The study found that 65 percent of the largest 100 international companies have active accounts on Twitter, 54 percent have a Facebook fan page, 50 percent have a YouTube channel, and one-third (33 percent) have corporate blogs. Only 20 percent of the major international companies are utilizing all four platforms to engage with stakeholders.

Do the world's largest multinational firms even need to be utilizing Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and a corporate blog? Seven of the top ten companies on Fortune's list are oil companies. I'm not sure that ExxonMobil is really going to be able to elevate it's brand with a new Facebook fan page or have any kind of meaningful "conversation" with consumers on Twitter. Are there things that they could do? Sure. But you shouldn't get a pat on the back just for showing up.

I'm also bothered by "studies" like this which make zero attempt to calculate the value added from social media. It costs money to create and maintain a voice on major social media platforms. The service might be free, the content isn't. It's only worth the cost if the return is real value, in whatever form that value might take (PR, sales, awareness, etc.). When you start looking through the list of Fortune 100 companies that are using multiple social media platforms you realize that, while they might be there, they don't have anything to say.