_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
*Corresponding author: E-mail: nodinaka3@gatech.edu;
Cite as:
Odinaka, Nnadozie, and Oghenetega Wash–Anigboro. 2025. “Sustainability Practices in Fortune 500 Companies and
Their Impact on Business Practices: A Multiple Case Study Analysis”. Journal of Energy Research and Reviews 17 (7):17-26.
https://doi.org/10.9734/jenrr/2025/v17i7429.
Journal of Energy Research and Reviews
Volume 17, Issue 7, Page 17-26, 2025; Article no.JENRR.137075
ISSN: 2581-8368
Sustainability Practices in Fortune 500
Companies and their Impact on
Business Practices: A Multiple Case
Study Analysis
Nnadozie Odinaka
a*
and Oghenetega Wash–Anigboro
b
a
Scheller College of Business, Georgia Institute of Technology, USA.
b
Harbert College of Business, Auburn University, USA.
Authors’ contributions
This work was carried out in collaboration between both authors. Both authors read and approved the
final manuscript.
Article Information
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.9734/jenrr/2025/v17i7429
Open Peer Review History:
This journal follows the Advanced Open Peer Review policy. Identity of the Reviewers, Editor(s) and additional Reviewers,
peer review comments, different versions of the manuscript, comments of the editors, etc are available here:
https://pr.sdiarticle5.com/review-history/137075
Received: 29/03/2025
Accepted: 31/05/2025
Published: 04/06/2025
ABSTRACT
This study assesses the incorporation of sustainable practices in selected Fortune 500 firms,
examining their overall effects, and impact on the broader industry. It utilizes an integrative
methodology that merges qualitative literature reviews, content analysis of corporate sustainability
reports, and expert opinions. Evidence shows that organizations that incorporate sustainable
practices into their operations are likely to reap long-term financial benefits, better brand visibility,
and strategic differentiation. The case studies reveal a diverse spectrum of approaches and
outcomes, highlighting significant progress in areas such as renewable energy adoption (Apple,
P&G), supply chain emissions reduction (Apple, Walmart), and sustainable finance commitments
(JPMorgan Chase). However, several challenges persist, notably the requirement for substantial
Short Communication
Odinaka and
Wash–Anigboro;
J. Energy Res. Rev., vol. 17, no. 7, pp. 17-26, 2025; Article no.JENRR.137075
18
upfront capital investments, the complexity of accurately quantifying sustainability outcomes, and
internal resistance to organizational transformation. This research underscores that effective
sustainability integration demands robust methodologies, data-driven evaluation, and bold
leadership. It concludes that sustainability is no longer a niche add-on but an increasingly central
component of business excellence and long-term competitiveness, offering valuable insights for
academics, industry practitioners, policymakers, and stakeholders.
Keywords: Sustainable practices; corporate governance; financial performance; industry benchmarks;
sustainability reporting; strategic differentiation.
1. INTRODUCTION
The growing emphasis on sustainability marks a
fundamental shift in how businesses view their
roles in society and their responsibilities toward
the environment. Historically seen mostly through
the lens of corporate social responsibility (CSR),
environmental
sustainability
initiatives
are
becoming more and more acknowledged as an
essential component of corporate strategy,
profoundly impacting profitability, competitive
differentiation, and market longevity (Hart and
Milstein, 2003,
Porter and Kramer, 2011). With
their great influence and large resources,
Fortune 500 firms are at the forefront of
this transition, setting precedents for industry-
wide practices and standards (Eccles et al.,
2014).
Recent global events, including climate change,
resource constraints, and changing regulatory
environments have further underscored the
urgency of integrating sustainability into core
business practices (Elkington, 1997). Businesses
today operate in an environment marked by
increased scrutiny from diverse stakeholder
groups
including
consumers,
investors,
policymakers, and civil society, each demanding
accountability and proactive efforts towards
environmentally sustainable practices (Porter
and Kramer, 2011).
Studies
show
that
organizations
adopting
comprehensive sustainability strategies not only
satisfy
ethical
obligations
but
also
enjoy
operational and financial advantages (Hart and
Milstein, 2003,
Friede et al., 2015). From
resource efficiency, cost savings, better brand
reputation, customer loyalty, enhanced employee
engagement, and greater resilience against
regulatory and market risks (Porter and Kramer,
2011,
Epstein and Buhovac, 2014). As a result,
sustainable
practices
have
evolved
from
peripheral initiatives to strategic imperatives,
radically changing management and corporate
governance.
Despite
this
recognized
importance,
implementing sustainability practices remains
complex and fraught with challenges. Obstacles
include
substantial
upfront
investments,
resistance
to
organizational
change,
and
difficulties in quantifying and disclosing outcomes
(Dyllick
and
Muff,
2016).
Furthermore,
considering the variety of industries within the
Fortune 500 list, sustainable practices vary
widely, reflecting industry-specific challenges and
stakeholder expectations (Kolk and Pinkse,
2008).
This paper seeks to provide a thorough
examination of these sustainability practices
among top Fortune 500 firms. It seeks to identify
the critical success factors and barriers in
sustainability integration, examine the wider
implications on industry-wide practices, and
discuss the implications for future business
strategies. By doing so, this study contributes
valuable
insights
for
academics,
industry
practitioners, policymakers, and stakeholders
seeking
to
grasp
the
strategic
value
of
sustainability in today’s corporate environment.
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
The
academic
discourse
on
corporate
sustainability
has
dramatically
changed,
reflecting a growing awareness of businesses'
roles and obligation towards environmental,
social, and governance (ESG) factors. The
foundational conceptualization of sustainability in
business is often traced to (Elkington, 1997)
triple bottom line approach, which advocates
balancing economic, social, and environmental
responsibilities within corporate operations. This
framework emphasizes the connection between
financial profitability, ecological stewardship, and
social accountability, asserting that sustainable
practices drive long-term value generation and
corporate resilience.
(Hart and Milstein, 2003) built upon this basis by
articulating a strategic approach to sustainability,
Odinaka and
Wash–Anigboro;
J. Energy Res. Rev., vol. 17, no. 7, pp. 17-26, 2025; Article no.JENRR.137075
19
highlighting its potential to deliver competitive
advantages via innovation, resource efficiency,
and improved stakeholder engagement. Their
model incorporates sustainability practices into
strategic planning, arguing that organizations that
proactively
address
global
environmental
concerns can access new markets, reduce
operational
costs,
and
improve
long-term
profitability.
(Porter and Kramer, 2011) came up with the
concept of "shared value," which made the
strategy
implications
of
sustainability
even
clearer. They proposed that sustainability should
not be viewed solely as ethical compliance or
corporate philanthropy
but as an integral
business strategy capable of creating competitive
advantages. By harmonizing corporate goals with
societal
needs,
companies
can
generate
economic
benefits
while
simultaneously
addressing environmental and social challenges.
These theoretical claims are supported by a
wealth of evidence, underscoring the financial
advantages of integrating sustainability into
business
practices.
(Eccles,
Ioannou,
and
Serafeim
2014)
provided
robust
evidence
indicating that companies implementing thorough
sustainability
plans
outperform
competitors
financially over the long run. Their findings
highlighted improved market valuation, higher
operational
efficiency,
and
better
risk
management capabilities among sustainably
focused companies.
(Carroll and Shabana, 2010) supported the
business case for CSR, emphasizing that
aligning social and environmental responsibilities
with corporate strategy can enhance long-term
financial performance. They argued that effective
CSR requires a balance of ethical commitment
and strategic intent, supported by empirical
evidence,
stakeholder
engagement,
and
integration into core business operations.
Similarly, (Friede, Busch, and Bassen 2015)
conducted a meta-analysis that synthesized over
2,000 empirical studies, demonstrating a strong
positive correlation between financial outcomes
and sustainability performance (ESG criteria).
This analysis strengthened the business case for
sustainability in business strategy practices. It
also highlighted benefits such as increased
investor
trust,
improved
reputation,
and
enhanced market competitiveness.
Despite the compelling evidence supporting
sustainability’s strategic importance, integrating
such practices into business operations remains
challenging.
(Epstein
and
Buhovac
2014)
identified various challenges that companies
encounter in integrating sustainability practices,
including difficulties in measuring and reporting
intangible
outcomes,
internal
opposition
stemming
from
organizational
culture,
and
significant upfront investments required for these
transformations. Their research suggests that
these barriers often hinder companies from fully
leveraging the potential benefits of a sustainable
practices.
(Kolk and Pinkse 2008) underscored sector-
specific differences, indicating that sustainable
practices and their corresponding advantages
markedly differ among industries. Their research
indicated that heavily regulated industries, like
energy,
automotive,
and
manufacturing,
generally include sustainable practices more
thoroughly into their strategy planning due to
increased regulatory oversight and stakeholder
demands relative to less examined sectors.
(Lozano 2015) reinforced the view, advocating a
holistic approach to sustainability integration, and
emphasizing
the
importance
of
aligning
sustainability practices within corporate culture,
governance structures, and business operations.
He
argued
that
successful
sustainability
integration requires comprehensive stakeholder
engagement, continuous monitoring, and robust
governance mechanisms.
In general, the existing literature emphasizes the
multidimensional
strategic
significance
of
sustainability, highlighting the critical challenges
in its integration as well as the benefits. The
purpose of this review is to establish a foundation
for comprehending the sustainability practices of
selected Fortune 500 companies, which will
inform subsequent analyses of the ways in which
these
practices
affect
broader
industry
standards, competitive dynamics, and regulatory
environments.
3. METHODOLOGY
3.1 Research Design and Approach
A multiple-case study approach was chosen to
examine sustainable practices across various
industries, providing comparative insights and
enhancing the generalizability of findings.
Each case (company) is treated as an embedded
unit of analysis, allowing in-depth exploration of
Odinaka and
Wash–Anigboro;
J. Energy Res. Rev., vol. 17, no. 7, pp. 17-26, 2025; Article no.JENRR.137075
20
firm-specific sustainability strategies while also
facilitating
cross-case
comparisons.
The
research is grounded in established sustainability
frameworks – for example, the
Triple Bottom Line
perspective (covering environmental, social, and
economic performance) and stakeholder theory.
These frameworks ensure that the analysis
captures
a
holistic
view
of
corporate
sustainability,
going
beyond
environmental
metrics to include social responsibility and
governance. Global Reporting Initiative (GRI)
guidelines
and
the
U.N.
Sustainable
Development Goals (SDGs) were used as
reference points.
Aligning the analysis with these criteria ensures
consistency
in
evaluating
each
company’s
performance and signals what is expected in
terms of disclosure and impact. Overall, the
research design is descriptive (mapping out what
sustainability initiatives companies have and their
outcomes).
3.2 Data Collection Methods and Sources
Both qualitative and quantitative data were
collected from multiple sources to ensure a
robust,
triangulated
assessment.
Primary
qualitative data consist of corporate sustainability
reports,
annual
reports,
and
official
ESG
(Environmental, Social, Governance) disclosures
from the selected companies as obtained from
the company’s website. These reports are rich in
narrative detail about goals, initiatives, and self-
reported progress. We reviewed key themes,
commitments, and strategies from the reports,
websites and documents– an approach similar to
prior
studies
that
analysed
Fortune
500
sustainability
reports
using
text
analysis
software.
In some instances, qualitative interviews or
statements from corporate leaders (sourced from
public interviews, earnings calls, or case studies)
were used to enrich the understanding of internal
motivations
and
implementation
challenges.
However, the bulk of data is documentary (from
publicly available reports and opinions). All data
were collected for the most recent reporting
periods available (generally the past 5–8 years of
sustainability reports and updates) to capture the
current state of practices and recent progress.
This multi-source data collection strengthens the
study’s validity through triangulation – cross
verifying claims (for example, if a company report
claims a certain emissions reduction, this was
cross-checked with CDP disclosures or third-
party analyses when available).
3.3 Case Studies
(The following case studies examine five Fortune
500 companies, each representing a different
industry:
technology,
finance,
energy,
manufacturing and retail. We analyse how each
company
approaches
sustainability,
what
initiatives and strategies they have implemented,
the challenges they face, and the outcomes of
their efforts. We also discuss how each
company’s sustainability journey influences or
reflect trend in its broader industry.).
3.4 Technology Sector – Apple Inc
Sustainability Strategy:
Apple has integrated
sustainability into its product design, supply
chain, and corporate operations, with the aim for
full carbon neutrality across its business and
product lifecycle by 2030. The company already
uses 100% renewable energy for its global
corporate operations and encourages suppliers
to adopt renewable power as well (Greener
wisdom, 2024).
Sustainability measures include using recycled
and responsibly sourced materials like recycled
aluminium and rare earth elements in new
devices. Apple also designs products for
enhanced
energy
efficiency
and
extended
lifespan, offering better battery life and regular
software updates. Additional initiatives include
investments in renewable energy
projects,
logistics
optimizations
such
as
compact
packaging, and programs like Apple Renew for
device trade-in and recycling. These initiatives
show
Apple's
commitment
to
integrating
innovation
with
environmental
stewardship,
tracked annually in its Environmental Progress
Reports (Greener wisdom, 2024).
Challenges and Outcomes:
Despite its strong
commitments, Apple faces several sustainability
challenges and criticisms. One challenge is that
Apple’s rapid growth and product demand can
counteract some gains. For instance, even as
each device becomes more efficient, the sheer
volume
of
products
means
Apple’s
total
environmental impact remains significant. Critics
have also questioned whether Apple’s pledges
are fully substantive. Some argue that Apple’s
sustainability push could be partly
marketing-
driven
, noting that certain efforts might not tackle
core issues. Accusations of “greenwashing” have
been made, suggesting Apple’s impressive
initiatives may “lack substantial impact or depth”
(Nando, 2023). For example, while Apple has
Odinaka and
Wash–Anigboro;
J. Energy Res. Rev., vol. 17, no. 7, pp. 17-26, 2025; Article no.JENRR.137075
21
reduced packaging and increased recycling, it
also has been criticized for product design
choices that limit repairability and upgradability of
devices.
Another challenge is in Apple’s supply chain.
Ensuring that suppliers (often in developing
countries) adhere to environmental and labour
standards is complex. Apple has implemented
stringent Supplier Codes of Conduct and
regularly audits suppliers for compliance, (Apple,
2022) but past issues (e.g. factory labour
conditions or mining impacts for minerals) show
the difficulties in managing sustainability end-to-
end.
In terms of outcomes
, Apple has made
substantial progress in sustainability by achieving
100%
renewable
energy
for
its
internal
operations and significantly reducing emissions
across its supply chain and products (Greener
wisdom, 2024). Investments in renewable energy
and improvements in product efficiency have
resulted in millions of tons of emissions
reductions annually. Recent
MacBook and
iPhone models incorporate 100% recycled
aluminium enclosures, reducing environmental
impacts from mining (Greener wisdom, 2024).
Apple's sustainability initiatives influence the
broader industry. Her transparency and annual
reporting (detailing scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions,
etc.) contribute to making such disclosures an
industry norm in tech driving competitors and
suppliers towards setting higher transparency
standards through detailed annual emissions
reporting.
3.5 Finance Sector – JPMorgan Chase &
Co
Sustainability Strategy:
JPMorgan Chase, the
largest bank in the United States, approaches
sustainability mostly via sustainable finance and
risk management. As a financial institution, its
direct environmental impact from buildings and
operations is rather minimal; but, its sponsored
emissions, stemming from the firms and projects
it supports, are substantial. Recognizing this,
JPMorgan has made a series of commitments to
align its lending and investment portfolios with
climate goals. In 2021, it announced a goal to
achieve net-zero emissions by 2050 across its
financing
operations
(joining
the
Net-Zero
Banking Alliance at the time) (Sow, 2024).
JPMorgan also developed its
Carbon Compass
methodology to measure, monitor and report
progress on her financed emissions goals (JP
Morgan,
2025),
illustrating
a
data-driven
approach to track the climate alignment of its
lending.
Challenges and Performance:
JPMorgan’s role
as a bank means its sustainability record is often
judged by the companies it finances. A major
challenge for JPMorgan is the inherent conflict
between its sustainability pledges and its
historical role as a top financier of fossil fuels.
Advocacy groups have repeatedly identified
JPMorgan as, historically, the world’s largest
financier of the fossil fuel industry. (Lamar
Johnson 2024) noted that, since the Paris
Agreement
(2016–2023),
JPMorgan
has
provided over $430 billion in financing to fossil
fuel companies, the most of any bank globally.
Another challenge is methodological: accurately
measuring financed emissions depends heavily
on client data and market scenarios, with uneven
reporting
by
clients.
Short-term
financial
opportunities may also conflict with long-term
climate goals and JPMorgan seeks to mitigate
this tension by encouraging clients to adopt
Paris-aligned transition plans rather than abruptly
divesting,
although
the
effectiveness
of
engagement versus exclusion remains debated.
Looking at outcomes
. On the climate alignment
front, early reports show slight reductions in the
carbon intensity of its power generation portfolio
and auto manufacturing portfolio, indicating
incremental progress. However, overall financed
emissions are still very high, and JPMorgan’s
success in bending the curve will be clearer
closer to 2030 (JP Morgan, 2025).
The bank has also excelled in some social
sustainability metrics. For example, it reached a
milestone of 50% of hires being women and 45%
ethnically diverse in the U.S., ESG News (2024),
reflecting efforts to improve diversity and
inclusion (often included in its sustainability
reporting)
In terms of industry impact
, JPMorgan often
serves as a bellwether for the banking sector. Its
large
commitments
(like
the
$2.5
trillion
announcement)
(ESG
News,
2024)
have
arguably pushed other banks to announce similar
sustainable finance goals, fuelling a sort of
“race
to the top”
in green financing. Conversely, when
JPMorgan pulled out of the net-zero alliance, it
sparked concerns that other banks might follow
(and indeed some did), this showing how its
actions can affect norms in sustainable finance.
Odinaka and
Wash–Anigboro;
J. Energy Res. Rev., vol. 17, no. 7, pp. 17-26, 2025; Article no.JENRR.137075
22
3.6 Energy
Sector
–
Exxon
Mobil
Corporation
Sustainability Strategy:
Being an oil & gas
supermajor, Exxon’s approach to sustainability is
complex and often controversial. Historically,
ExxonMobil was slower than some peers to
acknowledge and tackle climate change; but, in
recent years it has developed a sustainability
strategy centred on what it calls the “dual
challenge”: meeting the world’s rising energy
demand while also mitigating climate change and
environmental impacts (ExxonMobil, 2025).
In practice, ExxonMobil’s sustainability efforts
have focused on operational efficiency and
technological solutions rather than a pivot away
from fossil fuels. For example, Exxon has set
targets to reduce methane leaks and routine
flaring from its oil and gas production, aiming to
lower its operational greenhouse gas intensity.
The company states it supports the Paris
Agreement and has
endorsed the idea of carbon
pricing
as a means to address climate change
(ExxonMobil, 2021).
Notably, unlike some European oil majors,
ExxonMobil has not committed to a company-
wide net-zero emissions target by 2050 for its full
value chain, focusing instead on a 2050 net-zero
ambition for its operational (Scope 1 and 2)
emissions and not its Scope 3 (product use)
emissions (Client Earth, 2021).
Challenges and Industry Implications:
The
main challenge is that Exxon’s core business
model does not align with global climate goals.
The company has continued to make significant
investments in new oil and gas projects,
spending tens of billions of dollars annually on
fossil fuel exploration and development, even
though the burning and exploration of its
products (oil, gasoline, natural gas) is a major
source of CO
₂
emissions globally (Client Earth,
2021).
Public and investor pressure has presented
another difficulty. When activist hedge fund
Engine No. 1 won three seats on Exxon’s board
in 2021 in an attempt to compel the company to
take more action on climate strategy, it sparked a
shareholder revolt against Exxon’s unwillingness
to change fast enough (Hiller and Herbst-Bayliss,
2021).
As for
outcomes
, ExxonMobil can point to some
progress: by 2025 (vs. 2016 levels), it aims to cut
upstream flaring and methane emissions by 40–
50%, and early reports indicate it’s on track,
having eliminated routine flaring
in some
operations and improved detection of methane
leaks. The company has operational excellence
in areas like safety and spill prevention, which
are also aspects of environmental performance.
However, in contrast to other cases, Exxon’s
measurable sustainability outcomes in terms of
absolute emission reduction are limited. Its
overall carbon footprint remains enormous and
has not shown a significant decline, given that oil
and gas output has not radically fallen. The
company’s positive contributions, like storing a
few million tons of CO
₂
or researching new
energy, are often perceived as overshadowed by
the scale of emissions from its main business.
The
broader
industry
implications
of
ExxonMobil’s stance are significant. Exxon’s
cautionary approach is emblematic of much of
the oil and gas industry’s dilemma: how to stay
profitable today (largely via fossil fuels) while
preparing for a low-carbon future. If Exxon were
to meaningfully pivot or set a net-zero target, it
could signal a stronger industry shift; instead, its
strategy has somewhat
held back the pace
among U.S. oil companies. (Notably, European
competitors like BP and Shell have taken more
aggressive stances on transitioning, whereas
Exxon and some U.S. peers have not, possibly
influencing others to also take a slower route in
North America).
3.7 Manufacturing Sector – The Procter &
Gamble Company (P&G)
Sustainability
Strategy:
Leading
global
consumer
goods
manufacturer,
Procter
&
Gamble (with brands like Tide, Pampers, Gillette,
etc.), has a comprehensive sustainability plan
that considers the company’s environmental
impact throughout the supply chain and product
life cycles. P&G’s approach is summed up in its
“Net Zero 2040” pledge and its ambitious goals
for 2030 and beyond, frequently referred to as
“Ambition 2030” (Procter & Gamble, 2022). It
established a science-based goal to reduce GHG
emissions by 50% by 2030 in comparison to a
baseline set in 2010 (Engie Impact, 2019).
Beyond climate, P&G’s sustainability strategy
has
key
pillars
in
Waste,
Water,
and
Forestry/Materials. Launching the first recyclable
shampoo bottle made partially of ocean plastic
(under the Head & Shoulders brand) was one
well-known waste initiative. P&G set out to
Odinaka and
Wash–Anigboro;
J. Energy Res. Rev., vol. 17, no. 7, pp. 17-26, 2025; Article no.JENRR.137075
23
source billions of litres of water from circular
(reused) sources. By creating detergents that
clean well in cold water, P&G encourages
customers to wash their laundry in cold cycles,
which saves energy, and it runs campaigns to
educate consumers about water conservation
(such as taking shorter showers with efficient
shower products). The company also focuses on
helping consumers use less water and energy
with its products. On material sourcing, P&G it
requires that all wood pulp and palm oil in its
products come from responsible sources (Lucà,
2016).
Challenges and Results:
One challenge is the
complexity of its supply chain and product
formulations;
ensuring
that
thousands
of
suppliers
(from
chemical
manufacturers
to
packaging suppliers to farmers of raw materials)
meet environmental and social standards is a
continuous
task.
P&G
frequently
has
to
collaborate with suppliers to innovate new
materials (like biodegradable ingredients or
recycled resins) that meet performance and
safety standards. And there can be higher costs
or technical hurdles in switching to greener
alternatives, which P&G must balance against its
financial goals.
The inherent sustainability trade-offs in some of
P&G's product categories presents another
difficulty. For instance, single-use consumer
products like razors and diapers generate waste.
P&G has tried recycling diapers and extending
the life of razors, but at its core, a large portion of
its business depends on disposables.
Although P&G tries to support it, it is partially
beyond
its
control
to
change
consumer
behaviour, such as encouraging people to
recycle packaging or accept reuse models.
Environmental organizations have also criticized
P&G for certain issues, such as the sourcing of
palm oil that contributes to tropical deforestation
and the sourcing of wood pulp for tissue products
that contributes to the loss of Canadian boreal
forests.
In
terms
of
outcomes,
P&G
has
made
measurable
progress
across
multiple
sustainability
fronts.
Climate-wise,
the
aforementioned >50% reduction in operational
GHG emissions by 2020 is a significant
achievement (Procter & Gamble, 2021). The
company noted that since 2010, its energy
efficiency improvements have saved it hundreds
of millions of dollars in energy costs (Kapadia,
2018).
This
reinforces
the
business
case
for
sustainability:
eco-efficiency
often
lowers
operating costs. By 2021, P&G reported reaching
97% renewable electricity globally (Ambition
2040 Ctap, 2021), including 100% in North
America and Europe, putting it close to its 100%
goal well ahead of 2030.
One notable result of P&G’s influence is that
many of its suppliers and peer companies have
adopted similar sustainability metrics, multiplying
the impact. For instance, P&G’s early move to
score suppliers on sustainability (Lucà, 2016),
likely encouraged the creation of industry-wide
tools for supplier sustainability assessments
(now common in manufacturing supply chains).
The broader implication in the consumer goods
and manufacturing industry is that sustainability
has become a key component of corporate
strategy. Competitors like Unilever, Nestlé, etc.,
often try to one-up each other in sustainability
commitments, which overall raises industry
standards.
3.8 Retail Sector – Walmart Inc
Sustainability Strategy:
The largest retailer in
the
world,
Walmart,
has
implemented
sustainability policies emphasizing its vast supply
chain and store operations. Recognizing that the
bulk of its environmental impact comes from the
production of goods it sells, Walmart’s flagship
initiative is Project Gigaton, launched in 2020.
The goal of Project Gigaton was to work with
suppliers to reduce or avoid one billion metric
tons (a gigaton) of greenhouse gases from the
global value chain by 2030 (Walmart Inc., n.d.).
Walmart’s approach has been to enrol suppliers
in climate action by providing toolkits, education,
and an online reporting platform for emissions
reduction projects.
Walmart also drove sustainability initiative largely
through its products and sourcing models. It
developed a Sustainability Index (in collaboration
with The Sustainability Consortium) to evaluate
the environmental effect of items on its shelves,
encouraging
suppliers
to
improve
scores.
Essentially, Walmart’s sustainability strategy is
defined by leveraging its massive scale for
influence on her suppliers:
“when the world’s
largest retailer takes on a supply chain initiative,
the results can have global ramifications”
(Unglesbee, 2024).
Walmart has also advanced in its own activities;
it has reduced energy intensity in stores through
Odinaka and
Wash–Anigboro;
J. Energy Res. Rev., vol. 17, no. 7, pp. 17-26, 2025; Article no.JENRR.137075
24
LED lighting and efficient HVAC systems,
increased electric vehicle use in its logistics, and
diverted waste from landfills (many Walmart
locations have recycling programs, and some
achieved zero waste status). While exact figures
vary by region, Walmart has steadily increased
its use of renewables (dozens of onsite solar
installations and wind power contracts) and is
aiming for a 100% renewable electricity by 2035
Challenges and Outcomes:
Internally, a key
difficulty was getting tens of thousands of
suppliers, mainly in developing nations, to
prioritize emissions reduction and other goals.
One way Walmart tackled this was by offering
incentives and resources: it taught suppliers on
the benefit of sustainability (for example, how
cutting energy use can lower costs) and even
facilitated access to financing for sustainability
improvements.
Culturally, Walmart had to educate its customers
and merchandisers to consider sustainability in
product
sourcing
decisions,
which
meant
redefining metrics of success beyond price and
quality to include environmental impact. Inspite of
these
challenges,
Walmart
has
reported
impressive financial outcomes. In 2024, the
company announced that it met its Project
Gigaton target, a full six years ahead of schedule
(Unglesbee, 2024).
The
broader
implications
of
Walmart’s
sustainability initiatives are substantial for the
retail industry. Walmart effectively set new norms
for supply chain engagement on sustainability –
its Project Gigaton demonstrated that a retailer
can influence Scope 3 (supply chain) emissions
at scale, something many companies struggled
with. And this has put pressure on other retailers
and large brand manufacturers to implement
similar programs or risk falling behind in climate
action. Indeed, peers like Target, Amazon, and
others have announced their own supplier
sustainability programs, in part to keep up with
the standards Walmart helped establish.
4. CONCLUSION
These case studies of these companies across
different industries demonstrates a spectrum of
sustainability practices and their outcomes. Each
company – Apple, JPMorgan, ExxonMobil,
Procter & Gamble, and Walmart– has integrated
sustainability into their operations to varying
extents, reflective of its industry context and
stakeholder pressures. From the tech sector’s
push for carbon-neutral products to retail’s
supply-chain-wide initiatives, and from finance’s
capital reallocation to manufacturing’s lifecycle
management, it is clear that sustainability has
become
a
strategic
imperative
for
large
corporations. The challenges are as notable as
the achievements: companies must continuously
innovate, invest, and sometimes fundamentally
change
their
business
models
to
meet
sustainability
goals,
all
while
maintaining
profitability
and
navigating
stakeholder
expectations (Bonini and Swartz, 2014).
In conclusion, by looking at the sustainable
practices of influential fortune 500 companies,
this study provides insights into how leading
global firms are navigating the complexities of
integrating
sustainability
into
their
core
operations and governance. It highlights not only
the strategic benefits but also challenges like
capital investments and outcome quantification.
In light of these developments and changes at all
levels, sustainability practices have become an
urgent necessity for companies to adopt in their
business practices, activities, and strategies in
order to achieve success factors and attract the
largest possible number of stakeholders, which is
what this study confirms. So, the broader
implication for industry is that sustainability is no
longer a niche add-on but is increasingly central
to
business
excellence
and
long-term
competitiveness (Brand, 2025).
DISCLAIMER (ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE)
Author(s) hereby declare that NO generative AI
technologies such as Large Language Models
(ChatGPT, COPILOT, etc) and text-to-image
generators have been used during writing or
editing of this manuscript.
COMPETING INTERESTS
Authors have declared that no competing
interests exist.
REFERENCES
Ambition 2040 Ctap (2021)
P&G Climate
Transition Action Plan
Apple (2022). How we work with suppliers.
Available
at:
https://www.apple.com/euro/supplier-
responsibility/l/generic/pdf/How-We-
WorkWith-Suppliers.pdf
(Accessed:
24
March 2025).
Bonini, S., & Swartz, S. (2014).
Profits with
purpose: How organizing for sustainability
Odinaka and
Wash–Anigboro;
J. Energy Res. Rev., vol. 17, no. 7, pp. 17-26, 2025; Article no.JENRR.137075
25
can benefit the bottom line
. McKinsey &
Company.
Brand, P. (2025)
Sustainability reports track
Fortune 500 corporate climate action
.
https://purposebrand.com/blog/sustainabilit
y-report-examples-fortune-
2023/#:~:text=Answering%20a%20renewe
d%20call%20for,practices%20in%202024
%2 0and%20beyoKnd (Accessed: March
28, 2025).
Carroll, A. B., & Shabana, K. M. (2010). The
business
case
for
corporate
social
responsibility:
A
review
of
concepts,
research,
and
practice.
International
Journal of Management Reviews
, 12(1),
85-105
Client
Earth
(2021).
Greenwashing
files.
Available
at:
https://www.clientearth.org/projects/the-
greenwashing-
files/exxonmobil/#:~:text=ExxonMobil%20h
as%20not%20set%20a,of%20its%20Scop
e%203%20emissions.
(Accessed:
25
March 2025)
Eccles, R. G., Ioannou, I., & Serafeim, G. (2014).
The impact of corporate sustainability on
organizational
processes
and
performance.
Management
Science
,
60(11), 2835-2857
Elkington, J. (1997).
Cannibals with Forks: The
Triple
Bottom
Line
of
21st
Century
Business
. Capstone, Oxford Dyllick, T., &
Muff, K. (2016). Clarifying the meaning of
sustainable business:
Engie Impact
(2019) 'Procter & Gamble’s
sustainable
business
practices,'
26
October.
Epstein, M. J., & Buhovac, A. R. (2014).
Making
Sustainability Work: Best Practices in
Managing
and
Measuring
Corporate
Social,
Environmental,
and
Economic
Impacts
. Berrett-Koehler Publishers
ESG News (2024). JP Morgan to Invest
$2.5trillion for sustainable Development
Financing
by
2030.
Available
at:
https://esgnews.com/jp-morgan-to-invest-
2-5-trillionfor-sustainable-development-
financing-by-2030-reveals-new-2023-esg-
report/#:~:text=development%20financing
%20target%20by%202030,fostering%20an
%20inclusive%20workplace%20culture.
(Accessed: 25 March 2025)
ExxonMobil (2021). Our position on climate
change
Policy
and
carbon
pricing.
Available
at:
https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/news/vie
wpoints/our-position-on-
climatepolicy#:~:text=Our%20position%20
on%20climate%20change,Paris%20Agree
ment%20s
ince%20its%20inception.
(Accessed: 25 March 2025)
ExxonMobil (2025). 2024 Advancing Climate
Solutions
Report.
Available
at:
https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/sustaina
bility-and-reports/advancing-
climatesolutions?print=true#Aboutthereport
. (Accessed: 25 March 2025)
Friede, G., Busch, T., & Bassen, A. (2015). ESG
and financial performance: Aggregated
evidence from more than 2000 empirical
studies.
Journal of Sustainable Finance &
Investment
, 5(4), 210-233.
Greener
wisdom
(2024)
‘Apple
and
Sustainability: How far are they really
going,
28
November.
Available
at:
https://www.greenerwisdom.com/blog/appl
e-andsustainability/ (Accessed: 24 March
2025).
Hart, S. L., & Milstein, M. B. (2003). Creating
sustainable
value.
Academy
of
Management Executive
, 17(2), 56-67
Hiller, J. and Herbst-Bayliss, S. (eds) (2021)
Exxon loses board seats to activist hedge
fund
in
landmark
climate
vote
.
https://www.reuters.com/business/sustaina
blebusiness/shareholder-activism-reaches-
milestone-exxon-board-vote-nears-end-
2021-
0526/#:~:text=May%2026%20%28Reuters
%29%20,efforts%20to%20combat%20clim
ate% 20change (Accessed: March 25,
2024).
Introducing a typology from business-as-usual to
true business sustainability.
Organization &
Environment
, 29(2), 156-174.
JP
Morgan
(2025).
Carbon
Compass
Methodology. ‘
Centre for carbon transition’
JP Morgan (2025, 2). Sustainability initiatives
Report. ‘Centre for carbon transition’
Kapadia,
S.
(2018)
'P&G
pledges
100%
renewable energy at its plants,'
Supply
Chain
Dive
,
17
April.
https://www.supplychaindive.com/news/pro
cter-gamble-100-percentrenewable-
energy/521447/#:~:text=,P%26G%20state
d%20in%20its%20report.
Kolk, A., & Pinkse, J. (2008). A perspective on
multinational
enterprises
and
climate
change: Learning from "an inconvenient
truth"
Journal of International Business
Studies
, 39(8), 1359-1378.
Lamar J (2024). Global banks have spent $6.9
trillion on fossil fuels since 2016. Available
at:
Odinaka and
Wash–Anigboro;
J. Energy Res. Rev., vol. 17, no. 7, pp. 17-26, 2025; Article no.JENRR.137075
26
https://www.utilitydive.com/news/banking-
climate-chaos-2024-banks-6-9tfossil-fuel-
finance-expansion-jpmorgan-citi-bofa-
rbc/716109/#:~:text=measurement%20to%
20an%20%E2%80%9Cenergy%20mix%E
2% 80%9D, target (Accessed: 24 March
2025).
Lozano, R. (2015). A holistic perspective on
corporate sustainability drivers.
Corporate
Social Responsibility and Environmental
Management
, 23(1), 32-47
Lucà,
F.
(2016)
Successful
Sustainability
Strategy:
Procter
&
Gamble
case
.
https://www.bsl-lausanne.ch/wp-
content/uploads/2017/01/Luca-F-Procter-
Gamble-CaseStudy.pdf.
Nando, T. (2023) ‘Apple’s first ‘carbon neutral’
products:
Greenwashing
or
genuine
sustainability?’, Impakter, 13 September.
Available at: https://impakter.com/apples-
firstcarbon-neutral-products-greenwashing-
or-genuine-sustainability/ (Accessed: 24
March 2025).
Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2011). Creating
shared value.
Harvard Business Review
,
89(1-2), 62-77
Procter & Gamble (2021) A closer look at Procter
& Gamble’s net zero 2040 ambition.
https://us.pg.com/blogs/net-zero-closer-
look/ (Accessed: March 26, 2025).
Procter & Gamble. (2022).
A closer look – P&G’s
first year progress toward net zero 2040
.
P&G News.
https://us.pg.com/blogs/first-year-progress-
toward-net-zero-2040/ .(Accessed: March
25, 2025).
Sow, A.Y. (2024)
JP Morgan Chase & Co: Report
on Climate Transition Planning — As You
Sow
.
Unglesbee, B. (2024) 'Flexing for the planet: How
Walmart crushed its supplier emissions
target,'
Supply
Chain
Dive
.
https://www.supplychaindive.com/news/wal
martproject-gigaton-scope-3-supplier-
emissions-
ronvoglewede/710733/#:~:text=With%20ov
er%20100%2C000%20suppliers%2C%20t
he,bo ggling.
Walmart Inc. (n.d.)
Project Gigaton
. Walmart
Sustainability
Hub.
Available
at:
https://www.walmartsustainabilityhub.com/
project-gigaton (Accessed: 28 March 2025)
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note:
The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of the publisher and/or the editor(s). This publisher and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for
any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
_________________________________________________________________________________
© Copyright (2025): Author(s). The licensee is the journal publisher. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms
of the Creative Commons Attribution License (
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
), which permits unrestricted use,
distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Peer-review history:
The peer review history for this paper can be accessed here:
https://pr.sdiarticle5.com/review-history/137075
