In a striking new study published in June 2025, researchers have turned the lens on a pressing question: how do the world’s greenest organizations balance growth and sustainability?
The international team, led by Daria M. Haner of the University of Pennsylvania, has unveiled a surprising and significant link—companies with stronger environmental sustainability records aren’t just better for the planet: they’re also much more likely to survive the test of time. In other words, longevity and ecological stewardship are deeply intertwined, potentially flipping how we view success in the corporate world.
Published in June 2025 in Frontiers in Conservation Science, a study led by Matthew Mulrennan and collaborators provides the first published observations of anchor and chain damage to Antarctic benthic habitats, revealing both the vulnerability and the resilience of these unique ecosystems
Throughout modern history, organizations have wrestled with the challenge of balancing economic growth and environmental responsibility. While eco-friendly efforts are commonly associated with a positive public image or the hope of higher profits, their impact on corporate durability has been far less clear.
Yet corporations are not mere blips on the economic radar; some outlive nations and shape generations. As environmental crises escalate and public scrutiny intensifies, understanding what allows some organizations to endure has never been more relevant. Previous work shows that only half of European companies, for instance, survive more than five years, while S&P 500 lifespans have shrunk from over 50 years in the 1950s to less than 20 today.
Haner and a global research team—with affiliations spanning the University of Pennsylvania, East China Normal University, the University of Minnesota-Twin Cities, Baruch College, and Stanford—published their groundbreaking work in Frontiers in Organizational Psychology on June 5, 2025. Their mission: to probe the connection between organizational age and environmental sustainability using a dataset that spanned companies in the U.S., Europe, the Middle East and North Africa (MENA), and Asia.
To unravel this mystery, the team analyzed more than 1,500 of the globe’s largest companies. Drawing from established rankings such as the Fortune 500 and Forbes Global 2000, they compared third-party sustainability ratings—including those from CSRHub, S&P Global, and Thomson Reuters—against company longevity. To ensure the findings weren’t merely a result of big, wealthy firms skewing the data, Haner’s team controlled for both total assets and workforce size. Each company was rated not just on overall environmental performance, but also specific components: eco-efficiency, climate strategy, and environmental reporting.
The results were unambiguous and resoundingly positive. In the U.S., companies with longer histories had environmental sustainability scores that were, on average, 0.31 standard deviations higher than their younger counterparts—even after adjusting for differences in size and wealth. This pattern held across regions: Asian and MENA firms showed similar correlations (r = 0.31), while European organizations posted slightly lower, but still significant, values (r = 0.28). When the team compared the oldest companies (founded before 1850) to the youngest (after 2005), the differences increased even more; the environmental sustainability scores of the oldest groups exceeded the youngest by well over a full standard deviation across metrics, particularly in transparency and environmental reporting.
There were nuances, too. The link was robust in nearly every region and for most sustainability measures, but less pronounced for certain innovation indicators—raising fascinating questions about how fresh startups might sometimes gain ground through agility or novel tech. The researchers themselves acknowledge some constraints: data centered on 2018, which offered stability pre-pandemic but may not capture more recent trends, and there was limited access to incorporation dates in some European firms, possibly muting regional effects. Also, because the sample focused on large, prominent organizations, the results may differ for smaller enterprises.
So what does this mean for the future of business—and the planet? The implications are profound: cultivating a genuinely sustainable culture is not just about image or compliance. It’s a strategic asset that could spell the difference between a short-lived boom and centuries of resilience. The findings may encourage policymakers to create incentives for younger organizations to embed sustainability early and urge established giants to leverage historical know-how for environmental progress. Investors, too, might begin to see high sustainability scores as a sign of institutional staying power, not just green marketing.
Digging deeper, the study aligns with evolutionary theories: it’s not simply the biggest or richest organizations that last across generations, but those sustainably adapted to changing environments—ecological, social, and economic alike. A fitting lesson for an era when the next generation’s prosperity may depend on today’s organizational foresight.
References:
Study:
Haner DM, Wang Y, Ones DS, Dilchert S, Yazar Y, Kaura K (2025). Survival of the greenest: environmental sustainability and longevity of organizations. Frontiers in Organizational Psychology, 05 June 2025.
Further reading:
Viguerie, S. P., Calder, N., & Hindo, B. (2021). 2021 Corporate Longevity Forecast. Innosight.
Sarta, A., Durand, R., & Vergne, J.-P. (2021). Organizational adaptation. Journal of Management.
Centobelli, P., Cerchione, R., Chiaroni, D., Del Vecchio, P., & Urbinati, A. (2020). Designing business models in circular economy: a systematic literature review and research agenda. Business Strategy and the Environment.
The Science Spotlight 