The coalition took particular aim at the ITIC’s extensive list of companies and organizations it claimed to have an association with on its website, contacting each entity to confirm the state of their relationship. This resulted in demands from Nestlé, the World Bank and law firm Pinsent Masons, among others, that the ITIC immediately remove all references to them from its website. The ITIC has since removed all references to organizations that complained.

“This is a fantastic victory,” said Deborah Arnott, chief executive of Action on Smoking and Health. “For years, this tobacco industry-funded tax think tank has bolstered its credibility by claiming the support of major global organizations – and now those claims have been revealed as completely hollow.”

Describing itself as an organization founded to promote tax reform and public-private initiatives, the ITIC has received significant funding from tobacco companies in the past and often weighs in on tax issues related to tobacco pricing.

In 2014, the director general of the World Health Organization, Margaret Chan, warned attendees at an annual gathering for the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control to not trust the ITIC’s intentions: “Please, do not be fooled by them. Their agenda, at least, is easy to see: to undermine your power, your efforts to adopt the robust, expert-driven proposed guidelines on tobacco tax and price policy.”

The post Butt out appeared first on Corporate Knights.

Centuries of intensive efforts to mould the country’s landscape through dikes and forest clearing resulted in increased agricultural output, but have left it as one of the least wooded countries in Europe. Only 11.1 per cent of the country is forested, according to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

The Action Plan for Forest and Wood, expected to cost around €3 billion, was put together by a working group composed of environmental organizations, the Forestry Commission and companies from the wood and paper industries. It proposes adding 20,000 hectares to existing nature preserves, as well as the creation of several new forests. A plot of largely undeveloped land exists in the middle of Holland’s four largest cities, known as the Green Heart. Other potential locations include the peatlands of Groningen and Drenthe.

Another 30,000 hectares of woodlands would come from temporary forests, which could be developed using fallow land and industrial sites. These would exist for enough time to allow for sufficient tree growth that would make tree harvesting worthwhile and capture carbon from the atmosphere, at which point the land could be used for another purpose.

If completed, the forests are projected to reduce Dutch carbon emissions by 2.4 million tonnes per year. This would make it much easier for the country to reach its 2050 energy and climate targets, while reducing the need for imports of foreign wood.

National farming groups such as the Dutch Federation of Agriculture and Horticulture have come out in opposition to the plan, frustrated that they were left out of the decision-making process and concerned about the potential loss of farmland. Some environmentalists have questioned the emphasis placed on logging these new woodlands, arguing it leads to younger forests that are less valuable from an ecological perspective.

The post Woodland creatures appeared first on Corporate Knights.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimates that three per cent of the world’s emissions come from wastewater treatment. To calculate this figure, it uses a model that assumes these emissions only come from natural sources like methane from human waste. These assumptions are now being challenged by researcher Linda Tseng at Colgate University, who used radiocarbon analysis at three separate test sites around the world.

Tseng concluded that a significant amount of petroleum products were being processed through these waste treatment plants, increasing emissions by between 13 and 23 per cent. Levels of emissions differ dramatically based on the type of industry producing the wastewater, with carbon emissions the highest at the treatment facility attached to an oil refinery. The IPCC assumes that all wastewater treatment facilities produce the same amount of emissions.

“The results of this study provide an opportunity to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, including fossil carbon dioxide, from wastewater treatment facilities,” Tseng wrote in the conclusion of her report. “Strategies could include developing on-site carbon sequestration technology that runs on renewable energy.”

The post Water waste appeared first on Corporate Knights.

France’s first urban cable car entered service last fall in Brest, providing transportation for 1,200 passengers over the Bug River in an attempt to relieve congestion on the city’s two main bridges. Toulouse is constructing a line slated for completion in 2020, while Paris is moving forward with a 4.4 km gondola route that will service a transit-starved corner of the city by 2021. Paris’ Téléval gondola will connect up with five transit stations, helping to bridge the gap between the commuter RER rail service and the subway system. The region of Ile-de-France is also studying the possibility of adding an additional 12 cable cars throughout its transportation system.

Other cities around the world have used urban gondolas for decades, including the South American cities of Medellin, La Paz and Caracas, but those were chosen due to their ability to navigate steep terrain. The lines being built across France are over relatively flat land. Seen as an inexpensive way to address existing gaps in the transit system, cable car lines can also be built in a shorter time frame and are less disruptive than streetcar lines, subways or new bridges. They do suffer from limited capacity, however, are vulnerable to inclement weather and raise privacy concerns for local residents. New technology installed in the Brest gondolas aims to address this by temporarily darkening the windows as the cable cars pass close to existing homes.

Another reason French lawmakers and transit planners are so enthusiastic about urban gondolas is the possibility of keeping production within the country. The gondolas used for the Brest line were constructed by BMF Remontées Mécaniques France in Gières, a suburb of Grenoble located in the French Alps.

The post Up in the air appeared first on Corporate Knights.

The post INFOGRAPHIC: Global meat matters appeared first on Corporate Knights.

In a significant step forward for transparency in supply chain management, Gap Inc. has begun publicly disclosing the list of factories from which it sources shoes and clothing. In September, the specialty retail giant published on its website a list of 885 factories in roughly 30 countries, including locations in China, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Guatemala. Gap’s decision to disclose was spurred through a concerted campaign by Human Rights Watch (HRW) and other NGOs, which have criticized the company for dragging its feet on full disclosure. The company had previously asserted that full transparency regarding suppliers would place it at a competitive disadvantage.

“The growing number of apparel industry leaders disclosing factories is good news for workers, the industry and consumers,” said Aruna Kashyap, HRW’s senior counsel for women’s rights. “Brands that do not disclose are holding out on a critical tool that can promote worker rights.” Other firms that recently made similar disclosures include Marks & Spencer and Dutch clothing chain C&A.

Calls for apparel industry reform have grown louder in the wake of the 2013 Rana Plaza disaster in Bangladesh, which killed 1,138 workers. Although Gap was not named as one of the western firms sourcing clothing from the factory, some of the factories it contracts with have been accused of child labour and other violations over the past several years. Groups like HRW argue that full disclosure of suppliers allows civil society groups to monitor and rapidly alert brand companies to any human rights violations at individual locations, as well as keep tabs on any attempts by factories to use unlicensed subcontractors.

The issue of subcontractors remains an ongoing concern with Gap as cost pressures at the company grow in the face of stagnating sales. Fast fashion competitors like H&M and Zara have demonstrated an ability to place smaller orders and change up styles to be more fashionable in as little as five weeks, placing substantial stress on the supply chain and often resulting in factories subcontracting smaller orders to unknown firms in the area. Last August Gap announced “a new product operating model to increase speed, predictability and responsiveness” in a bid to replicate the success of its rivals.

Zero: Embraer SA

Brazilian aerospace conglomerate Embraer SA agreed in October to a $205 million (U.S.) deferred prosecution agreement with the U.S. Justice Department (DOJ) over a corruption probe spanning three continents. The company admitted wrongdoing and apologized for attempting to circumvent U.S. anti-bribery laws under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, stating that it “deeply regrets” its actions. The fine includes a $107 million payment to the DOJ, as well as $98 million to the Securities and Exchange Commission. Of this sum, $20 million will be deducted and paid out to Brazilian authorities. In addition, the company is obligated to institute a series of internal accounting reforms and hire an independent compliance monitor for the next several years.

The six-year investigation began after reviewing the sale of Eight Super Tucano light attack planes to the Dominican Republic in 2009, which investigators concluded was awarded after a $3.5 million bribe to a local air force official. As the DOJ expanded its inquiry, it teamed up with Saudi and Brazilian officials to identify alleged bribes paid to officials in Saudi Arabia and Mozambique, respectively. In another case, a $5.76 million payment was allegedly made to a third party in India to secure a contract regarding three specialized aircraft for the Indian Air Force. This involved the use of U.K.-based shell companies and falsified books and records.

All told, the DOJ estimated that these four deals earned Embraer $84 million in profits. “Embraer tried to bribe their way into several profitable aircraft contracts around the world,” DOJ assistant special agent in charge William Maddalena said in a statement. “Instead of reaping a nice profit, their criminal conduct earned the Brazilian aircraft manufacturer a substantial penalty that more than wiped out their gains from these contracts.” Authorities in Brazil have arrested 11 individuals implicated in the case, while Saudi police announced that two additional arrests were made.

In recent years, attempts to curb corruption in both public and private spheres have become a dominant theme across Brazil. A corruption investigation centred on state-run oil company Petrobras has ballooned into an ever-expanding $5 billion scandal involving many of Brazil’s largest construction companies and a significant portion of its political class.

The post Heroes and zeros: Gap and Embraer appeared first on Corporate Knights.

What would happen if the 500 million people with over $100 trillion in financial assets invested in a future aligned with their values? It would go a long way to solving most of the world’s material problems like hunger, disease, climate change and the rest of the Sustainable Development Goals, which the UN has estimated to require $5 trillion to $7 trillion annually. It may also make it feasible for political and business leaders to seize a just and sustainable future, emboldened by so many people voting their values with their dollars.

Cicero said “freedom is participation in power.” By aligning their investments with their values, investors have the power to shape a future they believe in. It is reasonable to expect empowered investors to become similarly mindful and increasingly empowered in their roles as consumers, citizens and employees, getting us where we want to go even faster.

This wouldn’t be the first time investors helped change the world. Investors played a critical role in the movements that abolished apartheid in South Africa and made cigarettes a social taboo in North America. But the critics contend that this could never happen at a grand scale. After all, with rare deviations, investors invest to make money, not to save the world, right?

Not quite. It is true that the vast majority of investments take place within an ethical vacuum, but this does not translate into investors having no scruples. Survey after survey confirms that a growing majority of investors are interested in applying their values to their investments, with women and millennials (a cohort set to inherit $30 trillion over the coming decades) leading the charge.

There are three main reasons why 71 per cent of people say they want to invest their values but only one per cent do: a perception that there is a trade-off between investing one’s values and making profits; a lack of know-how, and an absence of fit for purpose investment options.

There are sweet and sour cherries to pick on both sides of the performance debate. The quick summary: Investing your values has almost no impact on performance, and going forward could provide less risk and more opportunity for stocks in greater alignment with societal and planetary interests.

In most cases, the performance difference of applying your values would have been statistically insignificant. That’s because the stocks that make people cringe account for a small portion of the investable universe, and likewise for the stocks that make people feel warm inside. Take the S&P 500: Only 13 per cent of its stocks are associated with the dirty dozen themes of predatory lending, corruption convictions, tobacco, weapons, gambling, pornography, links to repressive regimes, child labour, climate change (thermal coal), private prisons, severe environmental damages and animal cruelty. And only 13 per cent of S&P 500 stocks are gender equity leaders (maintaining more than 30 per cent female directors) or green solution providers (deriving more than 20 per cent of revenues from green sources as determined by Bloomberg or FTSE). Guess how much you would have lost over the past three years if you sold off the former to invest in the latter? Zero. It would not have meaningfully impacted returns. And that’s generally the story, plus or minus one per cent, as verified by over 10,000 simulated scenarios run by Corporate Knights.

While some of these dirty dozen themes have experienced a post-election Trump-bump, the long-term trends point in a good direction for values-based investors. For a long time, companies made profits by externalizing costs onto society or the planet. That business model doesn’t work so well with 7.4 billion people crammed onto a hot and crowded planet with strained public sector balance sheets.

At some point, societies decide they can no longer afford to subsidize these freeloaders and begin to stick companies with the bill either directly or indirectly through regulation. That point has arguably been reached by the 40 countries which already have a placed a price, however modest, on carbon.

Going forward, expect companies that create problems for the planet and society to bear greater costs, and those that deal in solutions to reap more revenues. The trick is figuring out how to act on your values as an investor. That requires knowing which stocks are aligned or not.

Surprisingly, most wealth management companies and platforms do not offer this service to their investors.

Investors want tailored solutions, especially when it comes to their values. So off-the-shelf exchange-traded funds (ETFs) or generic sustainability ratings are unable to satiate this demand alone. There is a dearth of tools which allow people to define and apply their values in the context of their investments. Encouragingly, this is changing fast thanks to better data on the social and environmental attributes of investments, lower trading costs and growing industry appreciation of the importance of customization.

California-based investment advisor Aperio Group pioneered a standardized way to create unique portfolios for investors tailored to exclude companies which are not aligned with their values and to tilt toward low-carbon or clean-tech companies. U.S.-based OpenInvest, whose co-founders herald from WWF, the world’s largest environmental NGO, and Bridgewater, the world’s largest hedge fund, is the first robo-advisor to offer automated portfolios for the mass market tailored to an investor’s specific values.

There are also a growing number of free single-issue tools like Fossil Free Funds and Deforestation Free Funds that make it easy for U.S. investors to figure out what lurks inside their mutual funds. On the more positive side, the Clean200, a Corporate Knights co-production, lists the 200 largest clean energy stocks by revenue.

So what does the future of investing look like? Investors will have the option to populate their personal values profile alongside their investment objectives and to hold a concentrated but diversified portfolio tailored to their risk-reward objectives and values that’s generated and maintained at a fraction of the cost of today’s ETFs.

Anything else would be uncivilized.

Click here to go back to the ranking landing page.

The post Introducing our 2017 Eco-Fund Ratings appeared first on Corporate Knights.

Click here to go back to the ranking landing page.

The post 2017 Eco-Fund Results appeared first on Corporate Knights.

As diners munched on a lunch of chicken and cookies bearing the EPA logo, Gina McCarthy ticked through accomplishments from her four years atop the agency, even though those achievements may soon be undone.

Trump campaigned on a platform that would effectively reverse the Obama administration’s energy policy: more coal and gas, more drilling and no concessions to a climate change agenda. His transition team has promised to unleash a “treasure trove of untapped energy” representing “trillions of dollars in economic output and countless American jobs,” mostly by repealing regulations and freeing up more oil, gas and coal development. International work to push other countries on climate change could also be imperiled.

McCarthy acknowledged the anxiety within the environmental community over the election outcome, but herself projected calm because of one factor that Trump can’t change: the market.

“The global transition to a low-carbon economy is much more than one regulation,” she said. “The energy market and the commitment of the private sector are now driving our inevitable journey.”

While there’s plenty the incoming president can do to promote more oil and gas drilling, reopen long-stalled pipeline discussions and scrap regulations meant to clean emissions from power plants, not much can be done to turn back the energy sector’s transition to cleaner power.

The assembly of Trump’s cabinet gives an indication of how his administration will treat the existing energy and environment infrastructure. The EPA nominee, Oklahoma attorney general Scott Pruitt, wants to strip regulations and return more power to the states. Former Texas governor Rick Perry was chosen to head the Department of Energy, an agency he once pledged to eliminate. Secretary of state nominee Rex Tillerson would come to the government from a stint as CEO of ExxonMobil and is sure to look for new fossil fuel resources.

But whether that’s enough to shift the market remains to be seen.

If there’s a consistent theme to the incoming administration’s philosophy, it is reducing Washington’s authority. Pruitt comes to the EPA having made his career by suing that agency to lift rules on everything from air pollution to clean water (although he was largely unsuccessful). Trump has also named several other advisers – including investor Carl Icahn – who want to shed regulations, which a Republican-controlled Congress will gladly help with.

The EPA will be centre stage for that effort, with one of the biggest targets being the Clean Power Plan. As the bedrock of Obama’s climate action policy, the power plan set state-by-state emissions reduction targets, which could be met through a combination of energy efficiency, reduction in coal-fired power or setting up an early cap-and-trade system among states.

To Democrats, it was a flexible, state-empowering way to get the country on clean energy, but Republicans saw it as the final strike in the so-called “war on coal.” Twenty-seven states (including Pruitt’s Oklahoma) along with major industry groups sued the federal government to halt the rules, resulting in an unexpected Supreme Court ruling that put the plan on temporary hold (a lower court consideration of those arguments will not be decided until early 2017). Republicans in Congress also passed resolutions to overturn the standards, which were vetoed by Barack Obama.

The Trump administration can stop defending it in court and the EPA could re-examine it, although environmentalists have said they’ll keep fighting in court to defend it. The Supreme Court has ruled that the Clean Air Act requires the EPA to address carbon dioxide pollution, which green groups say gives them leeway to keep challenging Trump to keep some sort of power plan regulations on the books. Many states have already made progress on meeting the goals, making it less of a lift.

But Trump’s rollbacks won’t stop with the Clean Power Plan. His transition team has also said that it would stop a Department of the Interior rule on stream protection that has curtailed mountaintop-removal mining and re-examine royalty rates on coal mining. The administration will also reopen a moratorium on federal coal mining leases that was put in place by Interior Secretary Sally Jewell last year as part of a broader review of the environmental and economic impact of coal mining.

Trump is also likely to look at rules that the gas industry has said are restricting hydraulic fracturing and natural gas extraction, including limits on emissions of methane, which traps more heat than carbon dioxide. Rules on water pollution, the use of biofuels and chemical plant safety are also on the target list.

A Republican-controlled Congress will help in reversing some of the rules through legislation; others, written through executive order, can simply be struck down.

The EPA is bound by environmental statutes to clean up water and air and crack down on companies that pollute, and there’s no desire among Republicans to lose those core missions. But the agency could face spending cuts that would hamstring enforcement. And Trump’s EPA could simply sit on regulations it does not want to implement; affected parties would sue, but the slow court system would work to the government’s advantage.

Simply lifting those regulations, though, isn’t expected to revive the fossil fuel industry, as coal has been on the way out for a decade. The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) found that coal production fell 18 per cent in 2016 and that power from natural gas would surpass coal in the U.S. in 2016, owing in large part to the low price of natural gas. Forty-one coal plants closed in 2016 and many more planned expansions have been cancelled – projects that would be expensive and unlikely to restart unless coal somehow became significantly cheaper.

Even the price of solar and wind power have fallen precipitously; the price of residential solar fell 5 per cent between 2015 and 2016, while utility-scale solar fell 12 per cent, according to the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. That’s made renewables more attractive for states and utilities. The EIA found that 70 per cent of the utility-scale generating capacity coming online in 2016 would have zero emissions, mostly from wind and solar.

Whether that would continue without government support remains to be seen. Trump has questioned wind energy, saying over the summer that wind power “kills all your birds” and telling the New York Times that producing wind turbines generates harmful emissions. He would need help from Congress to reverse federal spending on renewable energy, electric vehicles and nuclear power, but could manage to get the support he needs.

Much of the growth in renewables has been aided by a five-year extension of wind and solar production tax credits passed by Congress in 2015, which some environmentalists worry could be at risk in a grand tax deal (although leading Republicans have said they won’t be cut). An analysis by Greentech Media predicted that the market for new solar power could be halved if the tax credits were lost. But individual states and corporations have committed to purchasing renewable power, meaning the market could weather a government attack.

Climate change, of course, is not only a domestic program, and the international stage offers a huge testing ground for the Trump administration’s climate views. Trump famously said climate change was a hoax invented by the Chinese and has cast doubt on the scientific consensus of human impact on the climate.

Speaking to the New York Times in November, Trump showed little evolution on climate change. Although he said he has “a totally open mind,” he also expressed more concern about the business community. “It also depends on how much it’s going to cost our companies,” he said when asked about climate change.

Others in the cabinet similarly question the role of humans in global warming, with one major exception: Tillerson, the secretary of state nominee who has even (sortof) backed a carbon tax in the context of its benefits for the oil industry (see here for more).

It’s hard to say whether Tillerson would prioritize climate change the way his predecessors did. The Obama administration used bilateral agreements with countries like China (with the U.S. setting an emissions reduction target for 2025), India (expanded clean energy research) and Canada (both countries agreed to cut methane emissions) to prod nations to join United Nations talks.

Trump, meanwhile, has hinted that the U.S. could exit the Paris agreement, although some key advisors have pointed out that could send a chilling message (even conservative talk show host Bill O’Reilly has said Trump shouldn’t withdraw to maintain “goodwill” in other international talks). A U.S. exit could cripple the trust holding up the agreement, much like the U.S. government’s failure to ever sign onto the Kyoto Protocol led to that international agreement never coming into force.

So far, countries are promising to stay in, with China especially taking up the mantle of leadership, and major businesses are urging the White House not to give up on the agreement. Nations are still working out the more binding monitoring and compliance mechanisms for the Paris Agreement (the early guts of those mechanisms were discussed at the most recent climate conference in Marrakech), a move that could be weakened if the U.S. leaves.

Without domestic climate action, the U.S. staying in or exiting seems like a symbolic move. But Trump and the Republican-controlled Congress have also said they’d eliminate climate aid to other countries, such as the $3 billion commitment to the UN Green Climate Fund and other payments to help developing countries adapt to rising sea levels or extreme weather.

Tosi Mpanu Mpanu of the Democratic Republic of Congo and a leader of developing nations at the climate talks, told Reuters that his “only worry is the money,” saying it would slow down his country’s progress to cutting its reliance on fossil fuels.

Another area where Trump could have more impact at home and abroad is fossil fuel production and transmission. Industry groups have long wanted to open up public lands and offshore areas for drilling. After the Obama administration in November shut off Atlantic and Arctic areas to drilling, the American Petroleum Institute said the decision would “close the door on creating new jobs and new investments for years.” Republicans have also pushed to lift other restrictions on oil and gas drilling, including Endangered Species Act decisions that have limited economic activity in certain areas.

Trump is sure to work to open up more drilling, although Obama has worked to head him off. In late December, the White House used an offshore leasing law to indefinitely shut off certain Arctic and Atlantic areas to oil drilling, following the November decision to stop leasing them for five years. Reversing those moves would be unprecedented and time-consuming.

It also remains unclear if the industry would even take advantage of the offshore areas. Arctic drilling has attracted little interest because of the high difficulty level and cost, and the gas glut means companies may not be looking for vast new areas anyway. The support from Trump does mean that fossil fuels won’t be phased out as quickly as they would have under a Democratic administration.

Trump’s election also means a likely restart to discussions about cross-border pipelines, like the Keystone XL or Dakota Access Pipeline, which had faced opposition from the Obama administration. Conservatives in Canada have also been urging Liberal Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to restore talks on Keystone, while environmentalists have said it would open up dirty tar sands drilling that would impose a massive climate cost.

In all, Trump’s goals are well established, since they follow much of the Republican orthodoxy from years past. But writing political positions is easy; enacting them in the real world is hard.

Now the question is whether the market will let them become a reality.

The post Make America burn coal again appeared first on Corporate Knights.

The disparate group, which included DuPont, General Mills, Hewlett Packard and Nike, called on U.S. legislators to continue on the low-carbon path established in recent years, invest in solutions both at home and abroad, and remain in the Paris Agreement. Several weeks later, a group of over 100 prominent Canadian business and civil society leaders called on provincial and federal leaders to take bold action on clean growth and climate change.

It’s time to dismiss simplistic narratives about the private sector standing in the way of a more sustainable future. Civil society, governments and the private sector all have a pivotal part to play in the decades to come, and each will need to reinforce and cajole the other. Plenty of corporate climate laggards continue to exist, but their voices are beginning to be eclipsed by the likes of Hewlett Packard’s chief sustainability officer, Lara Birkes. “The Paris Agreement was a vital step forward, but its power is in our collective action,” said Birkes in a statement alongside the open letter. “Business and government leaders must urgently work together to drive a thriving, low-carbon economy.”

Corporate Knights will continue to draw attention to these leading companies through its annual Global 100 Most Sustainable Corporations ranking, now in its 13^th year. German industrial conglomerate Siemens emerged as the top company in our 2017 edition, powered by its growing renewable energy operations and ambitious plan to achieve carbon neutrality by 2030 (see here for more).

Second on the list was Norwegian pension and insurance company Storebrand, known for its aggressive focus on sustainable investing. All of its funds are scored according to an internal sustainability ranking, while the “Storebrand Standard” screens out companies with poor environmental records, a history of human rights violations or corruption charges, the production of tobacco or weapons, and those with a low sustainability rating within its high-risk industry. In third place is Cisco, the U.S.-based technology firm increasingly focused on providing smart city and energy management IT solutions to governments and companies alike.

Almost 20 per cent of firms hailed from the U.S. this year, followed by 12 French corporations and 11 from the U.K. “Strong French performance is likely due to a combination of stringent sustainability reporting requirements under the Grenelle laws, combined with a €450,000 cap on executive pay at state-owned companies,” explained Corporate Knights’ director of research, Michael Yow.

The turnover rate for the list itself increased from 25 per cent in 2016 to 34 per cent, likely due to several changes to the methodology. Corporate Knights had maintained 12 key performance indicators for a number of years due, in part, to how widely disclosed these data points were on a global scale. Additional metrics were not adopted because of the limited value provided by assessing companies on a metric that isn’t available for the majority of companies in the research universe.

With sustainability disclosure practices (slowly) improving, Corporate Knights was able to add two new metrics to the ranking methodology this year: the supplier score and the clean air productivity score.

Click here to go back to the ranking landing page.

The post Celebrating corporate sustainability leadership appeared first on Corporate Knights.