Global Ranking Champion: Why Companies Should Engage with Rankings 

In Nick Hornby's High Fidelity, record shop owner Rob never tires of compiling top-five lists. Although he sees himself as completely average ("I'm not the brightest guy in the world, but I'm not the dumbest either"), the lists he creates every day are a mirror of his soul. Lists of the best bands, the best films, and the best Beatles songs are crowned by "Top Five Most Unforgettable Breakups." Whether private or public, lists are irresistibly appealing. In an increasingly complex world, they help to create order and understanding. And they provide pleasure, because fans enjoy studying them and comparing their own experiences. 

Lists are extremely popular. No wonder, since mass media love to present lists: Germany's biggest fears, the happiest states, the most respected professions. Popular topics, because they are entertaining and everyone has an opinion. In the business world, also shaped by competition, lists and rankings attract attention and boost circulation. Media regularly create cover stories on the largest companies by revenue, the most sustainable firms, the strongest brands, or the best employers. Especially journalists focused on numbers love rankings, because they allow complex topics to be conveyed briefly and concisely. And they know the audience will enjoy it. 

Readers can immediately identify the leaders in a ranking—even if they don't always agree. Their eyes may then wander to the bottom of the list, perhaps with a smirk. They are certainly glad that a complicated issue seems to have been simplified, and they eagerly click the "Like" or "Share" button. How exactly the ranking was produced and how scientifically sound the data collection was usually plays a secondary role—many media outlets do not bother to explain the methodology. Yet one thing is clear: rankings that simplify complex questions can enhance or damage a company's image—depending on whether recipients perceive the company as a leader and innovator, or as a laggard and follower. 

One's joy, another's pain 

Because of their lasting impact, rankings influence public perception of companies that appear in them. It is rarely wise to just look the other way. Good results offer an opportunity to highlight them and use them for stakeholder communication, positioning the company in line with its communication strategy. But one should bear in mind: only those rankings where the methodology is understood and the reasons for success are clear should be actively shared. Otherwise, a negative result in the following year may be hard to explain. 

If results are already poor, they need to be addressed quickly—especially if the ranking appears in a widely recognized media outlet. Beyond reputational effects among the general public, colleagues inside the company also tend to draw conclusions and begin interpreting the results. For many firms, the last push came from a CEO's email, which triggered hyperactivity and led to systematic analysis of the ranking results: 

• Why did we perform so poorly? 

• Was the method transparent and suitable for evaluation? 

• Are we being ranked worse than deserved? Is there a performance issue? 

• How do our stakeholders—employees, customers, applicants, investors, environmental groups—see us now? 

• Who will approach us about the results? 

• Do we want to improve our ranking? 

• What measures can we derive from the outcome? 

• Which departments should we involve to achieve improvements? 

In the ideal case, companies know in advance when a relevant ranking is due and prepare accordingly. This requires systematic monitoring and prioritization, because the number of rankings is steadily increasing. There are many reasons why this trend will continue in the coming years. 

On the one hand, competition among media is intensifying. Publishers commission institutes to produce cost-effective studies and then exclusively publish the results. On the other hand, it has become much easier to create rankings. Where phone surveys were once necessary, now online questionnaires suffice—far cheaper and faster. At the same time, rising transparency requirements, such as those from the Global Reporting Initiative on sustainability, encourage large corporations, but also smaller firms, to publish performance indicators, enabling easier external comparison. 

Companies must take a consistent stance 

To withstand the flood of lists, companies should develop a ranking management strategy that is an integral part of reputation management. This involves not only responding reactively but proactively steering communications. The aim is to understand the drivers of rankings and the measures that influence them. Such measures can include supplying data to ranking institutions, greater transparency on corporate websites, or concrete performance improvements. 

If, for example, a diversity ranking measures the share of women in leadership, transparency alone will not suffice for firms without progress. Without real management action, performance in the ranking will not improve. Some companies take steps only because of rankings. But the fact remains: negative ratings in the public arena draw attention to the issue and can amplify internal debate. 

The Global Ranking Champion 

An initial indication of how well companies perform in rankings is provided by the "Global Ranking Champion," a meta-analysis developed by the F.A.Z. Institute and ranking specialist R.A.T.E. since 2017. It evaluates company performance across 150 visible rankings worldwide. The Global Ranking Champion measures how multinational companies perform in the world's most important reputation rankings. 

In an extensive process, R.A.T.E. and the F.A.Z. Institute identified the most important rankings in the ten largest economies: Brazil, China, Germany, France, the UK, Italy, Canada, Japan, India, and the USA. Competitions like "World's Most Admired Companies" or regionally focused ones such as "Latin America's Most Attractive Employers" were included. The identified rankings were analyzed, aggregated, and used to create the "Global R.A.T.E. Index." This serves as an indicator of how multinational companies perform across global reputation rankings. 

It also forms the basis for the annual Global Ranking Champion award, presented at the German Ranking Summit, most recently hosted by SAP AG in 2019. SAP was the only German company among the global top ten, competing with Microsoft, Amazon, and Toyota. SAP achieved a number-one position in more than 150 rankings and was most often represented in the top five. 

Case study 

Challenge: A company wants to strengthen its position in diversity and inclusion rankings and needs to develop a strategy. Its strengths include gender, age, LGBT, and disability. Peers from the same industry who excel in these areas were identified for benchmarking, with the USA and Europe especially relevant markets. 

First, relevant diversity rankings in those markets were identified, reviewing media, peer communication, and prior listings. Rankings were then prioritized by factors such as visibility, quality of methodology, effort of participation, and value for generating insights. Also important: whether the company was already listed and whether the impact was positive or negative. 

If the company ranked poorly, action plans were developed with relevant departments, defining concrete measures. Methods and drivers were analyzed, benchmark reports purchased, and responsibilities assigned for management and communications. At the same time, communications were broadly planned, and a ranking calendar was created. Many institutes announce new rankings weeks in advance. Close cooperation with agencies gave companies additional lead time. The process is repeated annually to ensure updates are reflected. 

A notable success was entry into the "Sector-Neutral Bloomberg Gender-Equality Index" and "France's Best Employers," with a 17-place jump into the global top ten and a number-one spot in Germany. 

Looking beyond Germany, Microsoft was the best-performing company overall, securing positions in 64 rankings. In the small group of over 60 firms represented in more than 150 rankings worldwide, Siemens, Accenture, and Cisco joined IBM as close challengers. 

Record shop owner Rob in High Fidelity undergoes a remarkable transformation: he reflects on his life, finds new purpose, and overcomes his lack of motivation. Perhaps this is also a role model for communicators who still shy away from dealing with corporate rankings.