Data Accuracy and Reliability: Rankings are derived from data reported by companies in their disclosure statements, reports and websites. Although efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, discrepancies or incomplete data due to partial disclosures might impact results. Some metrics rely on voluntary reporting, leading to variations in data availability and comparability.​

Scope and Boundary of Assessment: The rankings focus on operational emissions and do not encompass upstream or downstream emissions. Product and service-related impacts on stakeholders are not considered. This is due to value chain disclosure limitations and the need for consistent assessment.​

Data Availability: Rankings are influenced by data availability and quality. Companies with comprehensive disclosures might have an advantage. ​

Industry-Specific Factors: Industries possess distinct characteristics and emissions profiles that can influence rankings. While the methodology aims to be comprehensive, industry nuances might not be fully captured. Comparing companies from vastly different sectors might not yield meaningful results. This study uses the GIST Impact industry classification system for categorizing companies and evaluating deviation from industry benchmark.

Data Lag: Rankings might be affected by data lag, potentially impacting comparisons with other companies’ latest information and shifting the baseline for comparison of emission reductions. ​

Company-Specific Factors: Unique company situations, such as acquisitions or strategic changes, might not be fully accounted for in the methodology.​

Scope of Metrics: The methodology concentrates on environmental metrics like GHG emissions, water usage, and waste generation, potentially overlooking other significant sustainability factors. This is driven by data availability and the need for consistency.​

Qualitative Impact: Certain impactful sustainability efforts, such as cultural shifts or stakeholder engagement, might not be quantified in the methodology.​

Comparison with Peers: Rankings are relative within the analyzed dataset. Changes in dataset composition can influence a company’s rank, irrespective of consistent performance.​

Exclusion Criteria Interpretation: Exclusion criteria involve subjectivity, as activities or revenues could be interpreted differently among companies and industries. ​

Weight Allocation: Indicator weight choice involves informed decision-making, but subjectivity might be present. Different weightings could lead to varied rankings. ​

Contextual Considerations: Rankings do not account for contextual factors like geographical locations, regulations, or business strategy. They also do not consider accidental events or controversies. Rankings do not account for regional or local variations in environmental regulations, resources, or challenges faced by different companies. ​

Emphasis on Latest Data: Rankings rely more on recent data to highlight the present scenario. Long-term efforts might not be fully captured, but emissions reductions from sustainability efforts are recognized. ​

Complexities in Scoring: The final score and ranking might not fully encompass all aspects of a company’s environmental efforts. Interpretation of data, weightings, and metrics can introduce subjective elements, and different stakeholders might assess the same data differently. ​

Multiple Factors at Play: Rankings are influenced by various factors; lower-ranked companies might still have noteworthy sustainability initiatives. ​

Investment and Progress: Rankings do not reflect a company’s investments in sustainability, especially if results are yet to materialize. ​

External Influences: External factors like global events, regulations, or economic shifts could impact rankings. ​

Relative Nature: Rankings provide relative assessments within a specific dataset, not indicative of absolute sustainability excellence. ​

Short-Term vs. Long-Term: Rankings might prioritize short-term achievements over long-term changes, both valuable but differing in timeline. ​

Corporate Strategy: Rankings might not fully portray how a company’s strategy impacts its commitment to environmental sustainability.​