EXCLUSIVE: Watchdog Warns Land O’Lakes To Steer Clear Of ‘Unrealistic’ Climate Targets

After their net-zero pledges expired, these companies set a course without SBTi

New York AG says meat producing giant made misleading environmental claims to boost sales

1792 Exchange Joins the Eagle Freedom Alliance

WASHINGTON, D.C. —1792 Exchange is pleased to announce it has joined the Eagle Freedom Alliance, a coalition working to strengthen corporate accountability for human trafficking, child exploitation, and related harms.  The core thesis of the Eagle Freedom Alliance is that public companies face too little accountability for their role in trafficking and exploitation because data is sparse, and best practices often generate temporary attention without lasting change. Eagle’s model is designed to solve that problem by connecting solution builders and data experts with coordinated, public advocacy and direct corporate engagement. Members of the growing coalition include Eagle Freedom Funds, Guidestone Funds, Vident, The Knoble, Clapham Accelerator, Brightlight, and others.  The importance of this work is seen in the scope of the problem – there are an estimated 27 million labor trafficking victims in supply chains and more than 6 million sex trafficking victims worldwide. Eagle’s approach to solving that problem is simple but effective: work with experts to identify and build effective solutions, publicly recognize companies demonstrating leadership on the issue, and encourage other corporations to adopt stronger practices through constructive corporate engagement.  The Alliance and its approach are already gaining traction. Its investors and advisors represent more than $100 billion in assets under management and have publicly recognized companies including UPS, Truist, and Fifth Third Bank for practices that embed human crime awareness into institutional policies and practices to help prevent, detect, and disrupt human trafficking and child exploitation.  The Eagle network will provide new insight into how companies address forced labor and child exploitation in their policies and …

Tale of Two Rebrands: Cracker Barrel Listened. Jaguar Did Not. The Results Speak Loudly

It was the best of times for customer loyalty. It was the worst of times for corporate rebranding. In a span of two years, two iconic brands ventured into the same storm and shipwrecked their reputations and their stock prices all in the name of “reinvention.”   One heard the roar from loyal customers and adjusted course. The other remained willfully deaf. The results tell the story, even for those who still don’t want to hear it.  In the dog days of August 2025, Cracker Barrel unveiled a stripped-down new logo and began remodeling its restaurants, scrubbing out the nostalgia-rich clutter for a more antiseptic, sure-to-be-dated-in-a-year look. Unsurprisingly, faithful customers noticed and responded immediately. The familiar barrel with Uncle Herschel seated nearby vanished. The warm, unpretentious and inviting character that had defined the chair for decades seemed to evaporate in a moment. Sales, which had already been slowing due to declining food quality complaints, suffered more. The stock price plummeted, wiping out tens of millions in market value in days.  Investors following the company closely raised concerns, including investor Sardar Biglari who specifically outlined the downsides of the rebrand, calling the $700 million transformation plan “obvious folly” well before the company poured capital into the doomed project. High profile voices across media and online platforms joined in to amplify the disconnect. Even President Trump joined the conversation posting on Truth Social “Cracker Barrel should go back to the old logo, admit a …

As You Sow Misleads Readers about Anti-DEI Proposals

Earlier this summer, as the 2025-2026 proxy season came to a close, leading progressive shareholder group As You Sow intentionally misled readers about the success of anti-DEI proposals. As You Sow suggested that voting results on anti-DEI shareholder proposals at 43 companies this season, including Disney, Costco, Visa, and Apple, proved that 99% of investors are opposed to anti-DEI measures.  As You Sow claimed that the universal failure of these proposals sends an “unmistakable message” to corporate boards that DEI is a “financial asset” that directors need to prioritize for the needs of the company, labelling anti-DEI efforts as a “political threat.” A 0-43 record for anti-DEI proposals does appear striking at first. However, no ESG proposals won majority support in the 2025-2026 proxy season, which includes pro-DEI proposals at 0-10 with an average support around 13%.  According to Broadridge’s 2025 ProxyPulse report, voting by retail investors “declined to 28% of their shares owned in 2025,” which is the lowest level of participation in 9 years. Low retail investor participation is the historical norm, as proxy votes are disproportionately cast by large institutions on their behalf, not by individual investors. As You Sow knows this. Furthermore, for As You Sow to suggest that “[d]iversity is not a liability to be managed, it is a dividend to be captured” when companies like IBM and Nike have recently faced intense scrutiny for their DEI practices is absurd.  To learn more about the Myth of Shareholder Democracy, consider reading Stefan Padfield’s piece titled: Proxy Voting and the Myth About Shareholder Democracy. 

DEI by Another Name

In response to legal, political, consumer, or shareholder pressures, companies are increasingly replacing “DEI” terminology with broader terms such as “Inclusion,” “Culture,” or “Belonging,” while providing little explanation as to whether the changes are substantive or primarily cosmetic.  For example, CVS Health renamed its public-facing DEI page to ”Inclusion & Belonging” without issuing a public statement explaining the change. The company also stopped referencing a diversity pay metric for leadership in their annual 10-K filing. Similarly, Home Depot quietly removed its DEI webpage and replaced it with a ”Living Our Values“ section. While these changes alter the public branding, they do not necessarily clarify whether the companies’ underlying policies or priorities have materially changed.  From a shareholder perspective, this lack of transparency can create uncertainty about a company’s strategic direction and how it intends to approach politically and socially contentious issues going forward. It is in companies’ best fiduciary interest to clearly communicate whether they are maintaining, modifying, or discontinuing DEI-related initiatives rather than simply changing terminology. Providing that clarity allows shareholders and other stakeholders to better understand the company’s priorities and evaluate whether its policies remain focused on advancing its core business objectives and long-term fiduciary responsibilities.  Home Depot’s Previous DEI Page vs Its “Rebranded” Page