Toyota leads Japanese brands with a Sustainability Perceptions Value of $8.1 billion

• Honda ranks second in Japan and fourth globally among automotive brands with an SPV of $3.5 billion
• Mitsubishi Group leads chemical brands ranked globally with an SPV of $3.3 billion
• Apple remains top-ranked brand globally for sustainability perceptions value

Toyota leads Japanese brands with a Sustainability Perceptions Value (SPV) of USD8.1 billion, according to the 2025 Sustainability Perceptions Index report from Brand Finance, the world’s leading brand valuation consultancy. The report quantifies the financial value of sustainability perceptions and highlights the gaps between brand reputation and actual ESG performance.

According to Brand Finance’s research data, respondents from Japan, Australia, the UK and Denmark view Toyota positively as a brand that cares about the environment, is committed to societal progress, and is well-managed and responsibly governed.

With an SPV of USD3.5 billion, Honda takes the second place among Japanese brands ranked this year. The brand is recognised for its strong environmental commitment, social responsibility, and sound governance, based on responses from its home market Japan, and also in other markets like Italy, Germany and the US.

Mitsubishi Group stands out as the top performer among 150 chemical brands ranked globally, with an SPV of USD3.3 billion. Japanese respondents recognise the brand for its strong societal commitment, as well as for being well-managed and responsibly governed.

Rounding out the top five Japanese brands in terms of SPV are NTT Group (SPV of USD1.9 billion) and Sumitomo Group (SPV of USD1.8 billion).

Alex Haigh, Managing Director Asia-Pacific, Brand Finance, commented:

“Sustainability is clearly more than a buzzword for Japan’s top brands as it’s something they’re genuinely building into their identity. Toyota and Honda are strong examples of how environmental and social stewardship, as well as strong governance can build trust and positive perceptions. As people everywhere become more conscious of what brands stand for, there’s a real opportunity for Japanese brands to blend their long-standing focus on quality with sustainability on the global stage.”

Global Insights:

Apple retains the highest total SPV of any brand at USD39.0 billion. This reflects strong consumer belief that Apple is acting sustainably, despite ongoing criticism around labour conditions and environmental impact. The Index assesses perception, not performance, and Apple’s position highlights the power of belief in shaping brand value.

Microsoft ranks second in overall value but leads on untapped potential. With a positive gap value exceeding USD5.6 billion, Microsoft’s actual sustainability performance is significantly stronger than it is perceived to be. This gap represents brand value that could be unlocked through clearer communication of ESG progress.

Tesla has lost over USD7.3 billion in sustainability-driven brand value. In 2023, Brand Finance identified USD4.1 billion of sustainability value at risk for Tesla, due to a widening gap between its strong environmental image and weaker governance and social performance. That risk has now become reality. Tesla’s total brand value has dropped from USD66.2 billion to USD43.0 billion, with its Sustainability Perceptions Value (SPV) falling from USD17.8 billion to just USD10.4 billion.

Robert Haigh, Strategy & Sustainability Director at Brand Finance, commented:

“Brands are increasingly walking a tightrope on sustainability. Overstating progress creates reputational risk, but failing to communicate genuine action means leaving millions in brand value on the table. As pressure from investors and regulators grows, clarity and consistency will become the key differentiators.”

Greenhushing, where brands hold back from communicating genuine ESG achievements to avoid criticism, remains widespread. Brand Finance analysis shows that 98 of the 500 brands have a positive gap value of over USD100 million, revealing a significant amount of unrealised value.

Sustainability continues to influence brand choice, particularly in premium sectors. In the luxury auto category, sustainability accounts for 23% of brand choice, double the figure for the broader automotive market. Similarly high drivers are seen in champagne and luxury cosmetics, where sustainability plays a stronger role than in their respective mass-market counterparts.

Brand Finance is the world’s leading brand valuation consultancy. Bridging the gap between marketing and finance, Brand Finance evaluates the strength of brands and quantifies their financial value to help organisations make strategic decisions.

Headquartered in London, Brand Finance operates in over 25 countries. Every year, Brand Finance conducts more than 6,000 brand valuations, supported by original market research, and publishes over 100 reports which rank brands across all sectors and countries.

Brand Finance also operates the Global Brand Equity Monitor, conducting original market research annually on 6,000 brands, surveying more than 175,000 respondents across 41 countries and 31 industry sectors. By combining perceptual data from the Global Brand Equity Monitor with data from its valuation database — the largest brand value database in the world — Brand Finance equips ambitious brand leaders with the data, analytics, and the strategic guidance they need to enhance brand and business value.

In addition to calculating brand value, Brand Finance also determines the relative strength of brands through a balanced scorecard of metrics evaluating marketing investment, stakeholder equity, and business performance, compliant with ISO 20671.

Brand Finance is a regulated accountancy firm and a committed leader in the standardisation of the brand valuation industry. Brand Finance was the first to be certified by independent auditors as compliant with both ISO 10668 and ISO 20671 and has received the official endorsement of the Marketing Accountability Standards Board (MASB) in the United States.

Brand is defined as a marketing-related intangible asset including, but not limited to, names, terms, signs, symbols, logos, and designs, intended to identify goods, services, or entities, creating distinctive images and associations in the minds of stakeholders, thereby generating economic benefits.

Brand strength is the efficacy of a brand’s performance on intangible measures relative to its competitors. Brand Finance evaluates brand strength in a process compliant with ISO 20671, looking at Marketing Investment, Stakeholder Equity, and the impact of those on Business Performance. The data used is derived from Brand Finance’s proprietary market research programme and from publicly available sources.

Each brand is assigned a Brand Strength Index (BSI) score out of 100, which feeds into the brand value calculation. Based on the score, each brand is assigned a corresponding Brand Rating up to AAA+ in a format similar to a credit rating.

Brand Finance calculates the values of brands in its rankings using the Royalty Relief approach – a brand valuation method compliant with the industry standards set in ISO 10668. It involves estimating the likely future revenues that are attributable to a brand by calculating a royalty rate that would be charged for its use, to arrive at a ‘brand value’ understood as a net economic benefit that a brand owner would achieve by licensing the brand in the open market.

The steps in this process are as follows:

1 Calculate brand strength using a balanced scorecard of metrics assessing Marketing Investment, Stakeholder Equity, and Business Performance. Brand strength is expressed as a Brand Strength Index (BSI) score on a scale of 0 to 100.

2 Determine royalty range for each industry, reflecting the importance of brand to purchasing decisions. In luxury, the maximum percentage is high, while in extractive industry, where goods are often commoditised, it is lower. This is done by reviewing comparable licensing agreements sourced from Brand Finance’s extensive database.

3 Calculate royalty rate. The BSI score is applied to the royalty range to arrive at a royalty rate. For example, if the royalty range in a sector is 0-5% and a brand has a BSI score of 80 out of 100, then an appropriate royalty rate for the use of this brand in the given sector will be 4%.

4 Determine brand-specific revenues by estimating a proportion of parent company revenues attributable to a brand.

5 Determine forecast revenues using a function of historic revenues, equity analyst forecasts, and economic growth rates.

6 Apply the royalty rate to the forecast revenues to derive brand revenues.

7 Discount post-tax brand revenues to a net present value which equals the brand value.

Brand Finance has produced this study with an independent and unbiased analysis. The values derived and opinions presented in this study are based on publicly available information and certain assumptions that Brand Finance used where such data was deficient or unclear. Brand Finance accepts no responsibility and will not be liable in the event that the publicly available information relied upon is subsequently found to be inaccurate. The opinions and financial analysis expressed in the study are not to be construed as providing investment or business advice. Brand Finance does not intend the study to be relied upon for any reason and excludes all liability to any body, government, or organisation.

The data presented in this study form part of Brand Finance’s proprietary database, are provided for the benefit of the media, and are not to be used in part or in full for any commercial or technical purpose without written permission from Brand Finance.