnson, Samsung Electronics, and Nestle. Johnson & Johnson placed before Samsung Electronics and Nestle in all categories except DJSI (Gold status for Samsung; silver status for Nestle; Sustainable Yearbook Member for Johnson & Johnson). Intel tied or placed before Johnson & Johnson in all rankings except Newsweek Green Ratings 2016. While all four companies communicated ample CSR/sustainability content on their websites, it was difficult to ascertain from the corporate websites of Nestle and Samsung who specifically was responsible for CSR/sustainability communication, thus offering a further advantage to Johnson & Johnson and Intel whose websites clearly define positions, titles, and descriptions of tasks for CSR/sustainability communication. Thus, of the 20 companies examined in the present study and with all rankings and criteria combined, Intel could be named the most reputable company of 2016.

Conclusions and Implications
The present study was a first attempt at examining the relationship between reputation rankings, corporate reputation, and CSR/sustainability communication. The initial premise was that the companies with the highest reputations on global rankings would communicate CSR/sustainability initiatives which fit the company's image and would, subsequently, appear on all ranking lists. However, the complexity of the various global rankings and the different criteria and indicators used made the comparison difficult. Companies scored high on certain rankings, but were omitted from others. From the content analysis of the 20 companies' websites, the language and depth used to describe CSR/sustainability initiatives also varies. The only judicious conclusion is that it is essential to establish common criteria, practices, and vocabulary when CSR/sustainability is addressed to be able to confirm the link between CSR/sustainability and corporate reputation.
There are several limitations to this study. First, the study was conducted starting with the top 20 industry leader list from 2016 Global CSR RepTrak® Leaders. A future study could be replicated using these or other reputation rankings analyzing companies which figure on the lists of 100 companies or more. Secondly, the link between CSR/sustainability communication, corporate reputation, and profit must be accepted with caution: While this can be assumed based on the financial performance of a rating such as DJSI or Global 100 2016 where companies' financial performance is a key indicator and eliminatory criterion, there may be other factors which explain their financial success. A further study would need to be conducted to examine the link between CSR/sustainability initiatives and communication and financial performance. Finally, although this study examined the CSR/sustainability information easily accessible on the company websites, it did not include an analysis of the effects of the amount of information available on the company websites with stakeholder engagement and corporate reputation rankings. A future study would need to be conducted which measured actual interaction with information found on a company website and stakeholder engagement to evaluate how and where stakeholders gather their information about a company's CSR/sustainability actions. In this way, companies could strategically decide what and how much CSR/sustainability information positively affects their reputation. They could also gauge how much information is too much, leading to saturation and eventual skepticism from their stakeholders. Although the social media platforms were mentioned, the analysis of the CSR content of each of these platforms was beyond the scope if this study. A future study could entail a content analysis of the CSR/sustainability content on corporate social media and its relationship to corporate reputation.