Big companies in five countries mention sustainability in 83% of their reports, but only 25% set time-bound goals and 30% measurable ones

How do the largest listed companies in Thailand, Malaysia, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar (emerging markets) and Australia (a developed economy) disclose sustainable-development goals? Are the goals measurable and time-framed, how accountable is the reporting, how are initiatives measured, do companies check whether they reached their goals, and how do the five countries compare?

Analysis of the annual reports, plus stand-alone sustainability or corporate-responsibility reports where they existed, of the 25 largest companies by market capitalisation in each country: 125 reports (72 annual reports, 38 sustainability reports, the rest corporate-responsibility and financial reports). Banking made up 24.8% of the sample, energy and real estate with construction 11.2% each, telecommunications 9.6%. Each report was coded yes/no on items such as goals stated, time frame, measurability, initiative types, guidelines used, multi-year track record, objectives compared with results, and independent assessment. Three coders worked independently with 96.74% agreement.

• 83.2% of reports mention sustainability, but only 60% state goals, and across the whole sample only 24.8% have time-framed goals and 30.4% measurable ones.
• Social initiatives are reported most, at 80%, then environmental 72% and economic 61.6%.
• Only 42.4% follow an international reporting guideline (mostly GRI), and only 51.2% compare objectives with results.
• Australia leads on the quality of goals: time-framed 72%, measurable 76%, guidelines 80%, objectives compared with results 84%. Thailand leads on setting goals: sustainability mentioned in 96% and goals in 88%, the highest of the five, guidelines 68%, objectives compared with results 68%, but time-framed only 24% and measurable 40%.
• Malaysia mentions sustainability in every report and sets goals in 72%, yet only 4% are time-framed and 12% measurable. Qatar sets goals in 19%, with 4% time-framed, 4% measurable and 15.4% evaluated; the UAE sets goals in 38%, with 21% time-framed, 21% measurable and 20.8% evaluated.
• The authors attribute Thailand's ranking to Stock Exchange and Securities and Exchange Commission requirements that listed companies show how they apply corporate-governance principles and disclose their social-responsibility work. 68% of Thai companies issued a stand-alone sustainability or CSR report, against 8% in Qatar.
• The authors conclude that the private sector lacks strategy: a goal with no time frame and no measure cannot be evaluated. The drivers of better reporting are national requirements and the industry involved, with resources and utilities reporting in more detail than banks.

For Thai companies and regulators the finding is specific: Thailand already leads in stating goals, so the gap is in making them time-bound and measurable, a reporting-quality problem rather than an awareness problem. For corporate communicators, a sustainability report without a measurable target is a story, not a plan.