The following paragraphs provide more detailed descriptions of the figures in the Executive summary and Chapter 2. These descriptions are primarily based on indicator documentation provided by LSEG and MSCI. Unless otherwise specified, reported uptake is expressed as a share of companies and of market capitalisation.
Infographic 1 draws on data used for Figure 2.6, Figure 2.9, Figure 2.11, Figure 2.12, Figure 2.14 and Figure 3.3. While Figure 2.6 disaggregates data for social and human rights as well as environmental criteria, Infographic 1 provides a summary measure capturing the share of companies that have RBC expectations (or evaluate supplier risk) related to either human rights or environmental criteria (or both). Furthermore, while Figure 3.3 covers countries adhering to the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises on Responsible Business Conduct, Infographic 1 covers OECD Member countries.
Figure 2.1 measures the reported uptake of commitments on selected RBC issues using seven indicators, as well as two derived indicators. The issue‑specific indicators measure whether a company has: 1) a policy to ensure the respect of human rights; 2) a policy to avoid the use of child labour; 3) a policy to avoid the use of forced labour; 4) a process in place to ensure freedom of association among its employees or the right to collectively bargain; 5) a policy to reduce its GHG emission to land, air or water from the company’s core activities (including processes, mechanisms or programmes to reduce emissions in its operations); 6) a commitment to prevent or mitigate impacts on biodiversity; and 7) a policy to avoid bribery and corruption in all its operations (e.g. inappropriate or improper payment, special favours, extortion or kickback).
The two derived indicators respectively capture whether a company’s commitment to RBC issues cover at least one of the above topics, and whether their commitments are crosscutting in the sense that they include all social topics (human rights, child labour, forced labour, freedom of association) as well as GHG emissions and corruption.
Figure 2.2 measures the reported uptake of environmental and social commitments covering the supply chain, drawing on two indicators. The first measures whether a company has a supplier, or sourcing policy, or commitment to addressing its supply chain environmental impacts – for example, by requiring suppliers to address their environmental impacts. The second indicator measures whether the company has a supplier, or sourcing commitment addressing social issues to uphold ethical labour practices in its supply chain.
Figure 2.3 measures the reported uptake of commitments to apply either the MNE Guidelines or UNGPs, two of the leading international standards on responsible business conduct. The ILO Tripartite Declaration of Principles concerning Multinational Enterprises and Social Policy (MNE Declaration) – is not covered in available data.
Figure 2.4 is based on a review of approximately 140 double materiality assessments disclosed in 2025 as part of the first wave of corporate disclosures aligned with the EU’s Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) and the European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS). It measures the share of companies within the sample that consider they have at least one material negative impact on a given ESRS topic, as well as the share of companies that identify at least one material financial risk related to that topic. For the purposes of this report, the difference between the two shares is referred to as the “materiality gap”.
Figure 2.5 measures the reported uptake of board-level or senior management responsibility and performance incentives related to sustainability, drawing on two indicators, 1) whether a company has a CSR committee or team at the board or senior management level, responsible for deciding on the company’s CSR strategy; 2) whether the company has a policy linking executive compensation to ESG or sustainability performance (e.g. CEO, executive directors, other management bodies).
Figure 2.6 measures the disclosure of RBC expectations of suppliers and evaluation of supplier risk on environmental or social issues, drawing on four indicators. Panel A. measures whether a company’s process for selecting suppliers or sourcing partners incorporates the use of environmental criteria such as energy consumption or environmental management systems, and whether a company carries out a systematic evaluation process to detect environmental risks in its supply chain. Panel B. measures whether a company’s process for selecting or monitoring its suppliers or sourcing partners includes the use of human rights criteria. It also measures whether a company conducts a systematic evaluation process to detect social risks in its supply chain.
Figure 2.7 measures the coverage of social audit programmes as disclosed by companies, drawing on three indicators measuring whether a company’s social audit programme covers some or all of its tier 1 (direct) suppliers, tier‑2 suppliers, and tier‑3 suppliers. Coverage of this data varies depending on the indicator, and overall includes around 450 large listed companies among the largest 10 000. Each indicator is analysed independently: for example, the second bar represents the share of companies that audit at least some of their tier‑2 suppliers, as a percentage of companies for which data is available for that indicator, and irrespective of whether these companies also audit their tier‑1 or tier‑3 suppliers. Among companies for which data on tier‑1 supplier audit coverage is available, around 70% audit at least some tier‑1 suppliers, while around 35% audit at least some tier‑2 or tier‑3 suppliers (or both). Given the lower coverage of this data, rates of uptake were expressed as a percentage of companies with data available, and are based on latest available data between 2021 and early 2026. This data is based on a different sample compared to Figure 2.6, so figures are not directly comparable. Reported uptake is expressed as a share of companies.
Figure 2.8 measures the distribution of companies, by estimated share of relevant products for which raw materials have a known origin (at least at the country-level), based on company disclosure. In the context of this indicator, raw materials refer to ores. This analysis is based on a sub-sample of around 500 large listed companies in industries sourcing from the mining sector. Reported uptake is expressed as a share of companies.
Figure 2.9 shows the number of facilitation and verification sustainability initiatives over time. Facilitation includes functions such as guidance, training, sector dialogues, risk monitoring, complaints handling and reporting frameworks. Verification includes assessments, audits, certification, or benchmarking. Many initiatives perform multiple functions, so totals by function exceed the number of unique initiatives in each year. See OECD/ITC (2024[2]) for more details on the terms facilitation and verification. Figures are based on preliminary results from OECD research piloting an AI-assisted methodology for mapping sustainability initiatives in corporate disclosures and may be refined as the methodology and dataset are further developed. The dataset is derived from initiatives referenced in company disclosures between 2020 and 2025 and may therefore underrepresent initiatives that ceased operations or lost prominence before 2020. Therefore, part of the observed upward trend may reflect survivorship and visibility effects, rather than only an increase in the absolute number of initiatives over time.
Figure 2.10 measures reported uptake of stakeholder engagement based on two indicators. The first measures whether a company explains how it engages with stakeholders, e.g. considering how they involve stakeholders in their decision making process and the procedures in place for engagement, with a focus on having established two‑way communication between the company and its various stakeholders. It is not specific to RBC issues or specific types of stakeholders. The second indicator measures whether the company has undertaken stakeholder engagement specifically on human rights issues, and refers to ongoing engagement with affected stakeholders or their representatives to address human rights concerns.
Figure 2.11 measures reported uptake of prevention and mitigation measures related to health and safety in a company’s own operations, drawing on two indicators. These respectively capture the existence of health and safety management systems, and the involvement of staff in safety improvement initiatives. The latter indicator measures whether the company has any initiative in place through which staff can engage in safety-related matters – for example through employee health and safety committees.
Figure 2.12 measures reported uptake of three specific impact prevention and mitigation measures in the supply chain. First, whether a company provides training to its suppliers on environmental, social and governance issues. This can include training, programmes or any other collaboration with suppliers with the aim of improving their performance on these issues (e.g. audits leading to collaboration). The second indicator is a proxy for the integration of a company’s social supply chain policy (or policies) into its purchasing practices. It measures whether this social supply chain policy is integrated into purchasing policies, daily activities (e.g. contract management) and training (e.g. training of staff in its purchasing department). The third indicator measures whether a company provides evidence that it is improving the health and safety of employees in its supply chain. This indicator considers evidence of improvements based on both current and historical data to determine whether there has been progress. Underlying evidence could include surveys, audits or questionnaires. Data on supply chain health and safety improvements is available for a slightly lower share of companies than the other metrics (approximately one percentage point lower).
Figure 2.13 measures reported uptake of practices related to remediation, drawing on two indicators. The first measures whether companies have formal grievance mechanisms that explicitly cover human rights issues, guarantee confidentiality or anonymity, and are available to internal and external stakeholders. The second indicator measures whether the company commits to remedy affected stakeholders where it has been determined that it caused or contributed to human rights impacts.
Figure 2.14 measures companies’ reported willingness to disengage from suppliers based on environmental and human rights considerations. It is based on two indicators measuring whether a company reports that it is willing to terminate a partnership with a sourcing partner if environmental or human rights criteria are not met.
Figure 2.15 measures the reported uptake of due diligence practices within three categories, namely 1) policies and management systems, 2) risk identification, tracking and reporting (“identifying impacts”), and 3) prevention, mitigation and remediation (“addressing impacts”). For each category, uptake is calculated as the share of individual practices within that category which a company reports implementing. Individual practices are those measured in other parts of Chapter 2 (e.g. supplier training on environmental or social issues). Additional information is provided further below in this Annex. Reported uptake is therefore a proxy for the extensiveness of a company’s due diligence in a given category (e.g. prevention, mitigation and remediation). Reported uptake is then averaged across companies.
Figure 2.16 measures the reported uptake in the three categories of due diligence practices (as in the case of Figure 2.15) for both SOEs and non-SOEs. As in the case of Figure 2.15, reported uptake is calculated as an average across companies. In addition, for context, it presents the regional distribution of SOEs.
Figure 2.17 measures whether the company has identified and disclosed which specific human rights could be impacted by its business activities, and whether it discloses the results of supplier monitoring or auditing related to social issues, and specific actions taken to address non-compliance.
