How clearly Consumer Cyclical companies report on sustainability

We scored 3,264 sustainability reports from 711 Consumer Cyclical companies, published from 1998 to 2026. These figures describe the sector as a whole.

Scores describe the quality of a report's communication. A high score does not mean a company is more sustainable.

72% of Consumer Cyclical reports are hard to read.

They score below 20 out of 100 for ease of reading, which combines readability for people and for algorithms.

Rankings updated 22 Sep 2026.

The sector at a glance

Readable text

How much of each report we could extract as clean text.

100%

of reports give us at least 90% of their text. The typical report gives 98%.

Ease of reading

How easy the text is to understand, out of 100. Poor is below 20, good is above 40.

The typical report scores 17.2 for people and 13.1 for algorithms.

Poor: 72%
Fair: 28%
Good: 0%

Sustainability focus

The share of a report's key terms about sustainability. Poor is below 30%, good is 50% and above.

In the typical report, 53% of key terms are about sustainability.

Poor: 8%
Fair: 35%
Good: 57%

Alignment

How much of a report's sustainability emphasis sits where its industry puts it. Poor is below 50%, good is 80% and above.

The typical report puts 67% of its emphasis where its industry does.

Poor: 5%
Fair: 95%
Good: 0%

Read the methodology for how each measure is calculated.

Where does your report rank in Consumer Cyclical?

Book a call and we’ll show you how your latest report compares with the 3,264 reports here, and what to improve first.

Book a call