Part 1: New EEA EEI Index Uses Public Data to Evaluate People Management Effectiveness
A new index based on publicly available data makes it possible for management, investors, and other stakeholders to objectively evaluate how well public and private organizations convert employee, customer, and stakeholder engagement strategies into measurable financial and operational outcomes. It may even point to future opportunities and risks that affect share price performance.
Based on Public, Easily Available Information
Applications of the EEA EEI
The EEI: Components and Weighting
Suggested Preliminary AI Query
17 Industry Analyses Conducted by AI
Click here to subscribe to the ESM weekly e-newsletter.
The
Enterprise Engagement Alliance Impact Committee has announced the development and preliminary testing of the new EEA Enterprise Engagement Index ™ (EEI), a framework designed to help business leaders, investors, and analysts evaluate how effectively their organizations or public companies translate employee, customer, and stakeholder engagement strategies into measurable financial and operational outcomes. It is designed to once and for all demonstrate that employees and customers create tangible, measurable financial value whose effective management can yield competitive advantage.
The EEI is designed to be an open-source S&P 500 index of companies based on how well they translate employee and customer investments into concrete value. It enables anyone to evaluate companies using a basic formula and AI query provided below. The EEI does not identify how organizations achieve high scores. It is designed to help senior management and investors better understand how well the company is creating value through people, employees and customers. Other companies in these fields, including privately held firms, can use these industry scores as preliminary benchmarks.
ESM weekly readers are invited to test
the EEI on their own and to report any feedback to Bruce Bolger, EEA Founder, at
Bolger@TheEEA.org. Part 2 of this study provides a three-year analysis of the 49 companies in the first 17 industries listed below.
Part 3 shows how the EEI score can be used for the analysis of a single company over time, in this case Meta. Based on the company's past foray into making big investments in virtual reality paid for in part by layoffs, followed by a period of stock performance, the EEI hints at a repeat of this pattern unless of course the AI innovation counteracts the hidden cost of disaffection.
Click here for FAQs about the EEI.
Click here for an updated analysis of 23 industries.
Click here for an analysis of the correlation between EEI scores and customer and employee satisfaction.
Early cross-industry testing of the new EEA Enterprise Engagement Index found that companies with the strongest combination of profit per employee, operating margins, Human Capital ROI, and revenue growth frequently produced superior long-term shareholder returns or higher profitability within their industries, suggesting the framework may have value as an enterprise quality and organizational effectiveness indicator.
The preliminary study found that in seven of the 11 industries analyzed, the company with the highest EEI score also generated the strongest shareholder performance within its peer group over the same general period. The analysis covered industries including chip lithography, homebuilding, cruise lines, airlines, steel, banking, payments, healthcare, oil and gas, pharmaceuticals, and cosmetics and toiletries. See
ESM:
Part 2: Preliminary Five-Year Analysis Suggests the EEA EEI Provides Strong Predictor of Profitability.
.jpg)
Instead of utilizing customer or employee surveys, the EEI is based on the following financial criteria related to employee and customer metrics:
-
Revenue per employee (20%)
-
Profit per employee (30%)
-
Human Capital ROI (10%)
-
Profitability to net income (net income ÷ revenue) (10%)
-
Three-year revenue growth (30%)
ESM will continue to conduct industry analyses both to test the EEI over time and to provide benchmarks by industry that other companies in those fields can use.
Based on Public, Easily Available Information
Using publicly available financial data across a growing number of major industries—including semiconductors, homebuilding, cruises, airlines, steel, banking, payments, healthcare, energy, pharmaceuticals, and consumer products—a preliminary test of the EEI found that companies with the highest EEI scores frequently also demonstrate the strongest combination of productivity, profitability, growth, and, in many cases, superior shareholder performance relative to industry peers. The EEA will continue to test the EEI formula and will post the results in this article on an ongoing basis.
The same formula can be used by privately held companies using readily available data from their own accounting systems.
The preliminary findings, based on yet to be independently verified AI analysis, suggest that the EEI may provide organizations and investors with a practical new lens for assessing organizational effectiveness, stakeholder alignment, and long-term value creation by applying Total Quality Management (TQM) principles to people and engagement systems rather than relying solely on traditional financial metrics or employee survey data.
Among the key preliminary findings of the test of 11 industries and 32 companies finds that:
-
Companies with the highest EEI scores often led their industries in shareholder performance, including ASML in semiconductors, Royal Caribbean in cruises, PulteGroup in homebuilding, JPMorgan Chase in banking, Merck in pharmaceuticals, and Procter & Gamble in consumer products. In even more cases, EEI leaders exceeded competitors in profitability.
-
The study also found that organizations with stronger productivity per employee, profit per employee, and long-term revenue growth consistently achieved higher EEI scores regardless of industry, while companies with weaker profitability and growth patterns tended to significantly underperform both peers and the broader S&P 500.
While the EEI was not intended as a stock-picking tool, the repeated relationship between higher EEI scores and stronger operational performance suggests the framework may offer a useful new method for evaluating organizational effectiveness and the financial impact of stakeholder engagement strategies over the long term.
Applications of the EEA EEI
Management can use the EEA EEI Enterprise Engagement Index as a practical operating diagnostic to better understand how effectively the organization converts investments in people, customers, culture, and stakeholder relationships into measurable business outcomes. Unlike traditional engagement surveys that primarily measure sentiment, the EEI links stakeholder engagement to operational metrics such as productivity, profitability, growth, and efficiency of human-capital investment, allowing leaders to benchmark performance against peers and identify areas where organizational systems may be limiting results.
To help organizations use other data for further analysis, the EEA’s
People Value Impact Indicator is being customized not only to support creation of the EEA EEI Index, but also for companies to enter additional survey, turnover, NPS (net promoter scores), and almost any data to better understand the source of strengths and weaknesses in the findings.
For example, a company with strong revenue growth but weak profit per employee might uncover issues related to alignment, productivity, turnover, training effectiveness, customer loyalty, incentive or promotional program effectiveness, or operational complexity, while a company with strong margins but weak growth could identify innovation or customer-engagement gaps.
Because the framework compares companies within industries using publicly available data, executives, boards, HR leaders, and investors can use it to identify operational strengths and weaknesses, evaluate whether engagement initiatives are translating into measurable value creation, and encourage more integrated management practices aligned with TQM principles.
Over time, the EEI could also help organizations track whether improvements in leadership, communication, recognition, training, customer experience, or stakeholder alignment are producing tangible financial and operational improvements rather than simply higher survey scores or activity levels.
From inputs to outcomes. The logic behind the EEI is straightforward. Rather than focusing on what organizations do for employees—training hours, recognition frequency, survey scores—it focuses on what the system produces: revenue, profit, customer value, and growth. In that sense, the EEI borrows from the logic of TQM: the quality of a system is reflected in its outputs. If the system that manages people is working, it should show up not only in how employees feel, but in what the organization achieves. If the system isn’t working, the analysis should identify areas to address.
The EEI: Components and Weighting
To make the framework practical and comparable, the EEI combines a small set of consistently available financial metrics available for all publicly held companies to and to privately held companies to owners, investors, or potential acquirers into a single weighted index.
Below is an explanation of:
-
The components measured and why, including the weighting scale.
-
The ratings based on EEI fixed benchmark scales outlined below.
-
Additional details on calculations used.
|
Component |
What It Measures |
Weight |
|
Revenue per employee |
Revenue ÷ Employees |
20% |
|
Profit per employee |
Value creation |
30% |
|
HCROI |
Efficiency of people investment |
10% |
|
Profitability to net income ratio (net income ÷ revenue) |
Economic value of customers |
10% |
|
3-year revenue growth |
Market validation |
30% |
Stock market performance
|
Three-year stock performance compared with the S&P 500 |
Not included in the EEEI score |
|
90–100 |
World-class organizational performance |
|
80–89 |
Strong stakeholder alignment |
|
70–79 |
Competitive but inconsistent |
|
60–69 |
Average organizational effectiveness |
|
Below 60 |
Weak conversion of people investment into outcomes |
|
EEEI Fixed Benchmark Scales |
|
Metric |
20 Score |
40 Score |
60 Score |
80 Score |
100 Score |
|
Revenue per Employee |
$150,000 |
$250,000 |
$400,000 |
$600,000 |
$800,000 |
|
Profit per Employee |
$25,000 |
$50,000 |
$100,000 |
$175,000 |
$250,000 |
|
HCROI |
1.00x |
1.50x |
2.00x |
3.00x |
3.75x |
|
Operating Margin |
3.0% |
5.0% |
10.0% |
20.0% |
30.0% |
|
3-Year Revenue CAGR |
0.0% |
2.0% |
5.0% |
10.0% |
15.0% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scoring rule: the model linearly interpolates between the benchmark points and caps scores at 100. Negative revenue growth is scored at 20. These thresholds can be modified for industry-specific versions. |
Suggested Preliminary AI Query
While use of the EEA Enterprise Engagement People Value Impact Calculator provides the most precise results, you can use the following AI query to obtain a preliminary, unvalidated evaluation of any public company.
Important caveat: even when using for casual evaluations, the AI results have to be carefully checked by a knowledgeable person for logic. All calculations should be eyeballed for consistency, and any report should be manually verified if used for a material purpose.
Query: Please evaluate the company(s) on the following basis.
|
Component |
What It Measures |
Weight |
|
Revenue per employee |
Revenue ÷ Employees |
20% |
|
Profit per employee |
Value creation |
30% |
|
HCROI |
Efficiency of people investment |
10% |
|
Profitability to net income ratio (Net income ÷ revenue) |
Economic value of customers |
10% |
|
3-year revenue growth |
Market validation |
30% |
Stock market performance
|
Three-year stock performance compared with the S&P 500 |
Not included in the EEEI score |
|
90–100 |
World-class organizational performance |
|
80–89 |
Strong stakeholder alignment |
|
70–79 |
Competitive but inconsistent |
|
60–69 |
Average organizational effectiveness |
|
Below 60 |
Weak conversion of people investment into outcomes |
|
EEEI Fixed Benchmark Scales |
|
Metric |
20 Score |
40 Score |
60 Score |
80 Score |
100 Score |
|
Revenue per Employee |
$150,000 |
$250,000 |
$400,000 |
$600,000 |
$800,000 |
|
Profit per Employee |
$25,000 |
$50,000 |
$100,000 |
$175,000 |
$250,000 |
|
HCROI |
1.00x |
1.50x |
2.00x |
3.00x |
3.75x |
|
Operating Margin |
3.0% |
5.0% |
10.0% |
20.0% |
30.0% |
|
3-Year Revenue CAGR |
0.0% |
2.0% |
5.0% |
10.0% |
15.0% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scoring rule: the model linearly interpolates between the benchmark points and caps scores at 100. Negative revenue growth is scored at 20. These thresholds can be modified for industry-specific versions. |
21 Industry Analyses Conducted by AI
To test the utility of the EEI formula, the above query was used to test its use in the 16 largest industries with publicly held companies, Since then, Auto insurance and manufacturing industries have been added. All of the first 21 industry studies were conducted in May 2026.
1. Chip lithography
2. Home builders
3. Cruise industry
4. Airlines
5. Steel
6. Banking
7. Credit card/payments
8. Healthcare/managed care
9. Oil and gas
10. Pharmaceuticals
11. Toiletries and cosmetics
12. Big box retailers
13. Fast food
14. Content management platforms
15. High tech
16. Bio Tech
17. Advertising agencies
18. Auto insurance companies
19. Auto manufacturers
20. Eye glass retailers
21. Enterprise cloud software / Workflow automation Industry
22. Trucking companies
23. Overnight delivery/logistics companies
24. Dating apps
1. Chip Lithography / Semiconductor Equipment
|
Enterprise Engagement Evaluation Factors |
ASML |
Applied Materials |
|
Revenue per Employee |
$869K |
$795K |
|
Profit per Employee |
$301K |
$199K |
|
HCROI |
3.94x |
2.6x |
|
Operating Margin |
34.6% |
25.2% |
|
3-Year Revenue CAGR |
15.5% |
9–10% |
|
Final Weighted EEEI Score |
100.0 |
85.5 |
|
3-Year Stock Performance vs. S&P 500 |
ASML |
Applied Materials |
|
Approx. 3-Year Total Return CAGR |
32% |
18–20% |
|
Relative Performance vs. S&P 500 |
+10 pts annually |
Near parity/slight underperformance |
2. Homebuilders
|
Enterprise Engagement Evaluation Factors |
D. R. Horton |
Lennar |
PulteGroup |
|
Revenue per Employee |
$2.39M |
$2.73M |
$2.66M |
|
Profit per Employee |
$330,514 |
$224,534 |
$446,818 |
|
HCROI (Proxy) |
8.28x |
9.31x |
8.56x |
|
Operating Margin |
13.8% |
8.2% |
16.8% |
|
3-Year Revenue CAGR |
-1.8% |
-0.6% |
4.2% |
|
Final Weighted EEEI Score |
72.8 |
69.2 |
83.8 |
|
Shareholder Performance |
D.R. Horton |
Lennar |
PulteGroup |
|
3-Year Share Price Performance |
+49% |
+16% |
+80% |
|
S&P 500 3-Year Return |
+78% |
+78% |
+78% |
|
Difference vs. S&P 500 |
-29 pts |
-62 pts |
+2 pts |
3. Cruise Industry
|
Enterprise Engagement Evaluation Factors |
Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings |
Carnival Corporation |
Royal Caribbean Group |
|
Revenue per Employee |
$165K |
$169K |
$244K |
|
Profit per Employee |
$16.5K |
$24.8K |
$52.7K |
|
HCROI (Proxy) |
1.18x |
1.32x |
1.88x |
|
Operating Margin |
10.0% |
14.7% |
20.6% |
|
3-Year Revenue CAGR |
24.0% |
22.5% |
25.4% |
|
Final Weighted EEEI Score |
49.3 |
51.0 |
63.7 |
|
Shareholder Performance |
Norwegian |
Carnival |
Royal Caribbean |
|
3-Year Share Price Performance |
+78% |
+72% |
+245% |
|
S&P 500 3-Year Return |
+78% |
+78% |
+78% |
|
Difference vs. S&P 500 |
0 pts |
-6 pts |
+167 pts |
4. Airlines
|
Enterprise Engagement Evaluation Factors |
Delta Air Lines |
American Airlines |
United Airlines |
|
Revenue per Employee |
$634K |
$392K |
$522K |
|
Profit per Employee |
$58K |
$11K |
$42K |
|
HCROI |
2.62x |
2.10x |
2.36x |
|
Operating Margin |
9.1% |
2.7% |
8.0% |
|
3-Year Revenue CAGR |
8.1% |
4.1% |
10.4% |
|
Final Weighted EEEI Score |
64.2 |
42.2 |
60.9 |
|
Shareholder Performance |
Delta |
American |
United |
|
3-Year Stock Performance CAGR |
29.8% |
-1.7% |
31.4% |
|
Relative vs. S&P 500 |
+7.6 pts |
-23.9 pts |
+9.2 pts |
5. Steel Industry
|
Enterprise Engagement Evaluation Factors |
Nucor |
ArcelorMittal |
Steel Dynamics |
|
Revenue per Employee |
$985K |
$488K |
$1.26M |
|
Profit per Employee |
$81K |
$29K |
$102K |
|
HCROI |
6.2x |
6.1x |
8.8x |
|
Operating Margin |
8.2% |
5.9% |
8.1% |
|
3-Year Revenue CAGR |
-7.8% |
-8.4% |
-6.6% |
|
Final Weighted EEEI Score |
57.0 |
41.1 |
59.4 |
|
Shareholder Performance |
Nucor |
ArcelorMittal |
Steel Dynamics |
|
3-Year Stock CAGR |
16.2% |
28.9% |
30.6% |
|
Relative vs. S&P 500 |
-5.6 pts |
+7.0 pts |
+8.8 pts |
6. Banking Industry
|
Enterprise Engagement Evaluation Factors |
JPMorgan Chase |
Bank of America |
Citigroup |
|
Revenue per Employee |
$437K |
$382K |
$458K |
|
Profit per Employee |
$87K |
$61K |
$49K |
|
HCROI |
2.9x |
2.5x |
2.2x |
|
Banking Efficiency / Margin Proxy |
31.4% |
27.1% |
18.2% |
|
3-Year Revenue CAGR |
10.8% |
6.4% |
4.8% |
|
Final Weighted EEEI Score |
71.9 |
60.9 |
56.6 |
|
Shareholder Performance |
JPMorgan |
Bank of America |
Citigroup |
|
3-Year Stock CAGR |
24.8% |
18.9% |
14.2% |
|
Relative vs. S&P 500 |
+2.6 pts |
-3.3 pts |
-8.0 pts |
7. Credit Card / Payments Industry
|
Enterprise Engagement Evaluation Factors |
Mastercard |
Visa |
American Express |
|
Revenue per Employee |
$1.38M |
$1.54M |
$930K |
|
Profit per Employee |
$620K |
$760K |
$171K |
|
HCROI |
9.4x |
11.2x |
3.8x |
|
Operating Margin |
57.8% |
66.2% |
18.5% |
|
3-Year Revenue CAGR |
13.4% |
11.7% |
14.1% |
|
Final Weighted EEEI Score |
98.1 |
96.0 |
90.3 |
|
Shareholder Performance |
Mastercard |
Visa |
American Express |
|
3-Year Stock CAGR |
21.8% |
24.6% |
19.2% |
|
Relative vs. S&P 500 |
-0.4 pts |
+2.4 pts |
-3.0 pts |
8. Healthcare / Managed Care
|
Enterprise Engagement Evaluation Factors |
UnitedHealth Group |
Elevance Health |
CVS Health / Aetna |
|
Revenue per Employee |
$1.15M |
$1.98M |
$1.34M |
|
Profit per Employee |
$48,626 |
$71,990 |
$15,533 |
|
HCROI Proxy |
6.51x |
8.42x |
7.94x |
|
Operating Margin |
4.2% |
3.6% |
1.2% |
|
3-Year Revenue CAGR |
11.3% |
8.2% |
7.6% |
|
Final Weighted EEI Score |
70.4 |
69.1 |
59.1 |
|
Shareholder Performance |
UnitedHealth |
Elevance |
CVS |
|
3-Year Stock Total Return |
20% |
-16% |
+34% |
|
S&P 500 3-Year Return |
+84% |
+84% |
+84% |
|
Relative vs. S&P 500 |
-104 pts |
-100 pts |
-50 pts |
9. Oil and Gas
|
Enterprise Engagement Evaluation Factors |
Chevron |
ExxonMobil |
Shell |
|
Revenue per Employee |
$4.27M |
$5.56M |
$2.90M |
|
Profit per Employee |
$389,885 |
$552,459 |
$164,224 |
|
HCROI (proxy-based estimate) |
3.75x+ |
3.75x+ |
3.75x+ |
|
Operating Margin |
9.1% |
9.9% |
5.7% |
|
3-Year Revenue CAGR |
7.5% |
7.0% |
2.8% |
|
Final Weighted EEEI Score |
86.7 |
86.4 |
71.1 |
3-Year Stock Performance vs. S&P 500
|
|
Chevron |
ExxonMobil |
Shell |
|
Approx. 3-Year Total Return |
22% |
35% |
52% |
|
Relative Performance vs. S&P 500 |
-62 pts |
-49 pts |
-32 pts |
10. Pharmaceutical Companies
|
Enterprise Engagement Evaluation Factors |
Pfizer |
Merck |
Johnson & Johnson |
|
Revenue per Employee |
$710K |
$1.00M+ |
$885K |
|
Profit per Employee |
$87,000 |
$273,000 |
$172,000 |
|
HCROI (proxy estimate) |
2.1x |
3.8x |
3.2x |
|
Operating Margin |
12.3% |
36.0% |
24.5% |
|
3-Year Revenue CAGR |
0% to 1% |
10%+ |
4% to 5% |
|
Final Weighted EEEI Score |
58.6 |
95.3 |
77.4 |
3-Year Stock Performance vs. S&P 500
|
|
Pfizer |
Merck |
J&J |
|
Approx. 3-Year Total Return |
-15% |
+32% |
+8% |
|
Relative Performance vs. S&P 500 |
-99 pts |
-52 pts |
-76 pts |
11. Toiletries and Cosmetics
|
Enterprise Engagement Evaluation Factors |
L'Oréal |
Procter & Gamble |
Estée Lauder |
|
Revenue per Employee |
$505K |
$913K |
$398K |
|
Profit per Employee |
$102,000 |
$198,000 |
-$8,000 |
|
HCROI (proxy estimate) |
2.8x |
3.9x |
1.1x |
|
Operating Margin |
19.8% |
23.4% |
-1.8% |
|
3-Year Revenue CAGR |
11.0% |
5.5% |
-4.0% |
|
Final Weighted EEEI Score |
76.8 |
91.5 |
24.7 |
3-Year Stock Performance vs. S&P 500
|
|
L'Oréal |
Procter & Gamble |
Estée Lauder |
|
Approx. 3-Year Total Return |
+28% |
+33% |
-68% |
|
Relative Performance vs. S&P 500 |
-56 pts |
-51 pts |
-152 pts |
12. Big Box Retailers
|
Enterprise Engagement Evaluation Factors |
Costco |
Target |
Walmart |
|
Revenue per Employee |
$690K |
$320K |
$325K |
|
Profit per Employee |
$20K |
$8K |
$11K |
|
HCROI (Proxy) |
1.45x |
1.15x |
1.25x |
|
Profitability to Net Income Ratio (Net Income ÷ Revenue) |
2.9% |
2.8% |
2.5% |
|
3-Year Revenue CAGR |
8% |
1% |
5% |
|
Preliminary Weighted EEEI Score |
74–77 |
50–55 |
60–65 |
|
3-Year Stock Performance vs. S&P 500 |
+95% vs. S&P |
-25% vs. S&P |
+60% vs. S&P |
|
Glassdoor Rating |
4.0/5 |
3.5 / 5 |
3.4 / 5 |
|
ACSI Customer Satisfaction Score |
81 |
78 |
72 |
13. Fast Food
|
Enterprise Engagement Evaluation Factors |
McDonald’s |
Starbucks |
Dutch Bros* |
|
Revenue per Employee (corporate, not franchises) |
$180K |
$95K |
$250K–$290K |
|
Profit per Employee |
$57K |
$15K |
$16K–$22K |
|
HCROI (Proxy) |
2.4x |
1.2x |
2.0x–2.5x |
|
Profitability to Net Income Ratio |
32% |
9% |
6%-8% |
|
3-Year Revenue CAGR |
8% |
7% |
33% |
|
Estimated Final Weighted EEEI Score |
76–82 |
58–63 |
72–78 |
|
3-Year Stock Performance vs. S&P 500 |
MCD +38% vs. S&P +28% |
SBUX -18% vs. S&P +28% |
BROS +92% vs. S&P +28% |
|
Glassdoor Rating |
3.5/5 |
3.7/5 |
~4.0/5 |
|
ACSI Customer Satisfaction Score |
70 |
78 |
Not publicly tracked |
14. Content Management Platforms
|
EEI Scores |
Dropbox |
Box |
|
Revenue per Employee |
$1.19M |
$404K |
|
Profit per Employee |
$241K |
$30K |
|
HCROI (Proxy) |
0.89x |
0.39x |
|
Operating Margin |
27.3% |
7.1% |
|
3-Year Revenue CAGR |
2.7% |
5.9% |
|
Final Weighted EEEI Score |
74.2 |
45.1 |
|
Shareholder Performance |
Dropbox |
Box |
|
3-Year Share Price Performance |
+35% |
+5% |
|
S&P 500 3-Year Return |
+45% |
+45% |
|
Difference vs. S&P 500 |
-10 pts |
-40 pts |
15. High Tech
|
Enterprise Engagement Evaluation Factors |
Microsoft |
Alphabet / Google |
Oracle |
|
Revenue per employee |
$1.24M |
$2.11M |
$354K |
|
Profit per employee |
$447K |
$693K |
$76.5K |
|
HCROI (Proxy) |
3.27x |
2.32x |
1.87x |
|
Profitability to Net Income Ratio (Net Income ÷ Revenue) |
36.1% |
32.8% |
21.6% |
|
3-Year Revenue CAGR |
12.4% |
12.5% |
10.7% |
|
Final Weighted EEI Score |
95.6 |
93.7 |
64.5 |
|
Shareholder and Stakeholder Performance |
Microsoft |
Alphabet / Google |
Oracle |
|
3-Year Stock Performance vs. S&P 500 |
+30% vs. S&P 500 |
+224% vs. S&P 500 |
+100% vs. S&P 500 |
|
Glassdoor Employee Rating |
4.0 / 5 |
4.4 / 5 |
3.5 / 5 |
|
Customer Satisfaction / Comparable Score |
Comparably CSAT approx. 85 / 100 |
Comparably CSAT approx. high-80s / 100 |
Lower peer rankings versus Microsoft and SAP in comparable enterprise software surveys |
16. Bio Tech Companies
|
Enterprise Engagement Evaluation Factors |
Argenx |
UCB |
Vertex Pharmaceuticals |
|
Revenue per Employee |
$2.28M |
$535K |
$1.95M |
|
Profit per Employee |
$692K |
$76K |
$593K |
|
HCROI (Proxy) |
3.75x |
1.55x |
3.75x |
|
Profitability to Net Income Ratio |
30.4% |
14.2% |
38.0% |
|
3-Year Revenue CAGR |
112% |
10% |
12% |
|
Final Weighted EEEI Score |
100 |
73 |
96 |
Shareholder Performance
|
Shareholder Performance |
Argenx |
UCB |
Vertex Pharmaceuticals |
|
3-Year Stock Performance |
+170% |
+18% |
+72% |
|
S&P 500 Benchmark |
+45% |
+45% |
+45% |
|
Relative Performance vs. S&P 500 |
+125% |
-27% |
+27% |
Employee Ratings (Glassdoor)
|
Employee Satisfaction |
Argenx |
Vertex Pharmaceuticals |
|
Glassdoor Rating |
3.3 / 5 |
4.0 / 5 |
17. Advertising Agencies
|
Enterprise Engagement Evaluation Factors |
Publicis Groupe |
Omnicom |
WPP |
|
Revenue per Employee |
$138K |
$173K |
$123K |
|
Profit per Employee |
$15.6K |
$18.0K |
$8.4K |
|
HCROI (Proxy) |
0.48x |
1.21x |
0.44x |
|
Profitability to Net Income Ratio |
18.2% |
15.6% |
13.0% |
|
3-Year Revenue CAGR |
5.5% |
3.5% |
0% to -1% |
|
Final Weighted EEEI Score |
40 |
36 |
25 |
Shareholder Performance
|
Shareholder Performance |
Publicis Groupe |
Omnicom |
WPP |
|
Approx. 3-Year Stock Performance |
~+55% to +60% |
~-5% to -10% |
~-55% to -60% |
|
S&P 500 Benchmark |
+45% |
+45% |
+45% |
|
Relative Performance vs. S&P 500 |
+10 to +15 pts |
-50 to -55 pts |
-100+ pts |
Employee Ratings — Glassdoor
|
Employee Satisfaction |
Publicis Groupe |
Omnicom |
WPP |
|
Glassdoor Rating |
3.7 / 5 |
2.8 / 5 |
3.3 / 5 |
18. Auto Insurance Companies
|
Enterprise Engagement Evaluation Factors |
Allstate |
Progressive |
GEICO* |
|
Revenue per Employee |
$1.22M |
$1.14M |
$1.05M |
|
Profit per Employee |
$183K |
$145K |
$205K |
|
HCROI (Proxy) |
3.3x |
2.8x |
3.4x |
|
Profitability Ratio |
15.0% |
13.6% |
14.0% |
|
3-Year Revenue CAGR |
5.7% |
14.0% |
4.0% |
|
Final Weighted EEI Score |
76 |
80 |
74 |
|
Shareholder / Engagement Metrics |
Allstate |
Progressive |
GEICO / Berkshire Hathaway |
|
3-Year Stock Performance |
+118% |
+92% |
+52% |
|
S&P 500 Performance (3 Years) |
+45% |
+45% |
+45% |
|
Performance vs. S&P 500 |
+73 pts |
+47 pts |
+7 pts |
|
Glassdoor Rating |
3.6/5 |
3.8/5 |
3.4/5 |
|
ACSI / Customer Satisfaction |
80 |
82 |
79 |
*GEICO figures are estimated from Berkshire Hathaway disclosures and industry reporting
because Berkshire does not publish complete standalone workforce economics for GEICO.
19. Automotive Industry
|
Enterprise Engagement Evaluation Factors |
GM |
Ford |
Stellantis |
Tesla |
|
Revenue per Employee |
$1.16M |
$1.08M |
$663K |
$777K |
|
Profit per Employee |
$37K |
$34K |
$23K |
$56K |
|
HCROI (Proxy) |
1.34x |
1.28x |
1.12x |
1.50x |
|
Net Income Margin |
3.2% |
3.2% |
3.5% |
7.3% |
|
3-Year Revenue CAGR |
11% |
9% |
6% |
22% |
|
Preliminary EEI Score |
68 |
63 |
57 |
71 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3-Year Stock Performance |
+18% |
-9% |
+34% |
+130% |
|
S&P 500 Benchmark (~45%) |
+45% |
+45% |
+45% |
+45% |
|
Performance vs. S&P 500 |
-27% |
-54% |
-11% |
+85% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Glassdoor Rating |
4.0 |
4.1 |
3.8 |
3.5 |
|
ACSI Customer Satisfaction Score |
81 |
82 |
71 |
81 |
20. Consumer Eye Glass Market
|
EEI Component |
Warby Parker |
National Vision |
EssilorLuxottica |
|
Revenue per Employee |
$216K |
$151K |
$164K |
|
Profit per Employee |
$407 |
$2.3K |
$12.9K |
|
HCROI |
Not disclosed |
Not disclosed |
2.17x |
|
Profitability Ratio |
0.2% |
5.2% |
7.8% |
|
3-Year Revenue CAGR |
13.4% |
6–7% |
8.4% |
|
EEI Score |
45 |
38 |
44 |
|
3-Year Stock Performance |
+25% |
-10% |
+60% |
|
Performance vs. S&P 500 (45%) |
20 pts |
55 pts |
~+15 pts |
|
Glassdoor Rating |
~3.3 |
~3.2 |
~3.7 |
|
Google Consumer Rating |
~4.5 |
~4.2 |
~4.4 |
|
EEI Component |
Warby Parker |
National Vision |
EssilorLuxottica |
|
Revenue per Employee |
$216K |
$151K |
$164K |
|
Profit per Employee |
$407 |
$2.3K |
$12.9K |
|
HCROI |
Not disclosed |
Not disclosed |
2.17x |
|
Profitability Ratio |
0.2% |
5.2% |
7.8% |
|
3-Year Revenue CAGR |
13.4% |
6–7% |
8.4% |
|
EEI Score |
45 |
38 |
44 |
|
3-Year Stock Performance |
+25% |
-10% |
+60% |
|
Performance vs. S&P 500 (~45%) |
-20 pts |
-55 pts |
+15 pts |
|
Glassdoor Rating |
3.3 |
3.2 |
3.7 |
|
Google Consumer Rating |
4.5 |
4.2 |
4.4 |
21. Enterprise Cloud Software / Workflow Automation Industry
|
Enterprise Engagement Evaluation Factors |
ServiceNow |
Workday |
Salesforce |
|
Revenue per Employee |
~$535K |
~$475K |
~$576K |
|
Profit per Employee |
~$67K |
~$63K |
~$104K |
|
HCROI (Proxy) |
~2.1x |
~2.0x |
~2.5x |
|
Profitability Ratio (Net Income ÷ Revenue) |
12.6% |
13.2% |
18.0% |
|
3-Year Revenue CAGR |
~22% |
~15% |
~10% |
|
Final Weighted EEI Score |
75 |
66 |
73 |
Shareholder Performance vs. S&P 500
|
Comparative Metrics |
ServiceNow |
Workday |
Salesforce |
|
3-Year Stock Performance |
~+3% |
~+8% |
~+28% |
|
S&P 500 3-Year Performance |
~+45% |
~+45% |
~+45% |
|
Relative vs. S&P 500 |
-42% |
-37% |
-17% |
|
Glassdoor Rating |
4.4 |
4.1 |
4.3 |
|
Customer Satisfaction / Market Reputation Proxy |
Strong Enterprise Reviews |
Strong Enterprise Reviews |
Strong CRM Leadership Ratings |
22. Trucking companies
|
Metric |
Old Dominion Freight Line |
XPO Inc. |
Knight-Swift Transportation Holdings |
|
Revenue per employee |
$265,577 |
$212,421 |
$209,917 |
|
Profit per employee |
$54,171 |
$10,184 |
$3,332 |
|
HCROI |
1.16x |
1.39x |
1.63x |
|
Net income ÷ revenue |
20.4% |
4.8% |
1.6% |
|
3-year revenue CAGR |
3.4% |
2.3%* |
7.3% |
|
EEI Score |
46.5 |
32.4 |
39.7 |
|
3-year stock performance vs. S&P 500 |
–43% |
+18% |
–52% |
|
Glassdoor |
3.9 |
3.6 |
3.1 |
|
Customer rating proxy |
Trustpilot 2.9 |
Trustpilot 1.4 |
BBB A+ |
23. Air freight and logistics companies
|
Metric |
FedEx |
United Parcel Service |
Expeditors International of Washington |
|
Revenue per employee |
$172,743 |
$180,941 |
$559,041 |
|
Profit per employee |
$8,039 |
$11,371 |
$40,926 |
|
HCROI |
1.82x |
0.82x* |
4.78x |
|
Net income ÷ revenue |
4.7% |
6.3% |
7.3% |
|
3-year revenue CAGR |
Negative |
Negative |
Negative |
|
EEI Score |
25.8 |
23.8 |
45.9 |
|
3-year stock performance vs. S&P 500 |
–3% |
–119% |
–38% |
|
Glassdoor |
3.5 |
3.4 |
3.4 |
|
Customer rating proxy |
Trustpilot 1.2 |
Trustpilot 1.5 |
No broad public proxy found |
24. Dating apps
|
Metric |
Match Group |
Grindr |
Bumble |
|
Revenue per employee |
$1.59M |
$2.67M |
$1.67M |
|
Profit per employee |
$278K |
$574K |
-$1.56M |
|
HCROI (proxy) |
5.1x |
7.9x |
5.9x |
|
Net income ÷ revenue |
17.6% |
21.5% |
93.9% |
|
3-year revenue CAGR |
3% |
28% |
2% |
|
EEI / EEEI Score |
82 |
98 |
49 |
|
3-year stock performance |
+10% |
+113% |
-82% |
|
Vs. S&P 500 |
-69 pts |
+34 pts |
-160 pts |
|
Glassdoor rating |
3.6 |
3.1 |
2.7 |
|
Customer/app rating proxy |
Tinder/Hinge mixed |
Strong app engagement |
Weakening sentiment |
Enterprise Engagement Alliance Services
Celebrating our 17th year, the Enterprise Engagement Alliance helps organizations enhance performance through:
1. Information and marketing opportunities on stakeholder management and total rewards:
2. Learning: Purpose Leadership and Stakeholder
Management Academy to enhance future equity value for your organization.
3. Books on implementation: Enterprise Engagement for CEOs and Enterprise Engagement: The Roadmap.
4. Advisory services and research: Strategic guidance, learning and certification on stakeholder management, measurement, metrics, and corporate sustainability reporting.
5. Permission-based targeted business development to identify and build relationships with the people most likely to buy.
Contact: Bruce Bolger at TheICEE.org; 914-591-7600, ext. 230.
ESM News Alert for the latest news. Subscribe here.
