Barron’s 100 Most Sustainable Companies
Kanebridge News
    HOUSE MEDIAN ASKING PRICES AND WEEKLY CHANGE     Sydney $1,655,421 (-1.37%)       Melbourne $932,308 (-8.79%)       Brisbane $1,123,003 (-1.81%)       Adelaide $1,037,564 (+0.65%)       Perth $1,067,431 (-3.14%)       Hobart $841,531 (-0.24%)       Darwin $833,085 (+2.22%)       Canberra $997,488 (-1.28%)       National Capitals $1,117,351 (-1.89%)                UNIT MEDIAN ASKING PRICES AND WEEKLY CHANGE     Sydney $809,969 (-3.22%)       Melbourne $565,142 (-9.84%)       Brisbane $739,115 (-5.33%)       Adelaide $586,922 (+1.33%)       Perth $628,011 (-0.24%)       Hobart $600,183 (+4.66%)       Darwin $485,553 (-1.34%)       Canberra $494,366 (+1.35%)       National Capitals $631,659 (-2.57%)                HOUSES FOR SALE AND WEEKLY CHANGE     Sydney 15,318 (+1,415)       Melbourne 16,910 (+2,370)       Brisbane 12,398 (-503)       Adelaide 4,278 (+579)       Perth 9,664 (+855)       Hobart 813 (+96)       Darwin 197 (+12)       Canberra 1,334 (+129)       National Capitals 60,912 (+4,953)                UNITS FOR SALE AND WEEKLY CHANGE     Sydney 9,649 (-1,019)       Melbourne 6,724 (-1,041)       Brisbane 2,551 (+198)       Adelaide 669 (+230)       Perth 1,787 (+79)       Hobart 166 (+9)       Darwin 207 (-9)       Canberra 1,280 (+68)       National Capitals 23,033 (-1,485)                HOUSE MEDIAN ASKING RENTS AND WEEKLY CHANGE     Sydney $850 (-$10)       Melbourne $600 ($0)       Brisbane $720 (+$20)       Adelaide $650 ($0)       Perth $750 ($0)       Hobart $620 (-$10)       Darwin $850 (+$50)       Canberra $710 (-$10)       National Capitals $730 (+$7)                UNIT MEDIAN ASKING RENTS AND WEEKLY CHANGE     Sydney $800 (-$20)       Melbourne $610 (-$10)       Brisbane $680 (+$60)       Adelaide $540 ($0)       Perth $700 ($0)       Hobart $530 (+$23)       Darwin $680 (-$40)       Canberra $580 (-$10)       National Capitals $652 (-$2)                HOUSES FOR RENT AND WEEKLY CHANGE     Sydney 6,408 (-212)       Melbourne 7,769 (+707)       Brisbane 3,720 (+239)       Adelaide 1,232 (-47)       Perth 2,223 (+72)       Hobart 199 (-38)       Darwin 85 (+31)       Canberra 376 (-70)       National Capitals 22,012 (+682)                UNITS FOR RENT AND WEEKLY CHANGE     Sydney 9,911 (-226)       Melbourne 6,187 (+102)       Brisbane 2,194 (-1,277)       Adelaide 443 (+20)       Perth 714 (+16)       Hobart 80 (+10)       Darwin 154 (+42)       Canberra 770 (+1)       National Capitals 20,453 (-1,312)                HOUSE ANNUAL GROSS YIELDS AND TREND       Sydney 2.67% (↑)      Melbourne 3.35% (↑)      Brisbane 3.33% (↑)        Adelaide 3.26% (↓)     Perth 3.65% (↑)        Hobart 3.83% (↓)     Darwin 5.31% (↑)        Canberra 3.70% (↓)     National Capitals 3.40% (↑)             UNIT ANNUAL GROSS YIELDS AND TREND       Sydney 5.14% (↑)      Melbourne 5.61% (↑)      Brisbane 4.78% (↑)        Adelaide 4.78% (↓)     Perth 5.80% (↑)        Hobart 4.59% (↓)       Darwin 7.28% (↓)       Canberra 6.10% (↓)     National Capitals 5.36% (↑)             HOUSE RENTAL VACANCY RATES AND TREND       Sydney 1.4% (↑)      Melbourne 1.5% (↑)      Brisbane 1.2% (↑)      Adelaide 1.2% (↑)      Perth 1.0% (↑)        Hobart 0.5% (↓)       Darwin 0.7% (↓)     Canberra 1.6% (↑)      National Capitals $1.1% (↑)             UNIT RENTAL VACANCY RATES AND TREND       Sydney 1.4% (↑)      Melbourne 2.4% (↑)      Brisbane 1.5% (↑)      Adelaide 0.8% (↑)      Perth 0.9% (↑)      Hobart 1.2% (↑)        Darwin 1.4% (↓)     Canberra 2.7% (↑)      National Capitals $1.5% (↑)             AVERAGE DAYS TO SELL HOUSES AND TREND       Sydney 33.2 (↑)      Melbourne 31.7 (↑)        Brisbane 38.7 (↓)     Adelaide 31.4 (↑)        Perth 43.6 (↓)     Hobart 27.6 (↑)      Darwin 36.0 (↑)      Canberra 31.1 (↑)      National Capitals 34.2 (↑)             AVERAGE DAYS TO SELL UNITS AND TREND       Sydney 30.1 (↑)      Melbourne 29.3 (↑)      Brisbane 37.9 (↑)        Adelaide 31.6 (↓)     Perth 45.3 (↑)      Hobart 28.5 (↑)        Darwin 24.2 (↓)       Canberra 31.3 (↓)       National Capitals 32.3 (↓)           
Share Button

Barron’s 100 Most Sustainable Companies

By LAUREN FOSTER
Sun, Feb 25, 2024 7:00amGrey Clock 6 min

Many companies would love a break on labor, after a year of strife when workers from Hollywood to Detroit flexed their muscle. It may be wishful thinking to expect a reprieve.

A resilient economy isn’t likely to shift leverage from workers to corporate bosses. Despite pockets of layoffs, namely in technology, the job market remains tight, with unemployment near record lows. A backlash against “diversity, equity, and inclusion” initiatives, or DEI, is jumping from colleges to companies— Alphabet and Meta Platforms have reportedly pulled back, for instance. Throw in a virtual lockdown on immigration, combined with a spike in U.S. manufacturing, and many companies may have another rough year of labor challenges.

Some companies are navigating these issues better than others—finding ways to reward workers and meet DEI goals without taking big hits to their profits or reputations for social responsibility. Several of those faring well made it into Barron’s ranking of the 100 most sustainable companies .

To make the list, our seventh annual ranking, companies were scored on a variety of environmental, social, and governance, or ESG, measures. Barron’s worked with Calvert Research and Management, a leader in responsible investing, to rank the companies. The top 100 firms—winnowed from the largest 1,000 publicly traded U.S. companies—achieved the highest scores across 230 ESG metrics, from workplace diversity to greenhouse-gas emissions. (See below for the complete list and more about the methodology.)

Home-products company Clorox sits at the top of the leader board for the second straight year, edging out Kimberly-Clark , CBRE Group , Hasbro , and Agilent Technologies in the top five. The overall lineup spans a wide range of industries, with tech, industrials, and consumer companies all well represented.

Many of the companies delivered solid results for shareholders. The top 100 returned an average 19% in 2023, versus 26%, including dividends, for the S&P 500 index. That doesn’t look great. But the S&P 500 is weighted by market capitalisation and last year’s “Magnificent Seven”— Apple , Microsoft , Amazon.com , Nvidia , Meta Platforms, Tesla , and Alphabet—fuelled almost all the market’s gains. Strip away that influence, and the equal-weighted S&P 500 returned 14%, trailing the 100 most sustainable companies.

Several stocks delivered standout returns in 2023, led by chip maker Nvidia, ranked 41st with a 239% gain. Other tech winners included HubSpot , Intel , Applied Materials , and Lam Research . Strong performers in other industries were Trex , Lennox International , Williams-Sonoma , Insight Enterprises , and Owens Corning .

A big theme in this year’s rankings was progress on corporate governance and labor relations, says Chris Madden, a managing director at Calvert, which is owned by Morgan Stanley Investment Management. “A lot of the companies on this list have done a stellar job dealing with employees,” he says.

Strikes were big in 2023 as Hollywood screenwriters and Detroit auto workers took to the picket lines, winning concessions and pay raises. Pilots and other unionised groups fared well, breathing life back into the organised labour movement, which had been in decline since the 1950s. New technologies such as artificial intelligence and electric vehicles are upending vast industries, prompting workers to demand more protections.

Tensions between companies and employees are spilling over in more public ways, thanks in part to social media; workers are using platforms like X and TikTok to amplify their message or try to shame their employer, says Alison Taylor, clinical associate professor at NYU Stern School of Business and author of a new book, Higher Ground . One of the most interesting recent trends, she says, has been the rise of “strategic leaking, where young employees undercut sunny messaging from the top with their own lived experiences.” She cites the trend of sharing layoff experiences on TikTok as an example.

Battles are also brewing over DEI, including a political backlash by conservatives, complicating corporate efforts to meet their own DEI goals. Last year, a number of high-profile chief diversity officers exited their roles at some of the biggest U.S. companies, including Walt Disney and Netflix . This month, Zoom Video Communications fired a team focused on DEI initiatives as part of a round of layoffs.

The issue is also bubbling up in the presidential race. During a rally in Philadelphia last year, presidential hopeful Donald Trump promised to eliminate all diversity, equity, and inclusion programs “across the entire federal government.”

Many companies say they remain committed to DEI goals. According to a Conference Board survey late last year of chief human resource officers, none planned to scale back their diversity efforts, while 75% said improving the employee experience and organisational culture would be a top focus in 2024. Alphabet said in a statement that it is inaccurate to suggest it is “deprioritising our longstanding efforts for underrepresented communities.”

One company that scored well on labour and other sustainability factors was Walmart . The world’s largest retailer landed at 61 on the list. “Walmart stands out for its strong labour practices,” says Helen Mbugua-Kahuki, Calvert’s director of research. “We’ve seen Walmart do a really good job as it pertains to increasing wages for its workers.”

One of America’s largest employers, with 1.6 million U.S. workers, Walmart raised entry-level pay for store workers last year, taking its average hourly wage to $18, well above the federal minimum of $7.25. The company also increased wages for store managers to an average $128,000, plus better bonuses. A Walmart spokesperson said the retailer has been “investing in its front-line hourly associates for the past several years.”

Walmart’s other positives include education and training benefits, which the company says have saved workers nearly $500 million over the past five years. Calvert gives the company high marks for being more open to worker feedback through new digital forums . “It’s a form of open communication and provision for employees to freely express themselves,” Mbugua-Kahuki says.

Walmart still has its labour critics. The company has faced multiple lawsuits over gender discrimination. None of its roughly 4,700 U.S. stores have unionised, making it the largest U.S. employer without any unionised workers. In January, the National Labor Relations Board’s San Francisco office issued a complaint against a Walmart store in Eureka, Calif., alleging violations of labor rights. The NLRB said there are 21 other unfair labor practice cases open against Walmart.

Walmart has denied the NLRB’s allegations in a legal response . The company didn’t respond to a request for comment.

Other Faces of Sustainability

Calvert says Clorox, whose brands include its namesake bleach, Burt’s Bees cosmetics, and Glad trash bags, took top honours thanks to its strong governance structure and pay equity, among other factors. The firm’s board is diverse, with 50% women and 25% people of colour. In 2023, Clorox once again achieved pay equity, which means “no statistically significant differences” in pay by gender globally and race or ethnicity in the U.S., according to Clorox. “Pay equity is important because it creates a better culture,” says Madden.

Clorox’s shares underperformed the market in 2023, in part because of a cyberattack that caused wide-scale disruptions and hurt financial results. But its workers, at least, appear to be well treated, with perks including more flexible time for all. “We really intend for people to use this to refuel their tanks,” says Kirsten Marriner, chief people and corporate affairs officer.

About a fifth of this year’s list consists of newcomers. Game publisher Electronic Arts made the list for the first time, debuting at No. 32. Calvert says the company is making strides in DEI, including a push for better representation of women in its games. EA’s hugely popular Ultimate Team mode saw women football players introduced for the first time last year . Calvert also lauds the company for hiring “underrepresented talent” above the average rate in the industry for the fifth straight year and placing more minorities in executive roles. EA declined an interview but confirmed Calvert’s information.

Also making its debut this year is Trex, landing at No. 68. The company is a leading maker of “wood-alternative” home decking and railings made from a blend of recycled and reclaimed raw materials.

Some companies made a big leap up in this year’s ranking, among them Tetra Tech , which jumped from No. 56 to No. 8. Calvert singled out the consulting and engineering firm for its efforts to remediate toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, better known as “forever” chemicals. But it noted that Tetra Tech “could improve on human-capital management and offer more incentives for its employees.”

How We Ranked the Companies

To build our list of most sustainable companies, Barron’s  worked with Calvert, a leader in ESG investing. Starting with the 1,000 largest publicly traded companies by market value—excluding real estate investment trusts—Calvert ranked each one by how it performed in five key constituency categories: shareholders, employees, customers, community, and the planet. Specifically, it looked at more than 230 ESG performance indicators from seven rating companies, including ISS, MSCI, and Sustainalytics, along with other data and Calvert’s internal research.

These data were organised into 28 topics that were then sorted into five categories. In the shareholder category, for example, topics included board structure, business ethics, and executive compensation. For employees, workplace diversity was a key topic. The planet category included greenhouse-gas, or GHG, emissions and related policies; biodiversity; and water stress. Calvert assigned a score of zero to 100 in each category, based on company performance. Then it created a weighted average of the categories for each company, based on how financially material the category was in its industry. To make Barron’s list, a company had to be rated above the bottom quarter in each material stakeholder category. If it performed poorly in any key category that was financially material, it was disqualified.



MOST POPULAR

From making unpopular decisions to learning when to listen, leaders from five businesses reveal what nobody prepared them for — and how running a company has challenged their expectations.

Technology and semiconductor shares fell sharply as investors questioned the debt financing the AI infrastructure boom and confronted higher rates and Chinese competition.

Related Stories
Money
The AI Boom Faces Its First Serious Debt Test
By Ruba Jaajaa 19/10/2026
Money
Australians Are Investing in Record Numbers — Again
By Ruba Jaajaa 19/10/2026
Property
Unemployment at 4.7 Per Cent Cools RBA’s Case for a November Rate Rise
By Ruba Jaajaa 16/10/2026
The AI Boom Faces Its First Serious Debt Test

Technology and semiconductor shares fell sharply as investors questioned the debt financing the AI infrastructure boom and confronted higher rates and Chinese competition.

By Ruba Jaajaa
Mon, Oct 19, 2026 4 min

A sharp technology sell-off has exposed a new anxiety on global markets: whether the enormous borrowing behind the artificial-intelligence infrastructure boom can generate sufficient returns as interest rates rise and Chinese competition intensifies.

The artificial-intelligence investment boom has powered technology shares, semiconductor manufacturers and data-centre operators to extraordinary heights. Last week, investors were given a reminder that much of this expansion is being built with borrowed money.

The technology-heavy Nasdaq Composite fell 4.5 per cent over the week ended October 16, its weakest performance since late June. Semiconductor shares suffered an even deeper correction, with the Philadelphia Semiconductor Index losing about 11.4 per cent.

The selling spread quickly through global markets. Micron Technology fell 14.6 per cent over the week, while South Korea’s Samsung Electronics and SK Hynix dropped approximately 18 per cent and 24 per cent respectively.

This was more than a routine bout of profit-taking. Investors were reassessing three interconnected risks: higher interest rates, the rapidly expanding debt burden attached to AI infrastructure and the prospect of stronger competition from Chinese memory-chip manufacturers.

The debt behind the AI build-out

Artificial intelligence requires a physical infrastructure network of enormous scale. Data centres must be built, advanced processors purchased, power supplies secured and cooling systems installed before customers begin generating meaningful revenue from them.

Technology companies are increasingly supplementing their own cash with corporate bonds, syndicated loans, equipment leases, private credit and project-level financing.

JPMorgan describes the emerging funding model as a combination of conventional corporate borrowing and project finance tied to individual data-centre assets. In Australia, the Reserve Bank estimates that syndicated loans accounted for approximately three-quarters of data-centre financing during 2025 and 2026 to date.

The numbers are becoming large enough to affect broader credit markets. The Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas has cited Wall Street estimates suggesting AI-related investment-grade bond issuance could approach US$300 billion in 2026 alone.

That borrowing is not automatically problematic. Debt can be an efficient way to finance long-lived infrastructure when future revenue is sufficiently predictable. The concern is that AI technology, customer demand and computing economics are changing much faster than the repayment schedules attached to the assets.

A data centre financed today may carry debt for years. Investors must therefore make assumptions about future utilisation rates, electricity prices, chip performance, customer concentration and the amount businesses will ultimately pay for AI computing.

When interest rates rise, those assumptions become less forgiving.

Inflation changes the calculation

September’s US inflation data intensified the pressure. Consumer prices increased 3.7 per cent over the year, ahead of market expectations and up from 3.4 per cent in August.

The hotter reading reduced confidence that interest rates would fall quickly and pushed bond yields higher. That matters particularly for companies whose valuations depend on profits expected well into the future, as well as highly leveraged infrastructure operators that may need to refinance.

CoreWeave has emerged as a closely watched test case. The specialist cloud-computing company has accumulated substantial debt and lease obligations to build AI capacity, while relying on a concentrated group of large technology customers.

Its shares fell sharply during the sell-off, while the cost of insuring its debt against default climbed. CoreWeave has argued that its contracted backlog more than covers its obligations and that financial markets do not always understand its business model. Nevertheless, its securities have become a proxy for investor confidence in debt-funded AI infrastructure.

Oracle, another major investor in AI computing capacity, fell 8.8 per cent in Friday trading, while CoreWeave dropped 15.5 per cent.

The question is shifting from how much AI infrastructure can be built to how profitably it can be operated.

China adds another source of pressure

Interest rates were not the only catalyst. Reports of advances by Chinese memory-chip producer ChangXin Memory Technologies raised concerns that lower-cost Chinese products could increase competition across the global semiconductor industry.

Memory chips are essential to AI systems, but the industry is historically cyclical. Periods of tight supply and high pricing can encourage rapid investment, eventually producing oversupply and falling margins.

The prospect of a well-funded Chinese competitor expanding its technological capabilities unsettled investors in Samsung, SK Hynix and Micron. It also demonstrated that AI-related demand does not insulate chipmakers from conventional competitive pressures.

That combination—slower rate cuts, more expensive financing and potentially cheaper supply—challenged the assumption that every company exposed to AI would enjoy continually expanding margins.

A reset rather than the end of the boom

The sell-off does not establish that the AI boom is ending. Demand for computing power remains strong, the largest technology companies continue to generate formidable cash flows and many infrastructure projects are backed by long-term customer contracts.

What has changed is the market’s willingness to overlook the price and financing structure of that growth.

The most resilient companies are likely to be those able to fund investment from operating cash flow, secure long-duration customers and demonstrate that new capacity will earn returns comfortably above its financing costs.

More speculative operators may face greater scrutiny, particularly where debt is expensive, customers are concentrated or expected revenue depends on demand that has not yet materialised.

For Australian investors, the lesson extends beyond US technology shares. Local data-centre operators, infrastructure funds, electricity suppliers and property groups are increasingly exposed to the same investment cycle.

Artificial intelligence may remain one of the defining growth themes of the decade. But last week’s correction showed that enthusiasm for the technology does not eliminate financial discipline.

The next stage of the AI boom will be judged not only by computing power, model performance or demand for chips, but by something more traditional: whether the assets being financed can generate enough cash to repay the money borrowed to build them.

Fact box

Nasdaq Composite: Down 4.5 per cent for the week ended October 16, 2026

Philadelphia Semiconductor Index: Down approximately 11.4 per cent

Micron Technology: Down approximately 14.6 per cent

Samsung Electronics: Down approximately 18 per cent

SK Hynix: Down approximately 24 per cent

US September inflation: 3.7 per cent annually

Estimated 2026 AI-related investment-grade issuance: Approximately US$300 billion

MOST POPULAR

Odd Culture Group brings a new kind of after-dark energy to the CBD, where daiquiris, disco and design collide beneath the city streets.

Queensland-based builder-developer MAYD has unveiled an exclusive first look at its anticipated ultra-luxury North Kirra mixed-use project as it lodges a minor amendment with the City of Gold Coast Council. The project sits across a 4,742sqm amalgamated landholding spanning seven parcels at 2–6 Pacific Parade and 27–33 Golden Four Drive, Bilinga, which MAYD secured in …

Related Stories
Property
MELBOURNE HOUSING POISED FOR CYCLICAL RECOVERY IN 2025–26
By Staff Writer 30/09/2025
Money
Australia’s Top 10 Finance Influencers of 2026
By Kanebridge News Editorial 03/08/2026
Property
After Bathla’s Collapse, Why KDMC Is Emerging as the Trusted Name in Marsden Park
By Ruba Jaajaa 26/08/2026
0
Your Cart
Your cart is emptyReturn to Shop