Environmental

R&D intensity near 0.9% of revenue suggests limited low-carbon innovation spending versus peers with heavier process-transition investment, constraining environmental differentiation.

Debt-to-equity of 0.38 implies moderate balance-sheet pressure, but environmental capital allocation remains less visible than peers with explicit decarbonization capex disclosure.

Gross margin of 35.6% indicates some operational efficiency, yet without emissions or energy metrics it is difficult to show stronger environmental execution than peers.

No provided data on emissions, water, waste, or renewable-energy sourcing limits evidence of superior environmental management relative to peers, keeping the profile mid-pack.

Social

Stock-based compensation at 0.18% of revenue suggests limited equity-linked retention pressure, but it does not evidence stronger workforce alignment than peers.

No provided metrics on safety, turnover, training, or labor relations prevent confirmation of stronger employee outcomes versus peers in a people-intensive industrial setting.

R&D spending below 1% of revenue may limit product-safety and customer-support innovation relative to peers with more robust engineering investment.

Absent disclosure on community, supply-chain labor, and human-capital metrics, the social profile remains broadly average rather than clearly advantaged versus peers.

Governance

Debt-to-equity of 0.38 indicates restrained leverage, supporting governance discipline versus more highly geared peers, though net debt to EBITDA of 2.9 remains meaningful.

Stock-based compensation at 0.18% of revenue points to limited dilution pressure, which is favorable versus peers with heavier equity compensation burdens.

R&D at 0.9% of revenue suggests disciplined capital deployment, but the absence of board, audit, and shareholder-rights data limits evidence of stronger governance.

No disclosed controversies or control failures in the provided data prevents a negative governance adjustment, leaving the profile slightly above average versus peers.

Overall Score

JBTM appears broadly mid-pack versus peers because available metrics show disciplined leverage and modest compensation dilution, but limited ESG disclosure prevents a stronger relative assessment.

Score Driver: Limited ESG Disclosure Across Environmental And Social Metrics Is The Main Constraint On A Higher Relative Score.