It is certainly an ambitious exercise, looking at estimated carbon emissions, company environmental policies and reputation perceptions.

Newsweek defends its methodology on the customary point of criticism: how can you compare a utility, say, with a bank? They point out that over 50% of the score relates to the strength of green policies (which anyone can implement) and reputation, all of which evens out the score somewhat.

I would add that there is no problem comparing high emitting industries with low emitting industries and finding that there is a cluster of high emitters near the bottom of the ranking. That is how it should be. Dirty industries should appear as they are. This table is not a ranking of overall social utility but of environmental credentials. If a cluster of oil extraction companies appeared in the top 100 it would be more than suspect; it would be incredible.

A particular concern I had was whether indirect impacts were adequately taken into account. Financial services have small direct footprints, but are the ultimate dirty industry in that they choose to finance all the others. The analysis of green policies brings this factor into the equation but a lack of transparency about the carbon impact of their loan and investment portfolios reduces the quality of analysis. For me this is a more worrying weak spot than the ranking's validity in comparing companies across different sectors.

One last observation: it is great to see that Newsweek used the extensive experience of two firms whose founders I have had the pleasure to meet: Peter Kinder's KLD Analytics and Paul Scott's CorporateRegister.com. Great to see such high caliber teams involved in producing the detail of something this high profile. Well done both.

• 5 Comments