Top 30 Employers for Safety Management 2027

Institutional - Employer Category

This report forms part of The Economy Rankings’ Workplace Excellence portfolio. Top 30 Employers for Safety Management 2027

Safety management connects responsibility with the practical control of workplace hazards. Its scope extends from equipment and work planning to supervision, occupational health, contractor preparation and the learning that follows incidents. A published policy becomes more useful when it identifies how responsibilities are organised and how people are expected to act.

The 2027 selection examines documented management practices. It covers employers operating in different risk environments and does not present them as a statistical list of the world’s safest workplaces. Manufacturing, construction, utilities, energy and office work have different exposure, contractor populations and reporting conventions, which remain part of the analysis.

Market Overview

Useful evidence identifies the actual operating mechanism: a risk assessment, permit-to-work system, critical-control check, training programme, worker committee or investigation process. Certification can provide context for management-system scope, while implementation and incident disclosure supply different information. An aspiration to achieve zero harm remains a target rather than an achieved result.

International comparison requires attention to occupational setting and national duties. A lower raw injury rate is not automatically superior when the underlying hours, workers and activities differ. This assessment therefore places controls, operating capability, workforce coverage and accountability ahead of attempts to manufacture a common outcome statistic.

Industry Trend — 2027

For the 2027 edition, the emphasis is on identifiable practices that employees and candidates can understand. A named framework, an operating programme and an explanation of access provide a more useful basis for comparison than an unsupported promise of a universally positive experience.

Sources were reviewed on 23 October 2026. The article is an advance 2027 edition using information available in Q4 2026, including properly dated earlier implementation records. No completed 2027 outcome, new survey or future programme result is claimed.

Employment development	Practical implication	Evidence considered
Work before an incident	Prevention depends on control of the actual task.	Risk assessments, permits and critical-control checks.
Worker preparation	Training must relate to operating exposure.	Induction, specialist learning and supervision.
Contractor interfaces	Oversight and employment are different responsibilities.	Coverage, entry requirements and contractor frameworks.
Management accountability	Review and learning support ongoing control.	Committees, investigations and assurance.
Interpreting performance	Different denominators can make raw comparisons misleading.	Incident scope, work hours, populations and reporting periods.

The comparison considers the coherence of the disclosed arrangement: its purpose, intended participants, implementation and limitations. Missing proprietary outcomes are left unknown. A concrete programme can therefore be assessed without manufacturing a numerical result, while a general aspiration alone does not become an implemented practice.

Employers are compared through qualitative editorial judgments under the stated factors. International eligibility has no geographic quota. National, occupational and organisational differences remain part of the interpretation, and a single programme example is not automatically assigned to every employee or subsidiary.

Methodology — Core Eligibility Criteria

The ranking assesses documented practices within the following scope. Primary employer policies and implemented programmes can support inclusion; representative employee satisfaction or statistically comparable outcomes are not inferred where they have not been published.

Employers with documented occupational safety management, controls, training and defined workforce or operating scope.
Product safety alone; unsupported zero-incident claims; certificates without identified scope are excluded.
The assessed unit is a defined employer, institution or identified operating business. One placement is used per assessed unit; unrelated affiliates and external workers are not silently combined.
An attributable programme, framework or operating practice must be documented. Publicly undisclosed participation counts, individual awards and outcomes remain unknown rather than being assigned average values.
Source dates and country or occupational boundaries are retained. The comparison concerns the stated practice and does not claim a universally superior employee experience.

Methodology — Ranking Factors

Risk controls and prevention — 30%: Assess hazard identification, control systems and prevention appropriate to the work.
Implementation and workforce capability — 25%: Assess operational guidance, training, risk assessment and evidence of delivery.
Worker and contractor coverage — 20%: Assess the defined workforce, occupational setting and treatment of contractors.
Oversight and incident learning — 15%: Assess accountability, review, investigation and reporting context. Targets are not outcomes.
Evidence and jurisdictional clarity — 10%: Assess source transparency, certification scope and national and occupational limitations.

The five criteria carry weights of 30%, 25%, 20%, 15% and 10%, respectively. The assessment combines documented employment practices with the evidence required for this particular series. Published employee research is attributed to its original provider and assessed within its stated workforce scope; The Economy Rankings has not conducted a new employee survey. Country-specific employment terms are interpreted against the applicable statutory context. Missing evidence is not treated as average performance. Licensing, sponsorship and likelihood of purchasing recognition do not influence eligibility, assessments or tier placement.

Company Profiles and Further Reference

Names appearing in this ranking are linked to their corresponding employer profiles in The Economy Wiki, where available. These profiles provide further background on principal activities, organisational history and the documented employment frameworks relevant to each entry. Institutional employers use their corresponding school profiles; programme terms retain their actual workforce scope.

Each entry identifies the employing organization or assessed group and the workforce population covered by the available evidence. A policy or survey covering one country is not generalized to every global employee. The Economy Wiki profiles are maintained as editorial reference pages and may be updated as new public information becomes available.

Tier I — Leading Employers for Safety Management

1. Siemens

Employing entity / assessed group: Siemens (assessed employer group)
Assessed workforce: Defined employees and operating workplaces in the safety disclosures; contractor oversight is identified separately and does not create direct employment.
Group headquarters: Munich, Germany
Group origins: 1847 (business origins)

Its health and safety framework combines management systems, internal monitoring and risk controls with employee participation. Published guidance explicitly connects learning, leadership and the way work is actually performed.

Engineering, manufacturing and mobile work present different exposures. The assessment considers the stated systems and operational responsibilities rather than comparing one corporate injury number with a different employer’s office workforce.

The entry recognises a documented approach to managing occupational risk, with workforce and operating boundaries retained. It is not a finding that the employer has no incidents or that certification establishes superior outcomes across every facility. Local legal duties remain part of the baseline. Operating controls are considered together with oversight and the actual work setting. A corporate framework supplies direction, while local implementation and the reporting of incidents remain essential to interpreting it.

2. Schneider Electric

Employing entity / assessed group: Schneider Electric (assessed employer group)
Assessed workforce: Defined employees and operating workplaces in the safety disclosures; contractor oversight is identified separately and does not create direct employment.
Group headquarters: Rueil-Malmaison, France
Group origins: 1836 (business origins)

Its S.A.F.E. First approach asks workers to pause and check themselves, the activity, facility and environment before work. Reporting describes priority hazards, operational discipline and regular executive-level safety review.

The reviewed 2024 report identifies a defined certification footprint rather than universal site coverage. Recognition concerns the disclosed controls, governance and implementation, not an assumption that every facility holds the same certification.

Management arrangements are assessed within their disclosed setting. Contractor oversight and direct employment remain different responsibilities, and no common injury denominator is invented. The presence of a control system supports the practice assessment while leaving its effectiveness dependent on actual execution. Operating controls are considered together with oversight and the actual work setting. A corporate framework supplies direction, while local implementation and the reporting of incidents remain essential to interpreting it.

3. ABB

Employing entity / assessed group: ABB (assessed employer group)
Assessed workforce: Defined employees and operating workplaces in the safety disclosures; contractor oversight is identified separately and does not create direct employment.
Group headquarters: Zurich, Switzerland
Group origins: 1988 (group formation)

Its HSE and Security management system is based on recognised standards and defined governance. Its published policy encourages reporting unsafe conditions and integrating preventive responsibilities into operations and services.

The assessment considers how the management framework connects responsibilities, risk controls and learning. A corporate policy is evaluated as part of the disclosed system, without being treated as evidence that incidents cannot occur.

4. Gamuda

Employing entity / assessed group: Gamuda (assessed employer group)
Assessed workforce: Defined employees and operating workplaces in the safety disclosures; contractor oversight is identified separately and does not create direct employment.
Headquarters: Petaling Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia
Founded: 1976

Its integrated management system supports construction safety and workforce competence. Dedicated training centres and documented virtual-reality modules provide concrete ways to rehearse hazardous activities without exposing learners to the actual task.

Construction, lifting and heat exposure require site-specific controls and capable supervision. The assessment credits the connection between training and operating risk, while the existence of simulation does not establish a measured reduction in injuries.

5. BAE Systems

Employing entity / assessed group: BAE Systems (assessed employer group)
Assessed workforce: Defined employees and operating workplaces in the safety disclosures; contractor oversight is identified separately and does not create direct employment.
Group headquarters: London, United Kingdom
Group origins: 1999 (group formation)

Its common health-and-safety framework sets governance and role-specific training expectations. The 2026 fact sheet explains that contingent workers are treated like employees for occupational safety and included in employee safety metrics.

That denominator disclosure helps readers understand what the reported measures cover. The assessment recognises the defined workforce scope and management arrangements, while certification coverage remains distinct from a guarantee of safe outcomes.

Tier II — Established Employers for Safety Management

(Alphabetical order)

ASML

Employing entity / assessed group: ASML (assessed employer group)
Assessed workforce: Defined employees and operating workplaces in the safety disclosures; contractor oversight is identified separately and does not create direct employment.
Headquarters: Veldhoven, Netherlands
Founded: 1984

Its 2025 annual report describes an EHS management system that records occupational-health-and-safety incidents. Labour-condition monitoring sits alongside employee and representative channels.

The equipment business spans engineering, manufacturing and customer-site service. Those settings require different working arrangements and controls, so the assessment focuses on the disclosed management architecture and reporting scope rather than assuming uniform exposure.

Bridgestone

Employing entity / assessed group: Bridgestone (assessed employer group)
Assessed workforce: Defined employees and operating workplaces in the safety disclosures; contractor oversight is identified separately and does not create direct employment.
Group headquarters: Tokyo, Japan
Group origins: 1931 (group founding)

Its safety and industrial-hygiene disclosures identify occupational controls and health responsibilities across manufacturing. Reporting separates the populations and definitions attached to its published safety measures.

Tyre production combines machinery, materials handling and occupational-health exposure. The comparison credits the disclosed approach to prevention and monitoring, without treating a national benchmark as a directly comparable worldwide employee-and-contractor result.

Infineon

Employing entity / assessed group: Infineon (assessed employer group)
Assessed workforce: Defined employees and operating workplaces in the safety disclosures; contractor oversight is identified separately and does not create direct employment.
Headquarters: Neubiberg, Germany
Founded: 1999

Its IMPRES management system integrates environment, energy, safety and health. Published guidance describes workplace risk assessment and seven Golden Rules of Safety within a preventive, behaviour-based approach.

Semiconductor manufacturing and engineering roles have different chemical, equipment and ergonomic exposures. Recognition concerns the documented system, periodic review and preventive controls, with no assumption that a global framework removes local risks.

Keppel

Employing entity / assessed group: Keppel (assessed employer group)
Assessed workforce: Defined employees and operating workplaces in the safety disclosures; contractor oversight is identified separately and does not create direct employment.
Headquarters: Singapore
Founded: 1968

Its health-and-safety framework combines governance, site oversight and a Zero Fatality Strategy. Published reporting describes board-level attention and visits to projects and operating sites.

The assessment concerns the current assessed group and its disclosed framework. It does not assign results from a particular REIT or business to every Keppel operation, and a strategic target is kept separate from actual incident performance.

PETRONAS Gas

Employing entity / assessed group: PETRONAS Gas Berhad (assessed operating group)
Assessed workforce: Defined employees and operating workplaces in the safety disclosures; contractor oversight is identified separately and does not create direct employment.
Headquarters: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Founded: 1983

Its published HSE framework sets out how the gas business manages hazards, workforce protection and operating risk. The assessment concerns PETRONAS Gas Berhad and its covered operations.

Gas processing and infrastructure need control of hazardous energy, process conditions and work execution. The reviewed framework is assessed within that setting, rather than assigned to every separately operated company bearing the PETRONAS name.

PTT Global Chemical

Employing entity / assessed group: PTT Global Chemical (assessed employer group)
Assessed workforce: Defined employees and operating workplaces in the safety disclosures; contractor oversight is identified separately and does not create direct employment.
Headquarters: Bangkok, Thailand
Established / origins: 2011 (merger formation)

Its occupational-safety framework includes risk assessment, behavioural learning and the B-CAREs programme. The published management record separates employee and contractor measures and identifies process-safety responsibilities.

Chemical operations require attention to both personal injury prevention and hazardous-process controls. The entry keeps targets separate from reported outcomes and preserves the different populations used in the employer’s disclosures.

Rolls-Royce

Employing entity / assessed group: Rolls-Royce (assessed employer group)
Assessed workforce: Defined employees and operating workplaces in the safety disclosures; contractor oversight is identified separately and does not create direct employment.
Group headquarters: London, United Kingdom
Group origins: 1906 (business origins); 2011 (current holding company)

Its published framework describes a single global health, safety and environmental management system. Responsibilities extend to employees, contractors and visitors, with certification providing a defined external management-system reference.

Manufacturing, testing and servicing complex equipment create different hazards. Recognition concerns a maintained organisational framework, while certification is not represented as proof of an incident-free record or a common outcome across all work settings.

SCG

Employing entity / assessed group: SCG (assessed employer group)
Assessed workforce: Defined employees and operating workplaces in the safety disclosures; contractor oversight is identified separately and does not create direct employment. SCG Packaging is a named programme example within the single SCG placement.
Headquarters: Bangkok, Thailand
Founded: 1913

Its Safety Framework defines written responsibilities from management to operational roles. The framework connects safety-officer appointments, committee review, training and knowledge of the risks associated with each job.

The management structure is relevant across industrial activities with different exposure. The assessment credits defined accountability and worker preparation, while operating-business differences remain visible within the single group placement.

Sembcorp

Employing entity / assessed group: Sembcorp (assessed employer group)
Assessed workforce: Defined employees and operating workplaces in the safety disclosures; contractor oversight is identified separately and does not create direct employment.
Headquarters: Singapore
Established / origins: 1998 (current group formation)

Its contractor framework combines induction, risk assessment, toolbox meetings, permits to work and verification of critical controls. Its 2025 report describes Safety Buddy and recurring safety review involving senior management.

Contractors represent a material part of the operating setting, so their coverage is particularly relevant. The assessment retains their reported rates and responsibilities separately from direct employees and does not convert a zero-accident ambition into an achieved result.

STMicroelectronics

Employing entity / assessed group: STMicroelectronics (assessed employer group)
Assessed workforce: Defined employees and operating workplaces in the safety disclosures; contractor oversight is identified separately and does not create direct employment.
Headquarters: Plan-les-Ouates, Switzerland
Founded: 1987

Its occupational-health-and-safety policy describes a hierarchy of controls, worker consultation, training and ergonomic safeguards. The framework explicitly includes prevention, risk assessment and ongoing communication on obligations and results.

The assessment considers that structured approach within the electronics workforce. It distinguishes a corporate requirement from verified implementation at every facility and does not turn a stated ambition to lead in safety into a numerical comparative finding.

Tier III — Specialist Employers for Safety Management

(Alphabetical order)

Airbus

Employing entity / assessed group: Airbus (assessed employer group)
Assessed workforce: Defined employees and operating workplaces in the safety disclosures; contractor oversight is identified separately and does not create direct employment.
Group headquarters: Blagnac, Greater Toulouse, France (operational); Leiden, Netherlands (legal)
Group origins: 1970 (Airbus business origins)

Its people-safety framework connects employee responsibility with formal health-and-safety governance. The company directs readers to annual registration documents for its actions and performance context.

Assembly, testing, office and service work create different occupational settings. The assessment concerns protection of people at work, keeping that subject separate from the operational safety of aircraft used by customers.

BHP

Employing entity / assessed group: BHP (assessed employer group)
Assessed workforce: Defined employees and operating workplaces in the safety disclosures; contractor oversight is identified separately and does not create direct employment.
Headquarters: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Established / origins: 1885 (business origins)

Its safety framework addresses contractor management, risk controls and occupational exposure. Published materials identify health-and-safety committees, pre-start discussions, field leadership and medical surveillance.

The assessment recognises the connection between worker participation and technical prevention. It does not infer that a management system guarantees safe outcomes or compare exposure limits and injury measures without regard to workplace and jurisdiction.

Bosch

Employing entity / assessed group: Bosch (assessed employer group)
Assessed workforce: Defined employees and operating workplaces in the safety disclosures; contractor oversight is identified separately and does not create direct employment.
Headquarters: Gerlingen, Germany
Business founded: 1886

Its corporate sustainability framework addresses occupational health and safety alongside worker protection and continuing monitoring. Manufacturing and engineering responsibilities are considered within the actual operating environment.

The assessment credits the disclosed management approach and accountability for workplace hazards. It avoids comparing mixed global measures with office-only workforces or assuming that the existence of a management standard establishes the same risk at every site.

CapitaLand Development

Employing entity / assessed group: CapitaLand Development (assessed development business)
Assessed workforce: Defined employees and operating workplaces in the safety disclosures; contractor oversight is identified separately and does not create direct employment.
Headquarters: Singapore
Established / origins: 2021 (current development-business structure)

Its published EHS policies describe a management system intended to protect people in the workplace. Development and project activities are considered within that operating-business scope.

The assessment gives one placement to the development employer rather than combining it with an unrelated employment population. Contractor and project-site responsibilities are retained, and a published policy does not by itself establish identical implementation at every development.

City Developments

Employing entity / assessed group: City Developments (assessed employer group)
Assessed workforce: Defined employees and operating workplaces in the safety disclosures; contractor oversight is identified separately and does not create direct employment.
Headquarters: Singapore
Founded: 1963

Its EHS Working Committee includes departmental employee representatives and a route for raising workplace concerns. Published reporting also addresses risk management for workers at construction sites and managed buildings.

The report distinguishes those site workers from direct company hires. That boundary is retained so contractor-management responsibilities are recognised without describing every construction worker as an employee of the assessed property group.

Equinor

Employing entity / assessed group: Equinor (assessed employer group)
Assessed workforce: Defined employees and operating workplaces in the safety disclosures; contractor oversight is identified separately and does not create direct employment.
Group headquarters: Stavanger, Norway
Group origins: 1972

Its sustainability data hub separates safety measures and reports employee and contractor exposure. That disclosure helps identify who is covered and how the reported incident measures are calculated.

The assessment connects data transparency with prevention and operating controls. It does not omit the possibility of serious incidents or interpret a group aggregate as the experience of every offshore, onshore or office team.

Holcim

Employing entity / assessed group: Holcim (assessed employer group)
Assessed workforce: Defined employees and operating workplaces in the safety disclosures; contractor oversight is identified separately and does not create direct employment.
Headquarters: Zug, Switzerland
Established / origins: 1912 (business origins)

Its published approach extends systematic health-and-safety management to employees, contractors and supply-chain activity. The framework connects requirements, verification and operating responsibilities.

Heavy materials production and transport require attention to site and contractor risk. The assessment concerns the documented current group framework and does not turn a zero-harm commitment into an assertion that no incidents occurred.

Nestlé

Employing entity / assessed group: Nestlé (assessed employer group)
Assessed workforce: Defined employees and operating workplaces in the safety disclosures; contractor oversight is identified separately and does not create direct employment.
Headquarters / principal base: Vevey, Switzerland
Founded / business origins: 1866 (business origins)

Its published safety roles describe risk assessment, investigations, corrective action and oversight across factories and logistics. The Malaysian distribution example specifies transport-contractor monitoring, driver preparation and warehouse responsibilities.

These operating records make the management framework more concrete. The assessment retains the location and occupational setting of each example, without extending a particular job description into an asserted audit result for every facility.

Rio Tinto

Employing entity / assessed group: Rio Tinto (assessed employer group)
Assessed workforce: Defined employees and operating workplaces in the safety disclosures; contractor oversight is identified separately and does not create direct employment.
Headquarters: London, United Kingdom / Melbourne, Australia
Established / origins: 1873 (business origins)

Its operating materials describe occupational-hygiene programmes and specialist responsibilities for supporting employees and contractors. Current role descriptions include exposure monitoring and implementation of health-and-safety requirements.

Mining and refining have substantial occupational exposure, and the assessment does not imply an absence of serious incidents. Recognition concerns the disclosed systems and accountability, with site, contractor and employee populations kept separate.

Shell

Employing entity / assessed group: Shell (assessed employer group)
Assessed workforce: Defined employees and operating workplaces in the safety disclosures; contractor oversight is identified separately and does not create direct employment.
Group headquarters: London, United Kingdom
Group origins: 1907 (group origins); 2005 (current parent entity)

Its published safety approach addresses personal safety, process safety and contractor work within energy operations. Controls and learning are considered alongside the scope of its incident reporting.

The assessment does not describe a high-hazard employer as risk-free. It credits documented management arrangements while retaining material incident context and the distinction between employee, contractor and process-safety measures.

SSE

Employing entity / assessed group: SSE (assessed employer group)
Assessed workforce: Defined employees and operating workplaces in the safety disclosures; contractor oversight is identified separately and does not create direct employment.
Headquarters: Perth, Scotland, United Kingdom
Established / origins: 1989 (incorporation; SSE group formed 1998)

Its annual reporting describes contractor-safety management and workforce safety measures. The reviewed framework links operating responsibilities with reporting of employee and contractor coverage.

Utilities and infrastructure work involve field, construction and operational risks that differ from corporate-office work. The comparison credits management and disclosure while preserving the actual reporting year and population of each measure.

Tenaga Nasional

Employing entity / assessed group: Tenaga Nasional (assessed employer group)
Assessed workforce: Defined employees and operating workplaces in the safety disclosures; contractor oversight is identified separately and does not create direct employment.
Headquarters: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Established / origins: 1949 (predecessor origins; current company from 1990)

Its contractor safety programme standardises training and provides guidance on safe working procedures. The published initiative connects workforce preparation with the requirements of utility worksites.

Electrical networks and field operations require qualified work and clear site controls. The programme’s intention to reduce accidents is retained as an objective; it is not converted into an independently established reduction without the corresponding outcome evidence.

Unilever

Employing entity / assessed group: Unilever (assessed employer group)
Assessed workforce: Defined employees and operating workplaces in the safety disclosures; contractor oversight is identified separately and does not create direct employment.
Group headquarters: London, United Kingdom
Group origins: 1930

Its factory safety framework assigns responsibilities for managing occupational-health, safety and environmental risks. Published operating roles show how site leadership, teams and controls connect in practice.

Manufacturing and supply-chain work require different safeguards from office employment. The assessment concerns documented management provision rather than treating a low-risk corporate role as representative of the entire group.

Wilmar International

Employing entity / assessed group: Wilmar International (assessed employer group)
Assessed workforce: Defined employees and operating workplaces in the safety disclosures; contractor oversight is identified separately and does not create direct employment.
Headquarters: Singapore
Founded: 1991

Its Wilmar Integrated Management System connects global EHS standards with site-level gap assessments and audits. The 2025 report describes employee consultation and development of internal audit capability across operating regions.

Processing, manufacturing and agricultural activities require different preventive measures. The assessment credits the documented management and assurance mechanisms, with employee and contractor coverage retained and targets distinguished from achieved performance.

Woodside

Employing entity / assessed group: Woodside (assessed employer group)
Assessed workforce: Defined employees and operating workplaces in the safety disclosures; contractor oversight is identified separately and does not create direct employment.
Headquarters: Perth, Western Australia, Australia
Founded: 1954

Its published health-and-safety data distinguish reporting categories and workforce populations. The operating framework addresses risk in an energy business involving employees and contractors.

The assessment considers the transparency of the management and reporting arrangements. Rates remain within the employer’s stated definitions and are not converted into a common league table against businesses with different occupational exposure.

Remarks

The assessment uses five editorial factors weighted at 30%, 25%, 20%, 15% and 10%. Tier I contains five ordered employers. Tier II and Tier III contain ten and fifteen employers presented alphabetically, with no implied order within either tier.

The ranking concerns documented provision and practice. Published employer disclosures are read with their source periods and limitations; they do not establish a common satisfaction, safety, pay-equity or career-outcome measure. The Economy Rankings has not conducted a new employee survey.

A group placement does not imply identical arrangements for every country, subsidiary or occupation. Employee, contractor, customer, supplier and public-learning populations remain distinct. Unknown eligibility details and proprietary outcome data are not invented.

This advance 2027 edition may be revised when new verifiable information becomes available. Earlier implementation can support a programme assessment with its date retained. The article does not promise future payments, guaranteed promotion, incident-free operations or outcomes that the underlying sources do not establish.

Recognition

Inclusion in the Top 30 Employers for Safety Management 2027 ranking is an editorial determination of The Economy Rankings and does not require licensing, advertising, sponsorship, or other commercial participation.

Ranked organizations may factually refer to their inclusion in the ranking in their own communications. When describing the result, entities should accurately reflect the tier structure and methodology used in the published ranking.

How the ranking should be interpreted

Tier I represents the Top 5 entities, and the published order within Tier I reflects the ranking order.
Tier II represents entities ranked within the Top 15, following Tier I. Entities within Tier II are displayed alphabetically; their displayed order should therefore not be interpreted as an individual numerical ranking.
Tier III represents entities ranked within the Top 30, following Tiers I and II. Entities within Tier III are also displayed alphabetically, and their displayed order should not be interpreted as an individual numerical ranking.
An entity's tier, rather than its alphabetical position within Tier II or Tier III, should therefore be used when describing its standing.

Referencing the ranking

Depending on the entity's published tier, appropriate factual descriptions may include:

Tier I: “Ranked Tier I” or “Ranked among the Top 5”
Tier II: “Ranked Tier II” or “Ranked among the Top 15”
Tier III: “Ranked Tier III” or “Ranked among the Top 30”

Entities should not describe an alphabetical position within Tier II or Tier III as a specific numerical rank.

Use of The Economy Rankings recognition materials

Editorial inclusion in a ranking does NOT by itself grant permission to use The Economy Rankings badges, seals, logos, official recognition graphics, licensed quotations, or other proprietary recognition materials.

Organizations wishing to use official The Economy Rankings recognition materials in corporate websites, marketing materials, investor communications, client presentations, social media, press releases, or other external communications should refer to the applicable licensing terms and usage policies:

The Economy Rankings License Structure — available licence levels and permitted recognition uses
The Economy Rankings License Structure | The Economy Rankings
The Economy Rankings License Policy — licensing conditions governing use of The Economy Rankings recognition, marks, and related materials
The Economy Rankings License Policy | The Economy Rankings
Recognition Use Guide — guidance on permitted wording, presentation, attribution, and use of ranking recognition
Recognition Use Guide | The Economy Rankings

Purchasing or holding a recognition-materials licence does not confer inclusion or a higher tier.

Recognized organizations may reference the designation in: