Not really that bad?
The first thing that these companies have in common is that they are not bad companies. The lowest score, 15/25 for G4S, equates to 60% -- hardly a disaster. However, each company does have at least one weakness that prevented it achieving a coveted 20+ score.

I do not think that G4S's Olympic failure will have a significant effect on the company's ongoing fortunes, which look likely to be bolstered by ongoing emerging market growth. However, I do think it might struggle to grow earnings as fast as it has done previously. The company's half-year results, published today, showed a modest increase in revenue and broadly flat operating profits. However, its pre-tax profits were down heavily on the same period last year, falling from £151m to £61m, following the £50m Olympic contract loss and other exceptional items. G4S also has quite a lot of debt; net finance costs for the last six months were £54m, accounting for 22% of its operating profits.

Oil supermajor BP is very much a company in transition. Over the last couple of years, it has had to deal with the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, has sold numerous assets to raise funds and is currently trying to extricate itself from its profitable but troubled Russian joint venture, TNK-BP. The problem with all of this is that the company's eventual destination remains unclear, and there is a growing body of opinion suggesting BP's top management is not really up to the job of successfully completing this transformation. This is a story that will take several more years to play out, I suspect, hence BP's relatively low score.

Legal & General is one of the oldest companies in the FTSE 100 and a thoroughly solid organisation. Its inclusion in this list is down to two factors; modest growth levels and a failure to outperform the FTSE 100 in recent years. Despite this, I would happily include a chunk of L&G shares in my retirement portfolio, not least because of the attractive 4.9% dividend yield they offer -- a payout level that's been maintained throughout the financial crisis and which should be safe going forwards.

The two top scorers of this bunch, SSE and Rio Tinto, can hardly be said to belong in a 'worst' list. Rio Tinto is one of the top three global miners in the FTSE 100, and as I have written before, currently looks very cheap -- indeed, it's on my buy list for this autumn. The main fear with Rio is that things might get worse before they get better and that earnings growth will tail off in years to come. However, although I expect the company's share price to be volatile as the eurozone crisis plays out, I don't think that Rio will experience this worst-case scenario.

SSE is very nearly a direct opposite of Rio. Highly defensive, counter-cyclical and a generous and devoted dividend payer, its main problem is that it is required to invest huge amounts of its regulated income on improving its services. However, since I wrote my original review, SSE has announced a 9% price increase, which will be unpopular with its customers, but should help ensure that profitability and dividend payments remain in line with expectations.

More stories