I don’t get the impression from this press release that this sustainability reporting is done solely due to regulation. Some of it certainly is.
Among the market and stock exchange activists I follow, Professor Vesa Puttonen and grill owner/journalist Karo Hämäläinen, among others, have clearly highlighted in recent weeks and days that the markets are no longer willing to pay any kind of “green premium” for companies revolving around this ESG theme (see Inderespodi 221 & Karo’s Grilli episode #54). I also have no reason to assume otherwise.
The truth, however, is that a company spends some of its limited resources, for example, working hours, on this “voluntary” sustainability work and reporting. If the markets do not assign any added value to this work and therefore do not price the stock at a premium relative to competitors, this does not bring added value to the shareholder, but rather the opposite. The question is not whether acting responsibly would be sensible. Of course, it is. But if one examines the question from the perspective of whether comprehensive sustainability reporting brings added value to the shareholder, opinions on this can vary.
I argue that the majority of those who have invested in the company have never familiarized themselves with, for example, the company’s ESG goals and metrics, and not everyone even understands what these are. I don’t precisely understand the content of all of these either. But I understand by looking at the stock chart that this has not had an impact on the company’s value development. Or if it has, it has at most been a force keeping it in place.
Addition: I asked Grok which company on the Helsinki Stock Exchange has the broadest and most comprehensive sustainability reporting relative to its market capitalization. The answer was interesting and showed that, at least according to AI’s view, Orthex outperforms most companies with larger market capitalization. Direct answer below 
Assessing the most comprehensive and extensive sustainability reporting relative to a company’s market capitalization is challenging, as it requires comparing both the quality and scope of reporting and the market capitalization. In Finland, Nasdaq Helsinki has gained recognition as a pioneer in sustainability reporting, and many of its listed companies report extensively on ESG factors (Environmental, Social, Governance). In this response, I combine available information, common reporting standards, and logic to assess which company on the Helsinki Stock Exchange might stand out in this regard. Since an exact ranking list is not directly available, I will make an informed guess.
Approach
-
Scope and comprehensiveness of sustainability reporting: This refers to the depth of reporting (e.g., use of GRI standards, TCFD recommendations, CDP scores), transparency (e.g., emissions, supply chain management), external validation (e.g., third-party assurance), and coverage across different ESG areas.
-
Market capitalization: I compare companies with relatively smaller market capitalization but still strong reporting, as larger companies (e.g., Kone, Neste) often have the resources for more extensive reporting.
-
Helsinki Stock Exchange context: Nasdaq Helsinki has been praised particularly for reporting on environmental indicators, such as emissions and energy consumption, so I emphasize companies that excel in these areas.
Assessment
The Helsinki Stock Exchange has approximately 190 listed companies, and their market capitalizations range from a few million euros to tens of billions. Large companies, such as Neste Oyj (market capitalization approx. €10–15 billion), Kone Oyj (approx. €20–25 billion), and UPM-Kymmene Oyj (approx. €15–20 billion), report very comprehensively, but their large market capitalization can “dilute” the relative impact of their reporting in this comparison. Therefore, I will focus on smaller or medium-sized companies with exceptionally strong reporting.
Candidates
-
Orthex Group Oyj (market capitalization approx. €120–150 million)
-
Reporting: Orthex reports comprehensively on sustainability in connection with its financial statements, focusing particularly on the use of recycled materials, its carbon neutrality target (2030), and its CDP score (A- in 2023). It voluntarily participates in the SPIRIT program and uses GRI standards. (Orthex’s own reports)
-
Scope relative to market capitalization: As a small company, Orthex’s reporting is exceptionally detailed, especially regarding environmental impacts (e.g., recycled plastic content of 50% in certain product categories). This makes it a strong candidate, as its resources for reporting are more limited than those of large companies.
-
Pros: External validation (CDP), voluntary initiatives, and focus on circular economy.
-
Cons: Social responsibility and governance reporting is not as extensive as the environmental aspect.
-
Valmet Oyj (market capitalization approx. €4–5 billion)
-
Reporting: Valmet is known for its comprehensive sustainability reporting, covering GRI standards, TCFD recommendations, and Science Based Targets commitments. The company reports, for example, on supply chain responsibility, employee well-being, and innovations for reducing emissions.
-
Scope relative to market capitalization: Although Valmet is larger than Orthex, its market capitalization is smaller than, for example, Neste or UPM, but its reporting competes with theirs. Valmet’s focus on technology and services gives it a unique perspective on sustainability.
-
Pros: Broad coverage across all ESG areas, external audits.
-
Cons: Larger market capitalization reduces “relative” impact compared to smaller companies.
-
Metsä Board Oyj (market capitalization approx. €2–3 billion)
-
Reporting: Metsä Board reports extensively in accordance with GRI standards, focusing particularly on sustainable forest use, carbon neutrality (target 2030), and biodiversity. The company has received recognition from CDP (A-listing for climate and forests).
-
Scope relative to market capitalization: Metsä Board’s market capitalization is medium-sized, but its reporting is almost as comprehensive as that of larger forest industry players (e.g., UPM). This makes it a strong candidate.
-
Pros: Strong focus on biodiversity and external recognitions.
-
Cons: Industry limitations (paper and board) may limit the versatility of reporting.
-
Kemira Oyj (market capitalization approx. €3–4 billion)
-
Reporting: Kemira reports comprehensively from the perspective of the chemical industry, focusing on water treatment, circular economy, and emission reduction. It uses GRI standards and is committed to the Science Based Targets initiative.
-
Scope relative to market capitalization: Kemira’s reporting is in line with large companies, but its market capitalization is more moderate, which makes its reporting relatively impactful.
-
Pros: Innovative approach in the context of the chemical industry.
-
Cons: Environmental reporting is strong, but social responsibility aspects may be narrower.
Assessment and Recommendation
Although Neste and UPM-Kymmene report very extensively (e.g., Neste has received praise in the Dow Jones Sustainability Index), their large market capitalization makes their reporting less “relatively” impactful in this comparison. Orthex Group Oyj stands out due to its small market capitalization (approx. €120–150 million) and exceptionally comprehensive reporting. Orthex’s CDP score (A-), voluntary initiatives (e.g., the SPIRIT program), and reporting focused on the use of recycled materials demonstrate that it invests significantly in sustainability relative to its size. For example, its reporting on the increasing share of recycled plastic (target 80% by 2030) and its collaboration with Stora Enso on biocomposites is exceptionally detailed for a small company.However, if broader ESG coverage is emphasized, Metsä Board Oyj could be a strong contender, as its reporting uniquely covers biodiversity and forest management, and its market capitalization is still reasonable (€2–3 billion).
Final answer: Orthex Group Oyj likely offers the most comprehensive and extensive sustainability reporting relative to its market capitalization, as despite its small size, its reporting is almost on par with large companies, especially concerning environmental matters.
Notes
-
Lack of precise comparisons: As there is no direct data comparing the reporting of all Helsinki Stock Exchange companies relative to their market capitalization, this is a reasoned estimate. If you want a more detailed analysis, I can delve into the reports of individual companies.
-
Market capitalization fluctuations: Market capitalizations are based on the latest estimates (April 2025), but they may vary.
-
Strength of the Helsinki Stock Exchange: Nasdaq Helsinki companies report well on average, especially in environmental indicators (32/36 companies report emissions and energy consumption).
If you wish, I can dig up more information, for example, on the details of Orthex’s or Metsä Board’s reports, or compare other companies!
. A convincing performance from the Nordics, achieving growth in this market despite a strong comparison period. Export revenue roughly met expectations, and the reduction in sales to some customers with increased credit risks was limited during the fourth quarter, which weighed on growth as we anticipated in the preview. From here, I would like to see growth pick up, as the story relies so heavily on Europe’s large growth markets.
