SHARE releases ESG concerns regarding Tim Hortons/Burger King merger

SHARE this week released a proxy advisory regarding environmental, social and governance (ESG) issues that may be of concern to shareholders in the Tim Hortons-Burger King merger proposal. 

 

In a joint proxy circular issued earlier this month, Tim Hortons and Burger King Worldwide described details of a deal touted as the largest restaurant merger in history, creating a post-merger entity with combined global sales of $23 billion and with 18,000 restaurant locations in 98 countries.

After analyzing the currently available information on the proposed merger, SHARE has identified certain ESG issues that may be of concern to shareholders of a successfully merged new entity, including:

• Inherited reputational risks from BKW’s U.S. employment practices
• Differences in sustainability reporting between the two companies;
• Potential job losses and decreased tax contributions;
• Lack of independent directors;
• Excessive executive compensation

Environment

Tim Hortons has published comprehensive sustainability reports in recent years, achieving a B+ level of reporting based on the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) framework. Burger King, however, does not release annual sustainability reports. To date, there have been no specific commitments from Tim Hortons or its new owners regarding the continuation of GRI-based sustainability reporting. 

Social

A prominent national campaign in the U.S. has targeted the fast food industry for the extremely low wages paid to employees. In addition, the National Labor Relations Board recently censured a large Burger King franchisee for its anti-union activities.

Concerns have also been raised about cuts to operational costs by 3G Capital, Burger King’s owner, which could take the form of hundreds of layoffs at Tim Hortons’ head offices and distribution centres, considering 3G’s pattern of similar losses which occurred at Heinz and Labatt plants after takeovers by 3G Capital.

Governance

3G Capital has a history of poor corporate governance; BKW’s board does not have a majority of independent directors, has no nominating committees, and other key committees, such as the compensation committee, are entirely composed of insider directors. By contrast, at least two-thirds of the current Tim Hortons board are independent directors and its audit committee is entirely independent.

Conclusions

The proposed merger may raise ESG concerns for long-term investors who will now be faced with new governance structures and practices as well as new risk profiles based on ownership of Burger King’s global operations.

·          

• SHARE asks if the combined company will continue and expand THI’s practice of issuing regular sustainability reports for investors based on GRI indicators.
• How will reputational risks from Burger King’s employment practices in the U.S. impact on the combined company’s value?·    
• Will 3G Capital and Burger King be making specific commitments regarding retention of employees at company-controlled facilities in Canada?·      
• What will be the merged company’s approach to Canadian taxes?
• Will the company commit to nominating independent directors to at least two-thirds of the board of the new company after the merger?
  ·           

All good questions from SHARE and ones investors deserve answers to.

Eurosif Study Reveals Double Digit Growth in SRI Strategies

Eurosif's sixth study of sustainable and responsible investment in Europe shows that SRI investment strategies have grown at double digit rates between 2011 and 2013, faster than the broader European investment market.

For example, the study reveals that assets subject to exclusion criteria, also known as negative screening, grew by 91% between 2011 and 2013, and now cover an estimated 41% of European professionally managed assets. Voluntary exclusions related to cluster munitions and anti-personnel landmines are the most common.

Assets subject to engagement and voting policies have grown by 86% over the period to reach 3.3 trillion euros, versus 1.8 trillion euros in 2011. Half of that growth comes from the U.K., with other key contributors being the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden. 

Impact investing is the fastest growing strategy, the study reveals, with 132% growth since 2011. Impact investing is now a 20 billion euro market. Key markets for this strategy are the Netherlands and Switzerland, representing an estimated two-thirds of European assets, followed by Italy, the United Kingdom and Germany. Microfinance represents an estimated 50 % of European impact investing assets.

The study also sheds light on how the integration of non-financial factors into investment decisions is implemented. All forms of ESG integration have grown by 65% since 2011, making this one of the fastest growing strategies.

Despite the impressive growth of the SRI market, the study highlights a number of market failures such as the wide variations in adoption of SRI practices across countries and the weakness of the retail SRI market. Institutional investors continue to drive the SRI market in Europe with an even higher market share than in 2011.

Data was collected or estimated at the end of 2013 covering institutional  and retail assets from 13 distinct European markets. 

Download the Eurosif study.

Montreal Carbon Pledge Attracts Large Institutional Investors

A group of large institutional investors have signed on to the Montreal Carbon Pledge, agreeing to measure and publicly disclose the carbon footprint of their investment portfolios on an annual basis.

Overseen by the UN-backed Principles for Responsible Investment, the pledge hopes to attract $3 trillion of portfolio in time for next year’s UN climate change conference.

"We are proud to launch the Montreal Carbon Pledge, a commitment by investors to translate climate talk into walk," said Fiona Reynolds, Managing Director of the Principles for Responsible Investment. "The first step to managing the long-term investment risks associated with climate change and carbon regulation is to measure them, and this initiative sets a clear path forward."

Carbon footprinting enables investors to quantify the carbon content of a portfolio, the PRI said, noting that 78% of the largest 500 publicly listed companies now report their carbon emissions.

Eight funds are inaugural participants in the Montreal pledge, including the $298 billion California Public Employees’ Retirement System and France’s public sector pension plan known as ERAFP. The only Canadian fund to commit so far is Montreal-based Bâtirente, which manages $1.2 billion in assets.

Batirente chief executive officer Daniel Simard said the pledge is the next step in the fund’s commitment to socially responsible investing.

“We think we must move to a new stage in responsible investment, and that is about capital allocation,” he said in an interview with the Globe & Mail. “For us, measuring our footprint means considering reducing our carbon footprint. So we will need to see how we can rethink our asset management in these terms.”

Toby Heaps of Corporate Knights told the Globe a number of Canadian investors have been reviewing the pledge and may sign on, including the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board, which said it is assessing the new initiative.

Banks showing limited commitment to responsible investing

Despite the growth in responsible investment as reported by various sustainable investment forums, such as Canada’s Responsible Investment Association, the uptake of responsible investing in the banking sector leaves much to be desired, according to an extensive report on banking from RI research firm Sustainalytics.

Only 7% of banks surveyed by Sustainalytics report that the share of responsible assets is more than 5% of total assets under management. Nearly all of these institutions are from Europe, with three from North America and one from South America.

Another 96 institutions (27%) either have less than 5% of AUM dedicated to RI assets or do not disclose the value of their RI assets. Two hundred and forty-one institutions (67%) don’t provide any evidence of RI assets under management.

Further, just 20% of the banks around the world surveyed by Sustainalytics are PRI signatories. And only 27% have published some kind of responsible investment policy.

Only 6% of banks live up to Sustainalytics highest requirements, which include the application of at least two out of three RI strategies: exclusion, best-in-class and engagement. 

“While a number of banks are engaged in RI, the majority of them are not PRI signatories, do not have RI policies in place and have not disclosed responsibly management assets,” the report says.

The report notes that the banking industry supports a wide range of sustainability related products and services, including green consumer loans, rebates for energy efficient home retrofits, large scale renewable energy project and green bonds.

In fact, 72% of banks assessed on this indicator have disclosed programs or activities to promote sustainability-related products and services, mostly in the form of clean energy financing and consumer loans. Eleven banks stand out for setting quantitative targets to expand sustainability financing commitments within a specific time frame.

We have clout, let's use it!

Some good ideas from the Guardian....

Originally published August 22nd, 2014

http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2014/aug/22/responsible-investors-unpri-listed-companies-survey#start-of-comments

 

Responsible investors working together can drive a silent revolution

A new study of listed companies shows a high presence of investors signed up to the Principles for Responsible Investment - what if they were to speak with one voice on sustainability?

                                    

Far from ignoring issues such as the impact of climate change or the growth in social inequalities, there is a growing movement within the financial community to respond to these challenges by fostering responsible investments and businesses where long-term thinking is prioritised.
According to recent research by NASDAQ OMX, more than one-third of capital invested by asset managers in publicly-traded companies is currently held in portfolios for at least five years – a key measure for long-term investing – the highest level since the financial crisis.
Long-termism and responsible investing have found two key supporters in recent years. One being the Sustainable Stock Exchange (SSE) initiative where stock exchanges work together to create more sustainable capital markets through enhanced corporate transparency. Secondly, the growing number of institutional investors collaborating through the Principles for Responsible Investment (PRI) initiative to support responsible investment practices. PRI has grown significantly since its early days when a small group of 20 institutional investors representing $2tn launched it in 2006, supported by UN. The initiative now has 1,260 signatories representing $45tn in assets under management (AUM).
But how exactly that collective size translates in terms of share ownership in listed companies across the world, has been unknown until now. Recently, our organisations jointly conducted a study to uncover the actual presence of PRI signatories in companies in which they invest - the key factor in determining their potential to influence business behaviour. We were surprised by what we found.
In a worldwide sample of 379 listed companies with a combined market capitalisation of $19tn, our PRI equity ownership study revealed that signatories of the PRI on average hold nearly half of all the shares held by asset managers in those companies. The analysis focused on companies with optimum levels of ownership data available and that were representative of all sectors and major markets. Given that the formidable combined weight could be leveraged on companies where institutional investors are considered key stakeholders, this should give business leaders pause.
But can PRI investors become active owners and speak with one voice? A strong collaborative effort will be required, and this is perhaps the biggest challenge.
Having achieved sizeable presence in listed companies, PRI signatories should be able to influence those businesses to achieve a better environmental, governance and social (ESG) performance. From mitigating business impact on climate change to the implementation of long-term sustainable growth strategies, responsible investors have the opportunity to play a pivotal role in shaping corporate policy.
Rather than the regular interactions between investors and senior management in companies focusing merely on financial performance indicators, topics of particular concern to responsible investors could be raised. But to accomplish that, the first step is for investors to realise their collective power.
Secondly, they would need to use this knowledge to join forces and identify where they can be most influential in their corporate engagement. Investors can work together through the PRI’s collaborative platform, known as the Clearinghouse, engaging by company, issue, region or asset class. For example, the PRI’s coordinated engagement on managing risks in hydraulic fracturing, includes 41 institutional investors with a total AUM of $5.1tn. Current topics include executive remuneration, corruption, water quality and scarcity and supply chain risk.
The recent visit by a group of responsible investors to textile factories in Bangladesh following the tragic collapse of the Rana Plaza complex in 2013 is an example of how they are trying to make a difference. The purpose of the site visit was to engage with the garment industry and local producers in order to improve working conditions in the textile industry. There is clearly a great deal of work left to do, however this shows how responsible investors can use their influence to facilitate better working conditions in developing countries while reducing the supply chain risks of fashion retailers.
It is worth noting that PRI signatories’ presence is not felt equally across all regions and sectors. It’s stronger in companies listed in the UK, continental Europe, the Middle East and Africa. This reflects the fact that, with few exceptions, European and South-African financial institutions have led the responsible investment movement. Conversely, PRI ownership lags in Australia, Asia Pacific, and particularly in the US and Canada. Although, North America is expanding. In 2014, 23 new US investors signed on to the PRI, including Harvard Management Company, which manages the university’s $32bn endowment fund.
The study reveals that the presence of PRI signatories reaches the highest levels of asset manager ownership in sectors facing some of the greatest sustainability challenges: mining, industry and utilities. For example, PRI signatories own an average of 49% of the shares held by asset managers in 58 industrial companies included in the study and an average of 50% asset manager ownership in 28 companies in the basic materials sector.
Across all sectors and countries, there is a growing desire among many investors to embed sustainability into their investment decision-making process. There is also the opportunity for company executives to implement long-term, value-driven strategies and for investor relations professionals to prioritise communication with their growing base of responsible investors. This will allow them to attract more long-term shareholders which will naturally result in lower stock price volatility.
The silent revolution has arrived. There is a mandate for change; the challenge for responsible investors, and the companies they own, is achieving the right pace for that change.
Will Martindale is policy and research manager for the United Nations-supported Principles for Responsible Investment and focuses on operationalising long-term investment. Miguel Santisteve is an Associate Director at NASDAQ OMX Advisory Services and focuses on Responsible Investment and ESG insights for investor relations

Peter MacKay: Pale, Male and Stale

Peter MacKay’s recently revealed Mother’s Day and Father’s Day greetings to his staff clearly demonstrate the extent of institutionalized gender stereotyping by decision makers in Canada.

Here’s what he had to say to mothers, “By the time many of you have arrived at the office in the morning, you’ve already changed diapers, packed lunches, run after school buses, dropped kids off at daycare, taken care of an aging loved one and maybe even thought about dinner.”

And fathers? “I wish to take this opportunity to recognize our colleagues who are not only dedicated Department of Justice employees, but are also dedicated fathers, shaping the minds and futures of the next generation of leaders.”

(Read the full text of both messages here.)       

Gender diversity on boards and in the C suite is an important issue for socially responsible investors. We have been working tirelessly, engaging management and sometimes bringing resolutions in an attempt to increase the number of women on corporate boards, and in senior management, in Canada.

In an article discussing Britain’s efforts to get more women on Boards, Jacey Graham, co-author of The Female FTSE Board Report 2014, comments on equality, ‘It will not be easy, for while there is a "lot less outright sexism, there's still a huge amount of unconscious bias".’

 

The idea that systemic biases exist, or that there is an ’old boys network’ that prevents women from moving onto boards is frequently dismissed. However humiliating this most recent episode is for Mr. MacKay, he has added immeasurably to the debate by bringing this latent sexism into the open.

 

Often, when quotas or results based legislation is discussed, the response is either that there are not enough qualified women available, or that we are moving in the right direction and it is only a matter of time before we achieve gender parity.

A Globe and Mail editorial discussing the OSC ‘s new rules on board diversity lauds the voluntary guidelines stating “unlike quotas, it’s a reasonable step”. However, that purported reasonableness is undercut by the fact that “Women make up just 12 per cent of directors on the boards of major publicly traded companies in Canada, a number that has climbed painfully slowly from about 9 per cent a decade ago.“

Discussing gender quotas, The Economist suggests they are becoming more popular due to both the “glacial pace of voluntary change” and that Norway’s quota law (requiring 40% of directors be women)  “has not been the disaster some predicted.”  

“The average number of women on Canadian boards is about 14 percent, which reflects a complete failure to draw on the deep female talent pool that is out there.” Peter Dey, Canadian Director as quoted in Women on Boards: A Conversation with Male Directors.

Quotas. It’s time.

SRI fundcos take active ownership role

Mutual funds with a responsible investment mandate are taking an active ownership role, opposing management resolutions far more often than non-RI fund groups, and supporting ESG shareholder resolutions. That’s the conclusion of the Canadian Mutual Fund Proxy Voting Survey, released this week by the Responsible Investment Association. 

The survey covers the 2013 proxy voting season, examining the voting patterns of 25 Canadian mutual fund families.

The three SRI-branded fund families (NEI, Meritas and Inhance) voted against compensation-related (say on pay) resolutions put forward by management 92% of the time at Canadian companies and 97% at U.S. companies, compared to 13% at both Canadian and U.S. companies by their mainstream counterparts.

On resolutions concerning executive stock incentive compensation plans, the RI funds voted against management 84% of the time, as opposed to 26% of the time by mainstream funds.

The RI fund groups were also more likely to support climate-related shareholder resolutions, voting in their favour 92% of the time versus 39% by non-RI fund groups.

"Voting against management recommendations is of course not limited to the RI funds -- a number of the non-RI fund groups surveyed supported multiple ESG issues and appear to be ready to take a long-term view," the study says.

Along with NEI, Meritas and Inhance, Desjardins, PH&N and CIBC were highlighted as  being the most critical of the status quo and most vigilant with their proxy voting.

Overall, the survey found that Canadian mutual funds side with management on the vast majority of resolutions brought to vote at TSX companies -- around 95% of the time, in most cases. In contrast, the three RI-branded funds voted with management on their resolutions only 56% of the time, and virtually none of the time in the case of "say on pay" resolutions.

"Not all mutual funds accept the status quo," the study concludes. "There are a handful of fund families, specifically those with an orientation towards responsible investment, who take a more active stance in challenging management recommendations. They tend to oppose more management-sponsored resolutions and support more ESG-related shareholder resolutions than their mainstream counterparts."

 

Passive Investment, active ownership

Catching up on my reading I found this excellent article from April's Financial Times...

Passive investment, active ownership

By Mike Scott

 Sometimes it seems as if passive investors have the worst of all possible worlds. Invested across the market, they are exposed to every corporate scandal, disaster or anti-business trend that comes along – and unlike investors pursuing an active strategy, they cannot even sell their shares if companies do something awful.

Investors with shares in companies beset by controversy sometimes say there is nothing they can do to change the company’s behaviour, as they are only invested in them because they belong to a particular Index in which the investor owns every share.

 

So is it possible for a passive investor to engage effectively with the companies in its portfolio without the ultimate sanction of divestment? John Wilcox, chairman of Sodali, a New York-based investment consultancy, and former head of corporate governance at TIAA-CREF, one of the world’s largest pension funds, says it is.

“Having a passive investment strategy has nothing to do with your behaviour as an owner. It is very clear from stewardship codes around the world that there are ownership responsibilities to owning shares, no matter how you got there,” he says. “At TIAA-CREF a large part of the portfolio was indexed but that had nothing to do with our decisions about whether to examine the companies in our portfolio.”
Being a “permanent” owner is not an excuse not to engage, it is a reason to engage, Mr Wilcox adds. “If you are a permanent owner, you want to make sure those assets perform well.”

Despite being unable to divest, passive investors still have a lot of influence over the companies they invest in, says Jane Welsh, head of indexation research at Towers Watson, the consultancy.
“They are generally such large investors and have such large positions that their vote is worth a lot. The last thing companies want is to have big investors vote against them,” she adds. “It is embarrassing and, on top of that, the company has to go back to the drawing board and start again.”

In addition, Mr Wilcox says, proxy advisory firms and organisations such as the UN’s Principles for Responsible Investment and the Carbon Disclosure Project do half the job for passive investors by highlighting the issues that need attention.

Rakhi Kumar, head of corporate governance at State Street Global Advisors, says there is a big difference between passive investment and passive ownership.
“As an asset manager with one of the world’s largest passive offerings and a near-perpetual holder of index constituents, active ownership represents the tangible way in which SSgA can positively impact the value of our underlying holdings,” he says.
“Our size, experience and long-term outlook provide us with corporate access and allow us to establish and maintain an open and constructive dialogue with company management and boards. The option of exercising our substantial voting rights in opposition to management provides us with sufficient leverage and ensures our views and client interests are given due consideration.”

Some active managers will sell out if they are concerned with the risks a company is running, Ms Welsh says, but not all of them will. Some active managers, particularly those with a long-term approach, act more like passive investors by identifying the risks and working with the company to address them over the long term.
“I have some sympathy with the typical pension fund; they are exposed to everything because they are invested in the entire index,” says Aled Jones, head of responsible investment for Europe, the Middle East and Africa at Mercer, the consultancy. “But it does not mean they should not be asking questions about specific issues.”
If anything, when it comes to engaging with a company’s management, being a passive investor is an advantage, he suggests. “Active investors often have a high turnover of shares in their portfolios so they do not hold the shares long enough to have an influence. For really meaty issues in areas such as environmental, social and governance issues, it can take a year or two of engagement to make progress.”
Because they are invested across the entire market (they are also known as universal investors), passive investors have an interest in raising standards everywhere, not just in individual companies, Mr Jones points out. As a result, they can engage at the market level by talking to regulators and stock exchanges or by focusing on sector leaders in the hope that the rest of the market will follow.
“We do not consider the objectives of raising governance standards at individual companies and the market as a whole to be mutually exclusive, and both serve to enhance the value of our portfolios,” says Mr Kumar.
“SSgA adopts a two-pronged approach, whereby issuer-specific engagement is complemented by ongoing dialogue with market regulators.”

 

Passive investors are not completely powerless when it comes to exiting poorly managed companies. Funds can alter their mandates to exclude certain investments. The Norwegian Government Pension Fund is currently waiting to hear whether the government will order it to divest from fossil fuel companies. The fund has also sold out of palm oil companies because of fears over deforestation and dropped individual companies such as Walmart and Vedanta for failing to meet its investment guidelines.

There are a number of indices that focus on the best performers in areas such as environmental performance, such as the FTSE4Good, the Dow Jones Sustainability index and MSCI’s global sustainability indices.

In addition, argues Lorne Baring, founder of wealth manager B Capital, “passive investors do exit poor companies. Badly managed companies lose value and soon drop out of the index that the passive fund tracks. As an example, a FTSE 100 company that is underperforming the market will probably be ejected from the FTSE 100 and replaced by a stock that is performing well. The investor is passive, the fund is passive, however the mechanics of the tracker deselect companies that are underperforming.”

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2014.

U.S. firms lagging on sustainability issues, report says

U.S. publicly traded firms are making some progress on sustainability issues, however the speed and scale of those changes are insufficient, according to a new report from Ceres and Sustainalytics.

 “Incremental progress in tackling global climate change and other sustainability threats is simply not enough,” the report, called Gaining Ground, states.

The report finds that while more than two-thirds of the companies evaluated (438) have activities in place aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions, only 35% (212) have established time-bound targets for reducing such emissions. And although 37% of companies have implemented a renewable energy program, only 6% have quantitative targets to increase renewable energy sourcing.

Fifty-eight percent of companies (353) have supplier codes of conduct that address human rights in supply chains, and one-third (205 companies) have some activities in place to engage suppliers on sustainability performance issues.

Fifty-two percent (319 companies) are engaging investors on sustainability issues, up from 40% in 2012, when a similar survey was conducted.

“Companies with the vision and strategies for integrating sustainability principles into all facets of operations are more likely to generate long-term shareholder value than those that do not,” the report says. “In fact, investors are increasingly integrating sustainability criteria into investment decisions, and are rewarding companies who engage shareholders on sustainability issues.”

A growing number of companies are incorporating sustainability performance into executive compensation packages, the report notes: 24% of companies (147) link executive compensation to sustainability performance – up from 15% in 2012.

Ceres and Sustainalytics assessed more than 600 U.S. publicly traded companies, tracking their performance on 20 key metrics, including greenhouse gas emissions, governance, disclosure and labour standards.

“The findings of this report should inspire companies to examine their own progress and identify where they stand on the path to sustainability,” said Michael Jantzi, CEO and Founder of Sustainalytics. “This is about more than how companies stack up against their peers – it’s about how innovation is driving performance from the corporate boardroom throughout the entire supply chain.”

 

Rana Plaza: all talk, no action

In April 2013 when Rana Plaza collapsed killing over 1100 people, I thought that the tragedy might not be for naught. There was a huge amount of media coverage focusing not only on the lives lost and the plight of the garment workers, but on the owners of Rana Plaza, the government(s) that turned a blind eye and the apparel manufacturers around the world that sourced their garments there. However, one year later, I am disappointed by the lack of accountability and that no real change has taken place.

In the immediate aftermath, companies were keen to tell us how committed they were to making sure that families would be compensated and that steps would be taken to ensure that working conditions would be made safer. Many apparel manufacturers have done nothing on either of these issues.

The Rana Plaza Trust Fund was set up to ensure that families and individuals affected by the collapsed factory would receive financial compensation.  According to the Clean Clothes Campaign, 

to date just 1/3 of the funds needed have been contributed and only half of all brands associated with factories in the collapsed building have made any contribution.  On a positive note, Loblaw, owner of Joe Fresh, is one of the largest donors.

The second major initiative was the Bangladesh Accord on Fire and Building Safety. Intended to provide  factory inspections and enforce safer working conditions, it got off to a slow and rocky start. As reported by the Financial Times, ‘ multinationals still cannot agree how to prevent future disasters. As a result they have splintered into two rival five year initiatives doing their own inspections: the Bangladesh Accord on Fire and Building Safety, whose 150-plus corporate signatories are mostly European; and the Alliance for Bangladesh Worker Safety, whose 26 companies are North American.   They have agreed common standards on what constitutes a safe factory, but diverge in their approaches to financing, accountability and legal liability. The biggest distinction is that the Accord companies – including Tesco, Primark, Hennes & Mauritz and Zara-owner Inditex – have cosigned their agreement with 10 labour unions, which can challenge them for not living up to their commitments. The Alliance – whose members include Walmart, Target, Macy’s and GAP – has no union signatories; companies that do not live up to their commitments can be kicked out by their peers.’

A recent report by Transparency International concludes ‘The pace of factory inspection by buyers and their forums as well as by the government is comparatively slow and in some cases did not represent desired level of transparency. Some inspectors representing buyers are subject to risk of conflict of interest.’  

If you are despairing, there is a ray of light to be found. New York University’s Stern School has produced a report  Business as usual is not an option. It offers a 3 pronged approach to solving issues not just in Bangladesh, although that is the focus of the report, but in all of the global supply chain. In a section called The Way Forward, recommendations are made for the business community, government and the international donor community. Its practical and untainted by corporate greenwashing.

Something to think about next time you are buying a 9.99 t shirt.