Is Warren Buffett an Ethical Investor?
By Ryan Warm
Warren Buffett is rich, successful and emulated. His investment vehicle, Berkshire Hathaway (BRK), has achieved over 20% annual returns for a 50-year period. Buffett is not however, an ethical investor, which is to say, he does not consider the ethical principles of an investment per se and does not use ethics criteria as a filter for selecting companies in his portfolio. It is not unreasonable to say Buffet agrees with Milton Friedman’s position that economics should be free of value judgements and corporations are only obliged to optimize profits and operate within the law.
SRI, ESG, and Ethical Investing
Fundamental investing relies on valuation principles. By using fundamental analysis tools such as the price/earnings ratio and dividend yield, investors are able to filter through companies to find the right investment. However, the investment process no longer relies solely on financial analysis. The financial industry is currently witnessing a movement where investors only consider buying shares in ethical companies. This movement, pioneered by Socially Responsible Investing (SRI) and Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) criteria, is transforming the role ethics plays in the investing process.
SRI considers both financial return and societal impact when looking at companies in which to invest (Kenton, 2019). Its goal is to invest in companies that have a positive influence on environmental issues, human rights, community involvement, or labor relations. SRI is strongly opposed to all companies dealing with alcohol, tobacco, fast food, gambling, pornography, weapons, and fossil fuel production, because these industries produce strong negative externalities (Camilleri 2017).
ESG criteria are a set of guidelines that allow investors to construct a socially conscious portfolio. It evaluates potential investments on the environmental, social, and leadership impacts companies have on society. The environmental criteria examine a company’s comprehensive influence on sustainability, evaluating its energy use, waste, pollution, fossil fuel consumption, and animal treatment. The social criteria judge a company’s business relationships, ensuring that all suppliers and partners uphold similar ethics standards, and evaluate a company’s working conditions, community involvement, and charitable contributions. The governance benchmarks ensure a corporation’s leadership engages in legal business practices and gives accurate and transparent accounting to clients and investors (Chen, 2019).
SRI and ESG work together to promote ethics in investments, advancing the idea that smart investing and strong ethics do not conflict. Their primary goal it to spread knowledge and encourage people to consider ethical factors when selecting portfolio holdings.
Buffett’s Investment Philosophy
Buffett is a value investor. He isn’t concerned with trends or “hot” stocks – he looks to invest in companies that will have a long future of success and profitability (Hagstrom, p. 60, 2014). He has been known to steer away from growth stocks and stick with the blue-chips (banking and oil industry, large and mature companies). He stands behind the belief that any company with a well-defined business plan and a consistent track record should be able to achieve continuous results in the future. Buffett’s main goal is to identify these companies and purchase them at prices below their indicated value (Hagstrom, p. 130).
When asked in a 1999 interview about the main pillar of his investing strategy, Buffett responded:
The key to investing is not assessing how much an industry is going to affect society, or how much it will grow, but rather determining the competitive advantage of any given company and, above all, the durability of that advantage. The products or services that have wide, sustainable moats around them are the ones that deliver rewards to investors (Archer, 2018).
Here, we get a strong sense of Buffett’s “business over ethics” approach. He also introduces a now-famous term called “economic moats.” An economic moat is the ability of a company to maintain its competitive advantages and market share over the other companies in the market. This can be in the form of cost advantages, size advantages, or intangibles such as brand recognition, government regulation, or patents (Gallant, 2019). Buffett actively seeks companies with large economic moats, namely monopolies and oligopolies, because of their lasting ability to uphold high levels of profitability.
Buffett’s investing style is not an ethics based one for 3 main reasons:
1. He seeks to invest in monopolies and high economic moat companies that erode efficiency and competitive markets,
2. He continues to invest in companies regardless of the unethical actions they take while in his portfolio, and
3. He invests in companies that operate in widely considered unethical industries.
Part 1: Unethical Markets
Buffett has been exceptional over the years at identifying companies with large economic moats and low share prices. There are now indexes that track these moat companies, and ETFs that allow people to easily invest in and recognize them.
Monopolies, duopolies, and oligopolies are unethical because they restrict free markets. These companies have almost no competition, giving them the ability to price fix and supply inferior products without penalization. This leads to an inefficient economy, inadequate companies, dissatisfied consumers, and inflation (Amadeo, 2019).
Case Study 1: The Verisign Monopoly
Buffett famously steers away from growth stocks because he considers them risky and overpriced. Consequently, Buffet has a powerful aversion to the tech industry. However, Berkshire Hathaway is a major investor in Verisign, the largest internet domain name registrar in the world. This is because Verisign is one of the most profitable monopolies in existence.
Verisign is the authoritative registry of all ‘.com’, ‘.net’, ‘.name’, ‘.cc’, ‘.tv’, ‘.edu’, ‘.gov’, and ‘.jobs’ domain names. The company offers domain registry services for many other domain names (Verisign, 2019). As a registry, Verisign creates the “domain name extensions, set the rules for that domain name, and work with registrars to sell domain names to the public” (GoDaddy, 2019). A domain name registrar, such as GoDaddy, Wix, and Squarespace, all sell the domain names that Verisign creates to the public. So, when anyone wants to create a website on any of those domains, regardless of what registrar they use, they must go through Verisign.
Verisign’s ‘.com’ and ‘.net’ names alone provide routing support for 154.8 million domain names. As of March 2019, the total amount of registrations across all domains was 351.8 million. This includes 156.8 million country-code domain name registrations, which are closed to that particular country and cannot be registered by the public (Verisign, 2019). Taking out all country-specific domains, Verisign owns 154.8 million out of 197 million domain names, or about 80% of the industry.
Verisign was granted the exclusive right to the .com and .net domain names by The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). ICANN is a nonprofit registry regulator. In their registry agreement, Verisign can renew its authoritative registry rights automatically as long as it upholds a good performance record. In addition, Verisign holds the right to increase the price of its .net domain name by 10% every year (Dayen, 2019). As of 2018, the wholesale price of a one-year registration or renewal is $9.02, and that number is expected to rise to $14.52 by 2023 (Allemann et al., 2017).
In 2016, a large top-level internet domain scandal occurred when a mysterious company paid ICANN $135 million for the rights to all ‘.web’ internet addresses. At the time, the ‘.web’ domain name was seen as a promising competitor to ‘.com,’ and a blind auction was developed to diversify the control of top-level domain names. To everyone’s surprise, a company named Nu Dot Co bid a total of $135 million to these rights, which is 3 times the amount paid for .com and 7 times the average auction price for a top-level domain (McCarthy, 2018). It was later revealed that Verisign was behind this bid, as its SEC filings announced it had made a $130 million deal with Nu Dot Co for future assignment of contractual rights (Allemann et al., 2016). Fundamentally, Verisign paid $130 million to maintain its monopoly.
The 7 other companies in the bidding war were disgruntled with this process. Nu Dot Co went against the private auction rules, and publicly announced a $135 million bid straight into ICANN’s pocket. There was widespread suspicion about the mysterious company’s origins and leadership. Bidders began making appeals to ICANN, asking for a delay in the auction until further clarification was given. ICANN refused the appeal request in four days, and Verisign upheld its monopoly. (McCarthy, 2018).
There is still controversy surrounding these events. A company named Afilias is still trying to withdraw the agreement. It very recently applied for an independent review of the entire process, claiming that Nu Dot Co had entered an unlawful secret agreement with Verisign, swindling the auction (McCarthy, 2018). Regardless, Verisign appears to benefit from the controversy. No one has been able to use the ‘.web’ domain name for over 3 years, and Verisign’s ‘.com’ and ‘.net’ domain names have almost no competition.
Berkshire Hathaway has held Verisign shares for this entire time period. The company continues to have one of the highest economic margins in the S&P 500. It’s among the most profitable companies in the United States. Buffett hasn’t made a statement on the auction scandal or its current monopoly. He currently holds approximately 13 million shares of Verisign valued at over $2.73 billion (CNBC, 2019).
Case Study 2: The US Airline Oligopoly
Buffett is known to be averse to investments in the airline industry. He frequently talks about his regrettable 1989 investment into USAir, making experts almost certain that he will never own airline stock again. Since then, he has been quoted saying that the industry is “suicidally competitive” and executives participate in “kamikaze behavior.” He even joked that capitalists should have shot down the Wright Brothers’ first plane to save some of investors’ money (Chiglinsky, 2019).
In 2016, that all changed when Berkshire Hathaway made 4 sizeable investments in airline companies. It purchased approximately 47 million shares in American Airlines, 53 million in Delta, 48 million in Southwest, and 28 million in United. This investment totaled approximately 176 million shares and over $9 billion (Dayen, 2019). Today, Berkshire Hathaway has increased its stakes to over 190 million shares and more than $10 billion invested (CNBC, 2019). More recently, Buffett has speculated about owning an airline carrier (Chiglinsky, 2019).
How does someone who spoke out negatively against airline companies become one of the largest shareholders in the 4 biggest U.S. airlines? Between 2008-2013, the airline industry in the U.S. become one massive oligopoly (Dayen, 2019). Mergers between American and US Airways, Delta and Northwest, United and Continental, and Southwest and AirTran successfully created 4 dominant carriers in the U.S. airline industry. Macrotrends released that American Airlines had total annual revenue of $44.541 billion (2019) for 2018, followed by Delta with $44.438 billion (2019), United with $41.303 billion (2019), and Southwest with $21.965 billion (2019), for a total of $152.247 billion. The Bureau of Transportation announced that total revenue for 2018 across all U.S. airlines was $187.5 billion (2018). The 4 airlines make up over 81% of the market.
Buffett didn’t invest heavily in these airlines because of a change of heart. He invested in them because, collectively, they are a monopoly. The airlines successfully created an economic moat.
Part 2: Unethical Companies
Buffett tends to stick with his investments regardless of their unethical actions. Whenever a company faces a scandal or lawsuit, public opinion drops, and so does the company’s share price. As a value investor, Buffett would never sell a top-rated company when it’s undervalued. Buffett regularly overlooks the ethics of companies and uses rational optimization as his only filter for decision.
Case Study 3: Moody’s Role in the 2008 Financial Crisis
An illustrative example of both an unethical market and company is Moody’s. Moody’s Corporation is a credit rating company. It conducts research on debt securities, such as bonds, issued by commercial and government entities, evaluating their ability to repay loans (CFR Staff, 2015). Essentially, if the issuers of the debt security aren’t able to repay their loans, the securities receive bad ratings. Conversely, securities issued by credit worthy borrowers receive good ratings.
Credit rating agencies are one of the most highly government regulated entities. Because of this, the ‘big three’ credit rating agencies, Moody’s, Standard & Poor’s, and Fitch, are longstanding, and continue to control 95% of the credit ratings market to this day (CFR Staff, 2015). This gives some insight on why Buffett became a supporter of Moody’s in the first place.
Prior to the 2008 financial crisis, credit agencies weren’t sufficiently monitored. Due to a lack of regulation and accountability, companies could essentially pay the rating agencies to give their securities a good rating score, regardless of the quality of debt. In fear of losing business, rating agencies began administering AAA ratings (the highest investment grade) to numerous ‘junk status’ mortgage related securities. This gave millions of investors false confidence in the financial standing of these securities. The financial industry was unknowingly taking on more risk than it was capable of, serving as a major contributor to the 2008 financial crisis. In 2011, the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission stated that the 3 rating agencies were key enablers of the financial meltdown (Zaidi, 2016). Through 2007, rating agencies gave the highest AAA rating to over $3 trillion of loans to homebuyers with bad credit and undocumented income (Smith, 2008).
When Moody’s went public in 2000, Berkshire Hathaway already held 15% of the company. By 2008, this increased to over 20% (Dayen, 2019). Despite the controversy surrounding credit agencies and their roles in the meltdown that affected millions of people worldwide, Buffett made no change in his holdings. When asked by the FCIC if he was satisfied with the internal controls at Moody’s, Buffett replied that he had no idea, and that he didn’t even know where it was located. He then went on to say that he was only invested in the company because the rating agency business was a natural duopoly, giving them incredible pricing power and control (The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, 2011).
To this day, Berkshire Hathaway owns just under 25 million shares of Moody’s, 13% of the company, worth almost $5 billion (CNBC, 2019). As an investor, Buffett does not appear to take a company’s ethics or integrity into consideration, and is seemingly oblivious to the negative societal impacts of the companies in which he invests.
Case Study 4: Teva Pharmaceuticals – Price Fixing and the Opioid Crisis
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries is an Israeli multinational pharmaceutical company that specializes in generic drugs and pharmaceutical ingredients (Yahoo!, 2019). Berkshire Hathaway owns over 43 million shares in Teva, for a total of $365 million and 4.2% stake in the company (CNBC, 2019).
In May 2019, 44 U.S. states filed a lawsuit against Teva for price fixing, claiming it colluded with competitors to inflate its drug prices up to 1000% (CNBC, 2019). Price-fixing is a staggering problem in the pharmaceutical industry. Teva is a generic drug production company, meaning that it specializes in cheaper, non-prescription medicine (Upenn, 2019). Price-fixing their drugs leaves many people unable to pay for the medicine to alleviate ailments such as diabetes, cancer, epilepsy, multiple scleroses, and HIV.
In that same month, Teva agreed to pay an $85 million settlement with the state of Oklahoma in an opioid case. The company was accused of “creating a public nuisance through its production and marketing of opioids” (Sant, 2019). The Opioid Crisis, characterized by the misuse of and addiction to opioids, is a serious national crisis in the US affecting public health and social welfare. This is largely due to pharmaceutical companies’ promotion of prescription opioid pain relievers. In 2017, overdose deaths involving opioids climbed to over 47,000. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that 36% of those deaths involved prescription opioids (National Institution on Drug Abuse, 2019).
Once again, Berkshire Hathaway is invested in a company that has a severely negative impact on society. There has been no reaction by Buffett, and Teva still remains in his company’s holdings.
Part 3: Unethical Industries
Buffett also tends to take interest in companies that operate in an unethical industry. He currently owns significant stakes in the oil and fast food industries, giving more reason to believe that he follows few moral standards when looking to add companies to his holdings.
Case Study 5: The Negative Environmental Impact of Phillips 66 and Occidental Petroleum
It’s widely agreed that oil companies are bad for the environment. They disrupt wildlife migration routes, pollute air and water with toxic chemicals and dust, and emit a large percentage of all U.S. methane emissions (The Wilderness Society). Instead of contributing to the problems of pollution and climate change, Buffett should be seeking out more environmentally-friendly energy and fuel companies.
Berkshire Hathaway owns over 5 million shares in Phillips 66 worth over $500 million (CNBC, 2019). Phillips 66 is one of America’s largest oil refiners, operating 11 facilities in the country. It currently has the capacity to refine 2.2 million barrels of oil per day in the U.S. and Europe, making it the second-largest independent refiner in the world (DiLallo, 2017).
Berkshire Hathaway also very recently invested $10 billion in Occidental Petroleum, another fossil fuel powerhouse. This $10 billion investment was used by Occidental to acquire Anadarko Petroleum Corporation (GuruFocus, 2019). Anadarko has large control over the Permian Basin, which is capable of producing four million barrels of oil a day. Buffett announced that this investment was a bet on oil prices, in hopes prices will rise in the near future. He also said it was a “bet on the fact that the Permian Basin is what it is cracked up to be” (Li, 2019). The Permian Basin is currently projected to burn off 661 million cubic feet of natural gas per day. This estimate exceeds all previous estimates, as the Basin is now contributing more waste and pollution than ever before (Blum, 2019).
Phillips 66 is number 21 on the list of the “Top 100 Producers and Their Cumulative Greenhouse Gas Emissions” from 1988-2015, producing 0.91% of global industrial greenhouse gas emissions. Occidental Petroleum Corp is number 55, producing 0.26% of global industrial greenhouse gas emissions (Riley, 2017).
Case Study 6: The Coca-Cola Company – Youth Health and Animal Abuse Concerns
Berkshire Hathaway has been a longtime investor and advocate for the Coca-Cola company. Sugary drinks are a major contributor to health conditions such as obesity, type 2 diabetes, and heart disease (Whiteman, 2015). Despite this, Coca-Cola refuses to acknowledge the impact that sweet beverages have on consumers’ health – particularly children.
Coca-Cola says it won’t market its soda products to children under 12, but investigations by the Center for Science in the Public Interest find that is not always the case (Cronin, 2016). The company regularly advertises on family-oriented TV shows and theme parks. It also features advertisements with polar bears and Santa Claus, which both target younger audiences. The Coca-Cola logo can also be found on toys and clothing made intentionally for children.
Coca-Cola also recently tried to convince the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to shift attention away from sugar-sweetened beverages. Emails between Coca-Cola and the CDC were obtained where Coca-Cola attempted to influence their policies and beliefs towards the impact of sugar drinks on obesity (Hessari et al., 2019). The company has also been caught funding scientists who shift the blame of obesity and heart risks away from sugary drinks (Chase-Lubitz & Snider, 2019).
Coca-Cola is also regularly accused of operations that have negative impacts on environmental and product safety issues, labor issues, and human rights issues (Mattera, 2016). Currently, the Coca-Cola owned milk brand Fairlife is under scrutiny for animal abuse allegations (Nicolosi, 2019). Buffett has made no comment on any of these issues. Berkshire Hathaway continues to own 400 million shares valued at over $20 billion, for a total 9.4% stake in the company (CNBC, 2019).
Closing Remarks
As the CEO of one of the largest holding companies in the United States, it may not be reasonable for Buffett to only invest in completely ethical companies. Buffett believes his top priority is to maximize shareholder value. Buffett is an outstanding CEO, prominent philanthropist, and by no means an unethical person. But, his investment strategies are outdated, allowing him to invest in unethical markets, companies, and industries. He needs to consider the ethical principles of an investment and use ethics judgement as a filter for selecting companies for his portfolio. By looking to the guidelines of the ESG criteria and utilizing some SRI techniques, Buffett can use his strong following to exhibit that ethics and investing are not mutually exclusive and have a strong positive influence on society.
Works Cited
“7 Ways Oil and Gas Drilling Is Bad for the Environment.” The Wilderness Society, www.wilderness.org/articles/article/7-ways-oil-and-gas-drilling-bad-environment.
“Airline Financial Data.” 2018 Annual and 4th Quarter U.S. Airline Financial Data | Bureau of Transportation Statistics, 16 May 2019, www.bts.gov/newsroom/2018-annual-and-4th-quarter-us-airline-financial-data.
Allemann, Andrew, et al. “It Looks like Verisign Bought .Web Domain for $135 Million (SEC Filing).” Domain Name Wire | Domain Name News & Website Stuff, 29 July 2016, domainnamewire.com/2016/07/28/looks-like-verisign-bought-web-domain-135-million-sec-filing/.
Allemann, Andrew, et al. “Verisign Announces 10% .Net Price Hike, Could Hit $14.52 in 2023.” Domain Name Wire | Domain Name News & Website Stuff, 28 July 2017, domainnamewire.com/2017/07/28/verisign-net/.
Amadeo, Kimberly. “What Are Monopolies and How Do They Impact the Economy?” The Balance, The Balance, 7 May 2019, www.thebalance.com/monopoly-4-reasons-it-s-bad-and-its-history-3305945.
“American Airlines Group Revenue 2006-2019 | AAL.” Macrotrends, 2019, www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/AAL/american-airlines-group/revenue.
Archer, Seth. “A Key to Warren Buffett’s Investing Strategy Is Incredibly Easy to Replicate (MOAT) | Markets Insider.” Business Insider, Business Insider, 13 Feb. 2018, markets.businessinsider.com/news/etf/warren-buffett-moat-etf-simple-explanation-for-how-he-invests-and-its-easy-to-replicate-2017-10-1005613232.
“Berkshire Hathaway Portfolio Tracker.” CNBC, CNBC, 20 May 2019, www.cnbc.com/berkshire-hathaway-portfolio/.
Blum, Jordan. “Permian Gas Flaring Hits New Record Highs for ‘Widespread Waste,’ Pollution.” Houston Chronicle, Houston Chronicle, 5 June 2019, www.chron.com/business/energy/article/Permian-gas-flaring-hits-new-record-high-of-13935370.php.
Business Radio. “Generic Drug Price Fixing: Will Manufacturers Pay?” Knowledge@Wharton, 20 May 2019, knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/generic-drug-price-fixing/.
Camilleri, Mark Anthony. Corporate Sustainability, Social Responsibility and Environmental Management: an Introduction to Theory and Practice with Case Studies. Springer Nature, an Imprint of Springer International Publishing AG, 2017.
CFR Staff. “The Credit Rating Controversy.” Council on Foreign Relations, Council on Foreign Relations, 19 Feb. 2015, www.cfr.org/backgrounder/credit-rating-controversy.
Chase-Lubitz, Jesse, and Annie Snider. “Coca-Cola Tried to Influence CDC on Research and Policy, New Report States.” POLITICO, 29 Jan. 2019, www.politico.com/story/2019/01/29/coke-obesity-sugar-research-1125003.
Chen, James. “Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) Criteria.” Investopedia, Investopedia, 10 May 2019, www.investopedia.com/terms/e/environmental-social-and-governance-esg-criteria.asp.
Chiglinsky, Katherine. “Buffett’s Course Reversal on Airlines Sparks Talk of Acquisition.” Bloomberg.com, Bloomberg, 22 Mar. 2019, www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-03-22/buffett-s-course-reversal-on-airlines-sparks-talk-of-acquisition.
Cronin, Jeff. “Coke Markets to Children Despite Pledge Not to, Report Finds.” Coke Markets to Children Despite Pledge Not to, Report Finds | Center for Science in the Public Interest, 16 May 2016, cspinet.org/new/201605161.html.
Dayen, David. “Special Investigation: The Dirty Secret Behind Warren Buffett’s Billions.” The Nation, 21 Feb. 2018, www.thenation.com/article/special-investigation-the-dirty-secret-behind-warren-buffetts-billions/.
“Delta Air Lines Revenue 2006-2019 | DAL.” Macrotrends, 2019, www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/DAL/delta-air-lines/revenue.
DiLallo, Matthew. “5 Things You Didn’t Know About Phillips 66.” The Motley Fool, The Motley Fool, 29 June 2017, www.fool.com/investing/2017/06/29/5-things-you-didnt-know-about-phillips-66.aspx.
“Domain Name Industry Brief (DNIB).” Verisign, 2019, www.verisign.com/en_US/domain-names/dnib/index.xhtml.
“Drugmakers Allegedly Inflated Prices over 1,000% and 44 States Are Now Suing.” CNBC, CNBC, 13 May 2019, www.cnbc.com/2019/05/11/us-states-accuse-teva-and-other-drugmakers-of-colluding-to-inflate-prices-over-1000percent.html.
Gallant, Chris. “What Is an Economic Moat?” Investopedia, Investopedia, 24 June 2019, www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/05/economicmoat.asp.
GuruFocus. “Warren Buffett Commits $10 Billion To Occidental Acquisition Of Anadarko.” Forbes, Forbes Magazine, 1 May 2019, www.forbes.com/sites/gurufocus/2019/05/01/warren-buffett-commits-10-billion-to-occidental-acquisition-of-anadarko/#12b92b9b5331.
Hagstrom, Robert G. The Warren Buffett Way. Wiley, 2014.
Hessari, Nason Maani, et al. “Public Meets Private: Conversations Between Coca-Cola and the CDC | Milbank Quarterly.” Milbank Memorial Fund, 29 Jan. 2019, www.milbank.org/quarterly/articles/public-meets-private-conversations-between-coca-cola-and-the-cdc/.
Kenton, Will. “Ethical Investing.” Investopedia, Investopedia, 12 Mar. 2019, www.investopedia.com/terms/e/ethical-investing.asp.
Li, Yun. “Warren Buffett Explains Why He’s Making a Bet in the Energy Industry.” CNBC, CNBC, 4 May 2019, www.cnbc.com/2019/05/04/warren-buffett-explains-why-hes-making-a-bet-in-the-energy-industry.html.
Mattera, Philip. “Coca-Cola Company: Corporate Rap Sheet | Corporate Research Project.” Good Jobs First, 7 Jan. 2016, www.corp-research.org/coca-cola-company.
McCarthy, Kieren. “The Curious Tale of ICANN, Verisign, Claims of Subterfuge, and the $135m .Web Dot-Word.” The Register® – Biting the Hand That Feeds IT, The Register, 7 Dec. 2018, www.theregister.co.uk/2018/12/07/dot_web_review/.
National Institute on Drug Abuse. “Opioid Overdose Crisis.” NIDA, 22 Jan. 2019, www.drugabuse.gov/drugs-abuse/opioids/opioid-overdose-crisis.
Nicolosi, Mary. “Fairlife, Coca-Cola, Hit with Second Wave of Lawsuits over Animal Abuse Allegations.” Foodnavigator, 20 June 2019, www.foodnavigator-usa.com/Article/2019/06/20/Fairlife-Coca-Cola-hit-with-second-wave-of-lawsuits-over-animal-abuse-allegations.
Riley, Tess. “Just 100 Companies Responsible for 71% of Global Emissions, Study Says.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 10 July 2017, www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10/100-fossil-fuel-companies-investors-responsible-71-global-emissions-cdp-study-climate-change.
Sant, Shannon Van. “Teva Pharmaceuticals Agrees To $85 Million Settlement With Oklahoma In Opioid Case.” NPR, NPR, 26 May 2019, www.npr.org/2019/05/26/727179915/teva-pharmaceuticals-agrees-to-85-million-settlement-with-oklahoma-in-opioid-cas.
“Southwest Airlines Revenue 2006-2019 | LUV.” Macrotrends, 2019, www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/LUV/southwest-airlines/revenue.
Smith, Blair. “Bringing Down Wall Street as Ratings Let Loose Subprime Scourge.” Bloomberg.com, Bloomberg, 24 Sept. 2008, www.bloomberg.com/politics?pid=newsarchive&sid=ah839IWTLP9s
“Teva Pharmaceutical Industries (TEVA) Company Profile & Facts.” Yahoo! Finance, Yahoo!, 25 June 2019, finance.yahoo.com/quote/TEVA/profile/.
“The Financial Crisis Inquiry Report.” The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commision, January 2011.
“United Continental Holdings Revenue 2006-2019 | UAL.” Macrotrends, 219AD, www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/UAL/united-continental-holdings/revenue.
“Verisign As A Domain Registry.” Verisign As A Domain Registry, 2019, www.verisign.com/en_US/domain-names/domain-registry/index.xhtml.
“What Is the Difference between a Registry, Registrar and Registrant?” What Is the Difference between a Registry, Registrar and Registrant? | Domains – GoDaddy Help US, 2019, www.godaddy.com/help/what-is-the-difference-between-a-registry-registrar-and-registrant-8039.
Whiteman, Honor. “How Coca-Cola Affects Your Body When You Drink It.” Medical News Today, MediLexicon International, 15 Aug. 2015, https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/297600.php
Zaidi, Deena, et al. “The Indisputable Role of Credit Ratings Agencies in the 2008 Collapse, and Why Nothing Has Changed.” Truthout, Truthout, 16 Mar. 2016, truthout.org/articles/the-indisputable-role-of-credit-ratings-agencies-in-the-2008-collapse-and-why-nothing-has-changed/.
Photo: Courtesy of shakarasquare.com