The World Benchmarking Alliance (WBA) launched a hub containing analysis of 2,000 of the most influential companies globally (January 2026). These companies were selected because of their impact: they generate $53 trillion in revenue, account for 54% of global emissions, directly employ 107 million people, and support another 550 million livelihoods through their value and supply chains. The analysis draws on data collected by WBA in its thematic benchmarks.
Human Level’s Take:
- Are the world’s 2,000 most influential companies meeting the mark on human rights and sustainability? No, according to the World Benchmarking Alliance (WBA). While progress is happening on some fronts, the analysis shows that company action on key areas is lagging. The analysis revealed five key takeaways, with insights on what businesses can do to strengthen their practices.
- First, if the 2,000 assessed companies scaled up their climate investment by 30% in existing solutions, they could help bridge the global climate investment gap by $1.3 trillion (context: $4.5 trillion is needed annually by 2030 to get on track for 1.5 degrees). Beyond increasing investment, companies can have a big impact by setting science-based climate targets backed by credible transition plans to help them meet these targets.
- Second, corporate inaction is worsening the global cost-of-living crisis. As companies both pay wages and set prices for goods and services, they can have significant influence on alleviating the crisis. Yet fewer than 5% of assessed companies pay living wages and less than 3% support suppliers to do so. In addition, companies providing essential services are not conducting affordability risk assessments, treating affordability as a material topic, or disclosing their progress.
- Third, while some companies are leading the way on nature-positive business, at least one-third continue to ignore the real benefits and costs of treating nature as a key business risk, not to mention a planetary one. Less than half (42%) disclose action taken to address their impacts on nature. WBA recommends that companies set nature transition plans to structure nature commitments and action.
- Fourth, very few companies (less than 10%) currently conduct human rights due diligence in their supply chains and fewer than one-tenth of companies report taking action to prevent, mitigate and remediate their salient supply chain risks. Slightly more have Scope 3 emissions targets (29%) and trace products to the point of origin (21%), but companies are leaving big gaps in risk management that could affect their overall supply chain resilience. Due diligence is needed across human rights, climate and nature to shore up the business and reduce negative impacts.
- Fifth, AI accountability is stalling, with few digital companies conducting and disclosing human rights impact assessments of their products and services. WBA calls on digital companies to thoroughly assess their human rights risks and impacts and disclose the results to push peers to do the same. And all companies that develop, procure or deploy AI (including companies outside of tech) have a responsibility to create ethical AI governance standards to manage human rights risks.
Some key takeaways:
- Companies can have a big impact on climate investment: $1.3 trillion of the annual $4.5 trillion investment gap required by 2030 could be closed if companies scaled up their climate investments. If all of the 2,000 assessed companies increased their investment in existing solutions by 30%, they would be able to contribute to meaningful progress in the near term. Over the longer term, higher investment levels, especially in new technology, will be needed. WBA also highlights the need for companies to set science-based climate targets and credible transition plans that account for both emissions reduction and increased investment to enable this. Investors, regulators and civil society will need to provide the incentives and oversight to keep companies on track with their plans.
- Corporate inaction is worsening the cost-of-living crisis: Affordability has turned from a temporary dynamic into a global, longer-term crisis. Real wages in many countries are still below pre-pandemic levels and costs of housing, food, energy, water and transport are rising faster than household incomes. This is especially the case for workers in low-income countries, but median-income households in high-income countries are also struggling. Influential companies have a significant role to play, as they both pay wages and set the prices for goods and services. Less than 5% of the 2,000 assessed companies pay a living wage, and less than 3% of companies support their suppliers to pay a living wage. When it comes to affordability, among the 300 companies that affect utilities, housing and transport, 76% score zero on every affordability indicator; among the 200 digital companies assessed, only 8% have initiatives to expand access to technology for vulnerable groups. WBA urges companies to see living wages and affordability as part of their core responsibilities. They can undertake living wage commitments in their own operations and supply chains, conduct affordability risk assessments, include affordability as a material topic, and disclose performance.
- Some companies are moving towards a nature-positive economy: The WBA’s analysis finds that, of the 750 companies that have the greatest impacts on nature (including food, mining and paper, among others), 66% of them identify at least some nature-related risks and dependencies of the business. Forty-two percent demonstrate concrete action to manage these risks via biodiversity assessments, water-reuse systems, protection against extreme weather, regenerative farming and watershed restoration. However, only 9% of these companies quantify the impact of nature risks on their business and 5% quantify the potential business benefits of a healthy environment. WBA recommends that companies publish nature transition plans, using guidance from the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures (TNFD) and World Wildlife Fund (WWF). This can help them anticipate and mitigate disruptions, use resources effectively, and identify business opportunities for innovation and resilience.
- Supply chain resilience is at risk: Almost half of the 2,000 assessed companies have a supplier code of conduct, however less than 10% of companies assess human rights risks in their supply chain, 29% have Scope 3 emissions targets, and 21% are able to trace the origin of products in their supply chain. Of the companies that do trace their products, almost two-thirds disclose traceability systems, fewer than half disclose supplier engagement and collected data, and 13% identify their suppliers. In addition, fewer than 10% of companies report taking action to prevent, mitigate and remediate their salient risks — leaving a significant gap in due diligence and opening up risks to people and nature in supply chains. WBA points out that this lack of supply chain risk management is not only a risk for people and nature, but also for supply chain resilience. It recommends that companies strengthen supply chain due diligence in all three areas — human rights, climate and nature — to better shore up their business and reduce their negative impacts.
- AI accountability is stalling: AI technology and automation is an emerging issue for any company that develops, procures or deploys digital technology, many of whom have integrated AI into their core business operations. AI influences food systems, governments, healthcare, finance, academia and military operations. It’s a particular risk area for tech companies, yet in the tech sector, fewer than half (38%) of the assessed companies publish ethical AI principles and none of them disclose the results of human rights impact assessments of tech. This is concerning given AI’s potential for negative impacts on people, for example surveillance, misinformation and discrimination. Even among companies that did report conducting human rights impact assessments, few disclosed the scope, affected groups, AI functionalities covered and results. Having in place AI governance structures and ethical AI principles is a key first step for all companies, not just those in the tech sector. And for companies designing these systems, more transparency is critical for accountability and to set the tone for other companies developing, purchasing and using these systems.
