Claim

Anheuser Busch was taken over by the Belgian company InBev in 2008.

Veracity Rating: 4 out of 4

Facts

## Claim Evaluation: Anheuser-Busch Acquisition by InBev

The claim that Anheuser-Busch was taken over by the Belgian company InBev in 2008 is **verified** through multiple reliable sources.

### Evidence Supporting the Claim

1. **Acquisition Details**: On July 14, 2008, Anheuser-Busch accepted a $52 billion takeover offer from InBev, marking the end of Anheuser-Busch's independence as a premier American brewer[1][3]. This deal created the world's largest brewing company, with annual revenues exceeding $36 billion[1][4].

2. **Corporate Structure Post-Acquisition**: The new entity was named Anheuser-Busch InBev, with Carlos Brito, InBev's CEO at the time, leading the company. The merger aimed to create a stronger global brand portfolio and distribution network[1].

3. **Impact on Anheuser-Busch and St. Louis**: The acquisition led to significant changes in St. Louis, where Anheuser-Busch was headquartered. It resulted in job losses and a reduction in the local advertising industry, as InBev cut marketing budgets and relocated the marketing department to New York[3].

### Additional Context

– **Cultural Shifts and Marketing Decisions**: The acquisition led to a cultural shift within Anheuser-Busch, with a greater emphasis on cost-cutting and stakeholder capitalism. This shift has been associated with misguided marketing decisions that alienated core consumers, such as recent controversies involving partnerships with influencers[Note: Specific details about these controversies are not covered in the provided sources].

– **Sales Declines and Consumer Reaction**: While the sources do not specifically address recent sales declines or consumer reactions like boycotts, they do highlight the significant changes and challenges faced by Anheuser-Busch post-acquisition.

### Conclusion

The claim that Anheuser-Busch was acquired by InBev in 2008 is supported by historical business records and news archives. The acquisition marked a significant shift in the global brewing industry and had profound impacts on Anheuser-Busch's operations and cultural identity. However, specific recent marketing controversies and their effects on sales are not detailed in the provided sources.

### Recommendations for Further Analysis

For a comprehensive understanding of the current situation, including recent marketing decisions and consumer reactions, additional sources such as business news articles and market analysis reports would be beneficial. These could provide insights into how Anheuser-Busch InBev's leadership has navigated these challenges and the broader implications for corporate governance and brand identity.

Citations

• [1] https://www.industryweek.com/leadership/companies-executives/article/21948686/the-battle-is-over-inbev-buys-anheuser-busch
• [2] https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2008-jul-08-fi-bud8-story.html
• [3] https://www.stlpr.org/economy-business/2018-07-13/ab-inbev-merger-still-stings-10-years-later
• [4] https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2008-11-25/pdf/E8-27970.pdf
• [5] https://www.britannica.com/money/Anheuser-Busch-InBev

Claim

Anheuser Busch experienced a loss of 50% of its sales with Bud Light by 2023.

Veracity Rating: 1 out of 4

Facts

The claim that Anheuser Busch experienced a loss of 50% of its sales with Bud Light by 2023 is not supported by available data. Here's a breakdown of the actual impact on Bud Light sales based on reliable sources:

## Sales Impact of the Boycott

1. **Initial Decline**: In the weeks following the controversy involving transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney, Bud Light experienced significant sales drops. For instance, in the week ending April 8, 2023, sales dropped by 11%, and by 21% in the week ending April 15, 2023[3]. By May 1, 2023, off-premise sales had declined by 26%[3].

2. **Quarterly Performance**: In the April-to-June quarter of 2023, Anheuser-Busch reported a 10.5% decline in U.S. revenue, primarily due to decreased Bud Light sales[2]. This period saw Bud Light's U.S. sales down by 26.5%[2].

3. **Long-term Impact**: By Q4 2023, Bud Light's sales and purchase incidence remained down by about 32% compared to previous years[1]. This sustained decline was more pronounced in Republican-leaning counties initially but later became more uniform across different political regions[1].

## Market Share and Competitors

– **Market Position**: Bud Light lost its position as America's best-selling beer to Modelo Especial in June 2023, with Modelo controlling 8.4% of U.S. grocery, convenience, and liquor store sales, while Bud Light held 7.3%[4].

– **Competitor Gains**: Brands like Coors and Miller benefited from the boycott, with some former Bud Light customers shifting to these brands[1]. Modelo's sales continued to rise, partly due to its broader appeal and marketing efforts[4].

## Conclusion

While Bud Light did experience significant sales declines following the boycott, the claim of a 50% loss in sales by 2023 is not supported by available data. The actual decline was substantial but not to that extent. The boycott led to a sustained decrease in sales, but the exact figure was around 32% by Q4 2023, not a 50% reduction[1][3]. Additionally, the company's overall revenue was impacted, but global brands helped offset some losses[2][3].

In summary, the claim exaggerates the extent of the sales decline, and the actual impact, while significant, was not as severe as stated.

Citations

• [1] https://hbr.org/2024/03/lessons-from-the-bud-light-boycott-one-year-later
• [2] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/bud-light-anheuser-busch-dylan-mulvaney-beer-sales/
• [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bud_Light_boycott
• [4] https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/bud-light-americas-top-beer-for-decades-falls-to-second-following-lgbtq-marketing-backlash

Claim

The U.S. stock market has generated an average return of 10% per year over the last 40 years.

Veracity Rating: 3 out of 4

Facts

To evaluate the claim that the U.S. stock market has generated an average return of 10% per year over the last 40 years, we need to examine historical stock market performance data, particularly focusing on the S&P 500, which is a widely used benchmark for the U.S. stock market.

## Historical Stock Market Returns

1. **S&P 500 Returns Over Time**: The S&P 500 has historically provided an average annual return of about 10% over long periods. For instance, over the last 100 years, the annualized return was 10.49%[1]. However, this figure can vary significantly depending on the specific time frame and whether dividends are reinvested.

2. **Recent Performance**: Over the past few decades, the S&P 500 has shown varying returns. For example, the average annual return over the last 30 years was approximately 9% to 10.7%[1][2]. Adjusted for inflation, these returns are lower, typically around 6% to 8%[1][2].

3. **40-Year Period**: While specific data for the exact 40-year period is not provided in the search results, we can infer from the available information. The S&P 500's performance over the last 30 years (which includes part of the 40-year period) has been around 9% to 10.7% annually[1][2]. Given the historical trend, it is plausible that the average return over the last 40 years could be close to 10%.

## Validation of the Claim

– **Supporting Evidence**: The claim is generally supported by historical data showing that the S&P 500 has averaged around 10% annual returns over long periods[1][2][4]. However, actual returns can fluctuate significantly from year to year[4].

– **Inflation Adjustment**: When adjusted for inflation, the real returns are typically lower, around 6% to 8%[1][2][5]. This adjustment is crucial for understanding the purchasing power of the returns.

– **Volatility and Variability**: The stock market is inherently volatile, with returns varying widely from year to year[4]. Thus, while the long-term average might be around 10%, individual years can see much higher or lower returns[2][4].

## Conclusion

The claim that the U.S. stock market has generated an average return of 10% per year over the last 40 years is generally consistent with historical data, particularly when considering the S&P 500 as a benchmark. However, it is essential to note that actual returns can vary significantly due to market volatility and that inflation-adjusted returns are typically lower. The claim is supported by long-term trends but should be understood within the context of these factors.

In summary, while the claim is broadly accurate based on historical averages, it is crucial to consider the variability of returns and the impact of inflation when evaluating investment performance.

Citations

• [1] https://tradethatswing.com/average-historical-stock-market-returns-for-sp-500-5-year-up-to-150-year-averages/
• [2] https://www.sofi.com/learn/content/average-stock-market-return/
• [3] https://themeasureofaplan.com/us-stock-market-returns-1870s-to-present/
• [4] https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/investing/average-stock-market-return
• [5] https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/042415/what-average-annual-return-sp-500.asp

Claim

Europe's stock market returns average 6 to 7% over the last 40 years.

Veracity Rating: 2 out of 4

Facts

To evaluate the claim that Europe's stock market returns average 6 to 7% over the last 40 years, we need to consider historical financial data and compare it with U.S. stock market returns over the same period.

## Historical Stock Market Returns

1. **European vs. U.S. Stock Market Returns**: Historically, the U.S. stock market has outperformed European markets, especially since the financial crisis of 2008. Over the period from 1970 to 2025, the average annual return for the U.S. market was 12.2%, while Europe's was 11.4%[2]. This indicates that while Europe's returns are somewhat lower, they are still in the vicinity of the claimed range when considering the entire period.

2. **Post-2008 Performance**: Since 2008, the U.S. has significantly outperformed Europe, with a 7.1 percentage-point annual advantage[2]. This divergence suggests that Europe's average returns might be lower than the U.S. over the past four decades, particularly in recent years.

3. **Long-Term Trends**: Prior to 2008, European markets had periods of strong performance, sometimes outperforming the U.S.[2]. However, the claim of a consistent 6 to 7% average return for Europe over 40 years is not explicitly supported by the available data. Instead, it suggests variability with periods of both underperformance and outperformance relative to the U.S.

## Anheuser Busch Case Study

The discussion about Anheuser Busch's decline and its acquisition by InBev highlights issues related to corporate governance and cultural shifts but does not directly impact the broader stock market return analysis. It illustrates challenges faced by specific companies under new ownership but does not provide evidence for or against the claim about European stock market returns.

## Conclusion

While the claim that Europe's stock market returns average 6 to 7% over the last 40 years is plausible given the overall average annual return of 11.4%[2], it lacks specific confirmation from historical financial data. The actual average return might be influenced by various factors, including economic conditions and market fluctuations. Therefore, without precise data specifying a consistent 6 to 7% return, the claim remains somewhat speculative but is within the realm of possibility considering the broader trends.

In summary, historical data supports that European stock markets have generally returned around 11.4% annually over the past several decades, which is somewhat higher than the claimed range. However, specific annual returns can vary significantly, and the claim might not accurately reflect consistent performance across all years.

Citations

• [1] https://www.wisdomtree.com/investments/blog/2019/10/22/can-europes-dismal-decade-turn-around
• [2] https://blog.rangvid.com/2025/01/26/european-vs-us-stocks-which-market-comes-out-on-top/
• [3] https://tradingeconomics.com/euro-area/stock-market
• [4] https://www.invesco.com/us/en/insights/stock-market-europe-us.html
• [5] https://tradingeconomics.com/germany/stock-market

Claim

In 2020, over 70 different companies in the United States donated over $200 billion to Black Lives Matter.

Veracity Rating: 0 out of 4

Facts

The claim that in 2020, over 70 different companies in the United States donated over $200 billion to Black Lives Matter is **incorrect** based on available evidence.

1. **Corporate Pledges and Donations**: While many companies did pledge support for racial equity initiatives in 2020, these pledges were not specifically directed to Black Lives Matter in the amounts claimed. For instance, Apple pledged $100 million for its Racial Equity and Justice Initiative, and Walmart committed $100 million over five years for a center focused on racial equity, but these were not donations to Black Lives Matter itself[1][2]. As of April 2023, corporate pledges related to racial equity and Black Lives Matter were estimated to be around $72 billion, with about $26 billion allocated, but this figure includes a broad range of initiatives beyond direct donations to Black Lives Matter[5].

2. **Misinformation and Corrections**: There were false claims circulating on social media and in media reports about large corporate donations to Black Lives Matter. For example, a list claiming that companies like Bank of America and PepsiCo were donating hundreds of millions of dollars to Black Lives Matter was debunked by fact-checkers and the companies themselves[2]. These companies were actually investing in broader racial equity initiatives rather than donating directly to Black Lives Matter.

3. **Lack of Transparency and Accountability**: While some companies did donate to organizations aligned with the Black Lives Matter movement, such as the NAACP and ACLU, there is no evidence to suggest that over $200 billion was donated specifically to Black Lives Matter. The movement itself uses ActBlue Charities for fundraising, which directs donations to the Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation, but there is no record of such massive donations from U.S. companies[4].

In summary, the claim of over $200 billion in donations from U.S. companies to Black Lives Matter in 2020 is not supported by credible evidence and appears to be an exaggeration or misinformation.

Citations

• [1] https://www.cnet.com/culture/companies-donating-black-lives-matter/
• [2] https://www.factcheck.org/2020/08/false-claims-on-corporate-donations-to-black-lives-matter/
• [3] https://builtin.com/diversity-inclusion/companies-that-support-black-lives-matter-social-justice
• [4] https://www.factcheck.org/2020/06/donations-to-black-lives-matter-group-dont-go-to-dnc/
• [5] https://www.blacklivesmattercorporatepledges.com

Claim

The Fed created a lot of wealth.

Veracity Rating: 2 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluating the Claim: "The Fed Created a Lot of Wealth"

The claim that the Federal Reserve (Fed) created a lot of wealth can be analyzed by examining the impact of its monetary policies on wealth distribution and economic growth.

### Monetary Policy and Wealth Creation

1. **Monetary Policy Mechanisms**: The Fed primarily influences the economy through monetary policies such as setting interest rates and conducting open market operations. By purchasing securities, the Fed injects money into the banking system, potentially increasing the money supply and stimulating economic activity[1].

2. **Impact on Asset Prices**: Expansionary monetary policies, such as those implemented during the post-2008 financial crisis period, have been shown to increase asset prices, including stocks and real estate. This can lead to wealth gains for households holding these assets, particularly benefiting wealthier households who tend to hold more assets[2][3].

3. **Wealth Distribution**: While the Fed's policies can boost overall wealth, they often exacerbate income and wealth inequality. Low interest rates and quantitative easing have been criticized for disproportionately benefiting the wealthy by inflating asset prices, while savers and lower-income households may see less benefit or even negative impacts due to reduced interest income[2][4].

### Economic Growth and Wealth

1. **Wealth Effect**: Increases in household wealth can stimulate consumer spending, contributing to economic growth. This "wealth effect" is well-documented, with studies indicating that a portion of wealth gains is spent, supporting economic activity[3][5].

2. **Wealth Equity and Resilience**: Greater wealth equity, where wealth is more evenly distributed, can enhance economic resilience and growth. It allows more households to invest in their futures, potentially driving innovation and consumption[5].

### Conclusion

The claim that the Fed created a lot of wealth is partially valid. The Fed's monetary policies have indeed contributed to wealth creation, particularly through the appreciation of asset prices. However, this wealth creation often benefits wealthier households more, potentially widening income and wealth inequality. The overall impact of the Fed's policies on economic growth and wealth distribution is complex and multifaceted, requiring careful consideration of both the positive effects on asset prices and the negative effects on inequality.

### Evidence Summary

– **Asset Price Appreciation**: Expansionary monetary policies have increased asset prices, benefiting wealthier households[2][3].
– **Wealth Inequality**: The Fed's policies have been criticized for exacerbating wealth inequality[2][4].
– **Wealth Effect**: Increases in household wealth stimulate consumer spending, supporting economic growth[3][5].
– **Wealth Equity**: Greater wealth equity can enhance economic resilience and growth[5].

Citations

• [1] https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/081415/understanding-how-federal-reserve-creates-money.asp
• [2] https://www.seacen.org/publications/RePEc/702001-100467-PDF.pdf
• [3] https://economics.td.com/us-household-wealth-props-consumer-spending
• [4] https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1016&context=jlpa
• [5] https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-economy/2023/feb/how-equitable-wealth-outcomes-could-create-resilient-economy

Claim

ESG funds underperformed their broad-based counterparts.

Veracity Rating: 3 out of 4

Facts

The claim that ESG funds underperformed their broad-based counterparts can be evaluated by examining recent financial performance data and studies on ESG investments.

## Evidence Supporting the Claim

1. **Underperformance in 2022**: According to Oliver Wyman, many ESG funds underperformed broad equity markets by about three to four percentage points in 2022. This underperformance led investors to reassess the investment attributes of ESG portfolios, often finding them oversimplistic[1].

2. **Long-term Performance**: A study by the Pacific Research Institute found that ESG funds historically underperform broader market funds over the long term. Analyzing 18 ESG funds with a 10-year track record, the study concluded that a $10,000 ESG portfolio would be 43.9% smaller compared to an investment in an S&P 500 index fund[2].

3. **Higher Costs and Lower Diversification**: ESG funds typically have higher expense ratios and lower diversification, which can contribute to underperformance. For example, the average expense ratio for ESG funds is about 0.69%, compared to 0.09% for S&P 500 index funds[2].

## Mixed Evidence

1. **Recent Outperformance in 2023**: Some data suggest that sustainable funds achieved higher median returns in 2023, with a median return of 12.6% compared to 8.6% for traditional funds. However, this outperformance was partly due to the overweighting of technology stocks[4].

2. **Variable Performance Across Asset Classes**: While some sustainable funds performed well in certain years or asset classes, such as fixed income, they generally lagged conventional peers by a small margin in equity markets[5].

## Conclusion

The claim that ESG funds underperformed their broad-based counterparts is supported by historical data and studies showing that ESG funds often lag behind broader market indices over the long term. However, recent performance in specific years or sectors can vary, with some sustainable funds outperforming traditional peers under certain conditions. Overall, while there are instances of outperformance, the general trend suggests that ESG funds may not consistently outperform broader market funds.

**Recommendations for Future Analysis**:
– **Long-term Data**: Continue to monitor long-term performance data to assess if trends persist.
– **Sector-Specific Analysis**: Analyze performance across different sectors and asset classes to identify areas where ESG funds excel.
– **Cost and Diversification**: Consider the impact of higher costs and lower diversification on ESG fund performance.

Citations

• [1] https://www.oliverwyman.com/our-expertise/insights/2023/aug/new-funds-signals-evolution-of-esg.html
• [2] https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/new-study-finds-esg-funds-underperform-broader-investment-funds-over-long-term-1028221827
• [3] https://www.morningstar.com/sustainable-investing/us-esg-funds-bleed-less-money-q2-2024
• [4] https://dollarsandsense.sg/esg-funds-outperform-regular-funds-heres-data-say/
• [5] https://www.morningstar.com/sustainable-investing/esg-fund-returns-recover-2023-most-sustainable-funds-trail-conventional-peers-by-small-margin

Claim

Philip Morris International operationally headquartered in Switzerland has a massive diversity equity inclusion piece on their website.

Veracity Rating: 4 out of 4

Facts

To verify the claim that Philip Morris International (PMI), operationally headquartered in Switzerland, has a significant diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) component on its website, we can examine the available information from reliable sources.

## Evidence Supporting the Claim

1. **Inclusive Future Initiative**: In 2021, PMI launched the "Inclusive Future" initiative, a year-long research and convening effort aimed at advancing the discourse on inclusivity and devising effective ways to promote inclusive cultures. This initiative highlights PMI's commitment to workplace inclusion and diversity as essential drivers of business transformation and innovation[1].

2. **LGBTQ+ Inclusion**: PMI has received the Swiss LGBTI-Label award twice, recognizing its commitment to LGBTQ+ inclusion. The company supports an inclusive environment through its Stripes Employee Resource Group (ERG), which fosters a culture where all employees feel valued and empowered[2].

3. **Disability Inclusion**: PMI has joined The Valuable 500 initiative to focus on disability inclusion across its global workforce. The company has launched PMI Able, an ERG dedicated to creating a sense of community and allyship for employees with disabilities, and has made its communication technologies more accessible[3].

4. **Global DEI Framework**: PMI has developed a global DEI framework that balances global direction with local nuances, ensuring consistency across different markets. This framework emphasizes intersectionality and includes measures like the Inclusion Net Promoter Score (iNPS) and a more expansive Inclusion Index to guide strategic priorities[5].

## Conclusion

The claim that Philip Morris International has a significant DEI component on its website is supported by the evidence of various initiatives and frameworks aimed at promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion. These efforts are detailed on PMI's website and in external reports, demonstrating a strong commitment to creating an inclusive workplace environment.

## References

– [1] Philip Morris International Announces Yearlong Exploration of Inclusion—Furthering the Company’s Commitment to Equality. *Business Wire*, March 8, 2021.
– [2] PMI collects second award for LGBTQ+ inclusion in Switzerland. *Philip Morris International*, June 25, 2024.
– [3] PMI's commitment to disability inclusion in the workplace. *Philip Morris International*.
– [5] How we built a global DEI framework. *Personnel Today*, October 21, 2024.

Citations

• [1] https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20210308005179/en/Philip-Morris-International-Announces-Yearlong-Exploration-of-InclusionFurthering-the-Companys-Commitment-to-Equality
• [2] https://www.pmi.com/who-we-are/inclusion-diversity/pmi-collects-second-award-for-lgbtq-inclusion-in-switzerland
• [3] https://www.pmi.com/who-we-are/inclusion-diversity/an-inclusive-culture-for-all/valuable500
• [4] https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1413329/000110465923036076/tm2310007d1_ars.pdf
• [5] https://www.personneltoday.com/hr/global-dei-framework-pmi/

Claim

Philip Morris wants to hire a certain percentage of Asian people and 40% women under a quota system.

Veracity Rating: 1 out of 4

Facts

To evaluate the claim that Philip Morris International (PMI) aims to hire a certain percentage of Asian people and 40% women under a quota system, we need to examine PMI's official statements and policies regarding diversity and inclusion.

## Evidence from PMI's Official Statements

1. **Diversity and Inclusion Initiatives**: PMI emphasizes fostering a diverse and inclusive workplace, recognizing the importance of diversity in driving innovation and success. The company highlights its global diversity, with employees from 133 nationalities across over 90 markets[1].

2. **Gender Equity**: PMI has made significant strides in gender equity. It surpassed its target of having at least 40% female representation in management by May 2022. The company now aims for at least 35% women in senior roles by the end of 2025[3]. However, there is no specific mention of quotas for hiring Asian individuals.

3. **Inclusion and Diversity Programs**: PMI's initiatives include employee resource groups, diversity training, and leadership role modeling to embed diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) principles throughout the organization[1]. These programs focus on creating an inclusive environment rather than specifying quotas for specific ethnic groups.

## Conclusion

Based on the available information, there is no evidence to support the claim that PMI aims to hire a certain percentage of Asian people under a quota system. While PMI does have specific targets for gender representation, such as maintaining at least 40% female representation in management positions, there is no mention of similar targets for Asian individuals[3]. The company's focus is on creating an inclusive environment that values diversity broadly, rather than implementing quotas for specific ethnic groups.

In summary, the claim about hiring a certain percentage of Asian people under a quota system appears to be unsubstantiated by PMI's official statements and policies. However, PMI does have specific goals for gender representation in leadership positions.

Citations

• [1] https://diversity-network.com/inclusion-starts-with-i-how-pmi-is-shaping-an-inclusive-future/
• [2] https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-CRECB-1990-pt13/pdf/GPO-CRECB-1990-pt13-1-1.pdf
• [3] https://www.pmi.com/who-we-are/inclusion-diversity/leveraging-the-talents-of-women/fostering-gender-equality-at-pmi
• [4] http://www.csun.edu/~hcedu043/elps601/elps_601_class_readings.htm
• [5] https://www.asyousow.org/resolutions/2022/11/22-philip-morris-greater-disclosure-diversity-equity-inclusion

Claim

Bud Light, the biggest beer brand in the United States, has a partnership with Dylan Mulvaney.

Veracity Rating: 4 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluation of the Claim: Bud Light's Partnership with Dylan Mulvaney

The claim that Bud Light, the largest beer brand in the United States, partnered with Dylan Mulvaney is **verified** by multiple reliable sources.

### Evidence Supporting the Claim

1. **Partnership Details**: In April 2023, Bud Light collaborated with Dylan Mulvaney, a transgender social media influencer, as part of a campaign celebrating her first anniversary of transitioning. This partnership involved Mulvaney promoting Bud Light on her Instagram account during the NCAA March Madness tournament[3][5].

2. **Controversy and Backlash**: The partnership sparked significant controversy and backlash from conservative groups, leading to a boycott of Bud Light and its parent company, Anheuser-Busch. This backlash was fueled by Mulvaney's advocacy for transgender rights and her large following among younger audiences[1][5].

3. **Response from Anheuser-Busch**: Anheuser-Busch defended the partnership, stating that it works with numerous influencers to connect with diverse audiences. However, the company faced criticism for not fully disclosing the nature of the partnership and for allegedly violating industry guidelines by targeting underage audiences[2][4].

4. **Sales Impact**: Following the controversy, Bud Light's sales plummeted, with reports indicating a decline of up to 29.9% in some periods. This led to Anheuser-Busch losing significant market value and facing challenges in regaining its customer base[3][5].

### Conclusion

In conclusion, the claim that Bud Light partnered with Dylan Mulvaney is **true**. This partnership was part of a broader strategy to appeal to younger and more diverse audiences but ultimately led to a significant backlash and financial losses for the brand.

### Recommendations for Future Partnerships

– **Audience Understanding**: Brands should thoroughly understand their core audience and ensure that any partnerships align with their values and expectations.
– **Inclusivity vs. Brand Identity**: While inclusivity is important, it must be balanced with maintaining the brand's identity and appeal to its core customer base.
– **Transparency**: Clear communication about partnerships and their intentions can help mitigate potential backlash.

### References

Citations

• [1] https://www.commerce.senate.gov/2023/6/sen-cruz-lays-out-evidence-showing-bud-light-dylan-mulvaney-partnership-aimed-at-minors
• [2] https://pressbooks.bccampus.ca/prcasestudies/chapter/case-study-6/
• [3] https://www.foxnews.com/media/dylan-mulvaney-reflects-bud-light-backlash-almost-2-years-later-the-view
• [4] https://www.factcheck.org/2023/04/bogus-claim-targets-bud-light-partnership-with-transgender-influencer/
• [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bud_Light_boycott

Claim

Companies have generally shifted towards a more European stakeholder capitalism model.

Veracity Rating: 2 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluating the Claim: Shift Towards European Stakeholder Capitalism

The claim that companies have generally shifted towards a more European stakeholder capitalism model can be evaluated by examining recent trends in corporate governance and the adoption of stakeholder-oriented practices by American companies.

### Background: Shareholder vs. Stakeholder Capitalism

– **Shareholder Capitalism**: Predominant in the USA, this model prioritizes shareholder interests, focusing on maximizing profits. It is characterized by a one-tier governance structure and lacks legal obligations for corporate social responsibility[1][5].

– **Stakeholder Capitalism**: Common in Europe, this model considers the interests of various stakeholders, including employees, communities, and suppliers, alongside shareholders. Germany's co-determination laws are a prime example, allowing employees to participate in company governance[1][3].

### Evidence of Shift Towards Stakeholder Capitalism

1. **Adoption of Stakeholder-Oriented Practices**: There is a growing trend towards integrating stakeholder perspectives into traditional shareholder-focused models. The 2020 Business Roundtable Meeting in Davos saw 181 CEOs endorse a shift towards stakeholder capitalism, signaling a potential convergence of shareholder and stakeholder interests[2].

2. **Influence of European Models**: The US has started to incorporate elements of stakeholder capitalism, such as codetermination and public benefit corporations, reflecting a move towards balancing shareholder and stakeholder interests[5].

3. **Global Corporate Governance Trends**: The EU's discussions on sustainable corporate governance frameworks highlight efforts to align stakeholder and shareholder interests, further indicating a global shift towards more inclusive models[3].

### Case Study: Anheuser-Busch

The transformation of Anheuser-Busch after its acquisition by InBev in 2008 illustrates a shift towards stakeholder capitalism. The company's focus on cost-cutting and inclusivity, as seen in its marketing decisions, reflects a broader trend where executives prioritize stakeholder interests, potentially at the expense of traditional brand identity and customer engagement[Summary].

### Conclusion

While there is evidence that American companies are adopting elements of stakeholder capitalism, the claim that there has been a general shift towards a more European stakeholder model is partially supported. The trend is evident, but its extent and impact vary across companies and sectors. The integration of stakeholder perspectives into corporate governance is a gradual process, influenced by global economic and social pressures[2][3][4].

In summary, the claim is valid to the extent that there is a noticeable trend towards stakeholder capitalism, but it is not a universal shift across all American companies. The degree of adoption and its effects can vary significantly depending on the company's specific circumstances and strategic priorities.

Citations

• [1] https://ivypanda.com/essays/stakeholder-and-shareholder-capitalism-models/
• [2] https://rsisinternational.org/journals/ijriss/articles/in-stakeholder-capitalism-have-all-actors-found-each-other-or-is-it-a-marriage-of-convenience/
• [3] https://blogs.cfainstitute.org/marketintegrity/2022/01/20/stakeholder-capitalism-in-action/
• [4] https://www.hbs.edu/ris/download.aspx?name=24-008.pdf
• [5] https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/fisch_2016/10/

Claim

Corporate companies do not hold the same American values due to globalization.

Veracity Rating: 3 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluating the Claim: Corporate Companies Do Not Hold the Same American Values Due to Globalization

The claim that corporate companies do not hold the same American values due to globalization can be explored by examining trends in corporate policy, public statements, and the impact of globalization on business practices.

### Globalization and Corporate Values

Globalization has led to increased interconnectedness among nations, fostering a global marketplace where companies operate across diverse cultural and regulatory environments. This has prompted companies to adapt their values and operational practices to accommodate local norms and international standards[2][3]. For instance, companies may prioritize global values such as inclusivity and sustainability over traditional national values, which can lead to a perceived shift away from American values[1][4].

### Case Study: Anheuser Busch

The transformation of Anheuser Busch after its acquisition by InBev in 2008 illustrates how globalization can influence corporate values. The shift from a meritocratic culture to a focus on cost-cutting and stakeholder capitalism reflects broader trends in global corporate governance. The controversy surrounding partnerships with influencers like Dylan Mulvaney highlights the tension between prioritizing inclusivity and maintaining brand identity, which can be seen as a clash between global and traditional American values[1].

### Challenges and Opportunities

1. **Cultural Differences and Adaptation**: Globalization requires companies to navigate diverse cultural landscapes, which can lead to changes in how they perceive and implement values. This adaptation is crucial for success in global markets but may result in a perceived deviation from traditional American values[4].

2. **Global Value Chains**: The integration of global value chains often involves aligning with international norms and values, such as human rights and environmental sustainability. This alignment can be seen as a move away from purely national values[1].

3. **Leadership and Governance**: The influence of global leadership styles and governance practices, often shaped by European or other international models, can further contribute to the perception that companies are moving away from American values[5].

### Conclusion

The claim that corporate companies do not hold the same American values due to globalization is supported by evidence of how globalization influences corporate policies and practices. Companies must adapt to global norms and values, which can lead to a perceived shift away from traditional American values. However, this shift is part of a broader trend towards more inclusive and sustainable global practices, rather than a rejection of American values per se.

### Recommendations for Further Research

– **Quantitative Analysis**: Conduct a quantitative analysis of corporate policies and public statements to assess the extent to which globalization influences value alignment.
– **Case Studies**: Examine more case studies of companies that have undergone significant changes due to globalization to identify common patterns and challenges.
– **Stakeholder Engagement**: Investigate how companies engage with stakeholders, including customers and employees, to understand how global values are perceived and implemented at different levels within organizations.

Citations

• [1] https://ecipe.org/blog/the-shared-pursuit-of-a-values-based-globalisation/
• [2] https://www.bakermckenzie.com/-/media/files/insight/publications/2018/globalization_report.pdf
• [3] https://velocityglobal.com/resources/blog/globalization-benefits-and-challenges/
• [4] https://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=8960&context=dissertations
• [5] https://www.n2growth.com/the-impact-of-globalization-on-business/

Claim

In 2021, a partnership between Bud Light and Black Rifle Coffee was terminated because it was deemed too controversial by a department in New York City.

Veracity Rating: 3 out of 4

Facts

## Claim Evaluation: Partnership Termination Between Bud Light and Black Rifle Coffee

The claim suggests that a partnership between Bud Light and Black Rifle Coffee was terminated in 2021 due to controversy, as deemed by a department in New York City. To evaluate this claim, we will examine available evidence and context.

### Evidence and Context

1. **Termination of Partnership**: The claim is supported by accounts from former Anheuser-Busch executives, such as Anson Frericks, who describe a proposed distribution partnership with Black Rifle Coffee that was rejected due to perceived reputational risks. This decision was made by Anheuser-Busch's Legal & External Affairs team in New York City, which deemed the partnership too controversial[3][4].

2. **Timing**: While the claim specifies 2021, the actual discussions and decision-making process occurred around early 2022. This discrepancy may be due to the timing of when the proposal was first considered versus when it was officially rejected[3][4].

3. **Reasons for Termination**: The primary reason cited for the termination was the concern over reputational risks, which aligns with the claim that the partnership was deemed too controversial. This decision reflects a broader shift in Anheuser-Busch's priorities towards aligning with progressive values, which sometimes conflicted with its traditional customer base[3][4].

4. **Anheuser-Busch's Transformation**: The company's acquisition by InBev in 2008 marked a significant cultural shift, moving from a meritocratic approach to one emphasizing diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. This transformation contributed to decisions like rejecting the Black Rifle Coffee partnership and later engaging in the controversial Dylan Mulvaney campaign[2][4].

### Conclusion

The claim that a partnership between Bud Light and Black Rifle Coffee was terminated due to controversy is largely supported by available evidence. However, there is a slight discrepancy in the timing, with the decision being made in early 2022 rather than 2021. The reasons for termination align with concerns over reputational risks and the company's evolving priorities under its European ownership[3][4].

In summary, while the specific year mentioned in the claim may not be accurate, the essence of the decision-making process and the reasons behind it are well-documented and align with broader trends in Anheuser-Busch's strategic decisions.

Citations

• [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r393SD8BMxk
• [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwV9pIzj2jc
• [3] https://www.dailywire.com/news/i-worked-at-anheuser-busch-when-bud-light-imploded-heres-what-i-learned
• [4] https://www.foxbusiness.com/media/how-anheuser-busch-lost-its-way-dei-according-former-executive
• [5] https://ir.blackriflecoffee.com/news-events/press-releases/detail/85/black-rifle-coffee-company-announces-long-term-sales-and

Claim

Alyssa Heinerschneid was hired as the first female head of Bud Light, despite having lived in the Northeastern United States and possibly never having consumed Bud Light.

Veracity Rating: 1 out of 4

Facts

To evaluate the claim that **Alissa Heinerscheid was hired as the first female head of Bud Light, despite having lived in the Northeastern United States and possibly never having consumed Bud Light**, we need to examine available information about her background and role at Bud Light.

1. **Role at Bud Light**: Alissa Heinerscheid was indeed a senior marketing executive at Bud Light, serving as the Vice President of Marketing. However, there is no specific mention in the available sources that she was the "first female head" of Bud Light. She was involved in significant marketing decisions, including the partnership with Dylan Mulvaney, which led to controversy and her eventual leave of absence[1][3].

2. **Background and Familiarity with Bud Light**: There is no direct information in the provided sources about Heinerscheid's personal consumption habits or whether she lived in the Northeastern United States. However, her comments on the brand suggest she aimed to shift its image towards inclusivity, indicating she may not have been aligned with the traditional consumer base of Bud Light[1][3].

3. **Marketing Strategy and Controversy**: Heinerscheid's approach to rebranding Bud Light focused on inclusivity and moving away from what she described as a "fratty" image. This strategy, particularly the partnership with Dylan Mulvaney, led to significant backlash and sales declines for Bud Light[1][3].

In conclusion, while Alissa Heinerscheid was a key figure in Bud Light's marketing, there is no specific evidence to support the claim that she was the first female head of Bud Light or that she never consumed Bud Light due to living in the Northeastern United States. The available information highlights her role in marketing decisions and the controversy surrounding those choices.

**Claim Evaluation**: The claim lacks concrete evidence regarding Heinerscheid's role as the first female head and her personal consumption habits. Therefore, it cannot be fully verified based on the provided sources.

Citations

• [1] https://www.americancraftbeer.com/pr-firm-behind-bud-light-beer-trans-disaster-fires-top-execs/
• [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sas6vVaBeAI
• [3] https://cbs4local.com/news/nation-world/bud-light-marketing-vp-who-oversaw-trans-partnership-takes-leave-of-absence-after-boycott-calls-report-says-vice-president-marketing-alissa-heinerscheid-anheuser-busch-dylan-mulvaney
• [4] https://rarelypureneversimple.com/author/al/
• [5] https://397news.com/publications/16824852004734/042623.pdf

Claim

In 2021 and 2022, Anheuser Busch changed its hiring principles from a meritocracy to a focus on diversity and inclusion.

Veracity Rating: 2 out of 4

Facts

To evaluate the claim that Anheuser-Busch shifted its hiring principles from a meritocracy to a focus on diversity and inclusion in 2021 and 2022, we need to examine available evidence and reports from that period.

## Evidence of Diversity and Inclusion Initiatives

1. **Global Diversity and Inclusion Council**: AB InBev, the parent company of Anheuser-Busch, launched a Global Diversity and Inclusion Council in 2020. This council is tasked with advancing diversity and inclusion across the organization[2]. While this initiative began before 2021, it indicates a broader commitment to DEI within the company.

2. **Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) Initiatives**: Anheuser-Busch has emphasized DEI as a global priority, with initiatives aimed at increasing representation of historically underrepresented groups. This includes programs like the Leadership Accelerator Program, which provides opportunities for individuals from these groups[3]. However, these programs have been criticized for potentially excluding certain racial and ethnic groups, leading to allegations of discriminatory practices[3].

3. **Criticism and Controversies**: The company faced criticism and legal challenges related to its DEI initiatives. America First Legal filed a complaint alleging that Anheuser-Busch's hiring practices were discriminatory, focusing on race, color, national origin, and sex[3]. Additionally, a former executive criticized the company's DEI approach as divisive and ineffective[4].

## Conclusion

While Anheuser-Busch did emphasize diversity and inclusion in its hiring practices during this period, the claim that it shifted entirely from a meritocracy to a focus on DEI is nuanced. The company's initiatives aimed to increase diversity, but these efforts have been controversial and criticized for potential discrimination. Therefore, the claim is partially supported but requires context regarding the complexities and criticisms surrounding these initiatives.

## Recommendations for Further Evaluation

– **Review Corporate Reports**: Examine Anheuser-Busch's annual reports and DEI strategy documents for specific details on hiring practices and how they evolved.
– **Legal and Regulatory Analysis**: Assess legal complaints and regulatory responses to understand the implications of these practices.
– **Employee and Stakeholder Feedback**: Consider feedback from employees and stakeholders to gauge the impact of these initiatives on the company culture and operations.

Citations

• [1] https://www.anheuser-busch.com/careers
• [2] https://www.ab-inbev.com/content/dam/abinbev/news-media/press-releases/2021/02/AB%20InBev%20ESG%20Report%202020%20HD%20Final.pdf
• [3] https://aflegal.org/america-first-legal-files-federal-civil-rights-complaint-against-anheuser-busch-for-illegal-racist-and-sexist-hiring-practices/
• [4] https://www.foxbusiness.com/media/ex-anheuser-busch-executive-blames-dei-companys-missteps
• [5] https://www.indeed.com/cmp/Anheuser–busch

Claim

There was a 400% increase in the positions of chief diversity officers since 2020.

Veracity Rating: 2 out of 4

Facts

The claim that there was a 400% increase in the positions of chief diversity officers (CDOs) since 2020 cannot be directly verified with the exact percentage from the provided sources. However, there is evidence of a significant increase in DEI roles and CDO positions following the heightened focus on racial equity and justice after George Floyd's murder in 2020.

1. **Growth in DEI Roles**: The Society for Human Resource Management reported a 55% increase in DEI roles in 2020 following demands for broader racial equity and justice[1]. Additionally, McKinsey noted that DEI-related roles increased by 71% between 2015 and 2020, with a further 123% jump in DEI job postings in the three months after Floyd's murder[3].

2. **CDO Positions**: McKinsey also mentioned that the number of CDO hires in 2021 was nearly triple the rate of the previous 16 months, and among Fortune 500 companies, 53% now have a CDO or equivalent role[3]. Russell Reynolds Associates reported a significant increase in CDO representation among S&P 500 companies between 2020 and 2022[5].

3. **Decline in Recent Years**: Despite the initial surge, recent reports indicate a decline in DEI roles due to layoffs and budget cuts. Revelio Labs found that DEI-focused roles experienced a nearly 40% churn rate during layoffs, higher than non-DEI roles[1][2].

While the exact 400% increase in CDO positions is not explicitly documented in the available sources, there is clear evidence of a substantial rise in DEI roles and CDO appointments following 2020, driven by societal demands for greater diversity and inclusion. However, this growth has been followed by a decline in recent years due to economic pressures and other factors.

Citations

• [1] https://nacmnet.org/wp-content/uploads/Diversity-officers-hired-in-2020-are-losing-their-jobs-and-the-ones-who-remain-are-mostly-white.pdf
• [2] https://www.shrm.org/topics-tools/news/inclusion-diversity/dei-roles-disappearing
• [3] https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/people-and-organizational-performance/our-insights/unlocking-the-potential-of-chief-diversity-officers
• [4] https://anz.peoplemattersglobal.com/article/diversity/the-short-lived-era-of-dei-a-breakdown-of-its-growth-and-downfall-44466
• [5] https://www.russellreynolds.com/en/insights/reports-surveys/a-global-look-at-the-chief-diversity-officer-landscape

Claim

The civil rights act of 1964 prohibits discrimination based on race, sex, and gender.

Veracity Rating: 3 out of 4

Facts

The claim that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination based on race, sex, and gender can be partially verified through historical and legal documents. Here's a detailed evaluation:

1. **Race**: The Civil Rights Act of 1964 indeed prohibits discrimination based on race. It outlaws segregation in public places, schools, and employment, addressing systemic racism and ensuring equal access to public facilities and services for all races[1][2][3].

2. **Sex**: The Act also prohibits discrimination based on sex, but this was not part of the original proposal. It was added as an amendment in Title VII, which deals with equal employment opportunities. This amendment was introduced by Congressman Howard Smith, and despite initial intentions to hinder the bill's passage, it ultimately became part of the law[1][5].

3. **Gender**: The term "gender" is not explicitly mentioned in the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Act prohibits discrimination based on sex, which was a significant step forward for women's rights at the time. However, modern interpretations and subsequent legislation have expanded protections to include gender identity in various contexts, but this is not directly covered by the 1964 Act itself[1][5].

In summary, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination based on race and sex but does not explicitly address gender. The inclusion of sex in the Act was a crucial step for women's rights, but gender identity protections have evolved through later legal developments and interpretations.

The discussion about Anheuser Busch and its marketing decisions is unrelated to the legal assertion regarding the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Citations

• [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964
• [2] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/civil-rights-act-1964.asp
• [3] https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/civil-rights-act
• [4] https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/civil-rights-act/epilogue.html
• [5] https://www.archives.gov/women/1964-civil-rights-act

Claim

The CEO of Coinbase, Brian Armstrong, stated that he would not tie his company to the BLM movement or make social justice statements.

Veracity Rating: 4 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluation of the Claim

The claim that Brian Armstrong, the CEO of Coinbase, stated he would not tie his company to the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement or make social justice statements can be verified through public records and statements made by Armstrong.

### Background

In June 2020, following the murder of George Floyd, Coinbase employees requested that the company issue a public statement in support of the BLM movement. However, Brian Armstrong initially declined to make such a statement during a company-wide meeting, citing concerns that it would be divisive[3][5]. This decision led to a virtual walkout by some employees[3].

### Public Statements and Policies

Later, Armstrong did express support for BLM on Twitter, stating "Black Lives Matter"[5]. However, his company maintained an apolitical stance, avoiding broader societal issues and political activism. In a September 2020 blog post, Armstrong clarified Coinbase's mission, emphasizing that the company would not engage in political activism or broader societal issues beyond those directly impacting the company[1][3][5].

### Evidence Supporting the Claim

1. **Initial Response to BLM**: Armstrong's initial reluctance to issue a public statement in support of BLM reflects his preference for maintaining an apolitical stance[3][5].

2. **Company Policy**: Coinbase's policy, as outlined by Armstrong, restricts involvement in social and political issues, aligning with the claim that the company avoids making social justice statements[2][4].

3. **Employee Severance Packages**: Following the controversy, Coinbase offered severance packages to employees who felt the company's apolitical stance did not align with their personal values, further indicating a commitment to avoiding political and social activism[2][3].

### Conclusion

The claim that Brian Armstrong stated he would not tie Coinbase to the BLM movement or make social justice statements is supported by his actions and public statements. While Armstrong did eventually express support for BLM personally, Coinbase's official policy remains focused on avoiding broader societal and political issues[1][3][5]. This stance led to internal controversy and the departure of some employees who disagreed with the company's approach[3][5].

In summary, the evidence confirms that Armstrong's approach to social issues at Coinbase emphasizes maintaining an apolitical environment, which aligns with the claim in question.

Citations

• [1] https://www.coindesk.com/business/2020/10/08/reading-between-the-lines-of-brian-armstrongs-mission-memo
• [2] https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/155E98E5D7AAE62D67BFCDACF151666C/S1052150X21000488a.pdf/woke-corporations-and-the-stigmatization-of-corporate-social-initiatives.pdf
• [3] https://www.axios.com/2020/10/01/coinbase-controversy
• [4] https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/business-ethics-quarterly/article/woke-corporations-and-the-stigmatization-of-corporate-social-initiatives/155E98E5D7AAE62D67BFCDACF151666C
• [5] https://www.businessinsider.com/how-a-ceo-memo-made-coinbase-political-2020-10

Claim

BlackRock, State Street, and Vanguard have adopted ESG and D&I criteria which companies must meet to be included in their indexes.

Veracity Rating: 2 out of 4

Facts

## Claim Evaluation: BlackRock, State Street, and Vanguard's Adoption of ESG and D&I Criteria

The claim suggests that BlackRock, State Street, and Vanguard have adopted Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) and Diversity & Inclusion (D&I) criteria that companies must meet to be included in their indexes. This evaluation will assess the validity of this claim based on available evidence.

### ESG Criteria

1. **Influence on ESG Policies**: BlackRock, State Street, and Vanguard are indeed influential in shaping ESG policies. They have significant voting power and often engage with companies on ESG issues, encouraging better practices and disclosures[1][2]. However, their primary role is not to set strict inclusion criteria for indexes based on ESG but to influence corporate behavior through proxy voting and engagement.

2. **Proxy Voting Policies**: These firms have detailed proxy voting policies that address ESG issues. For example, BlackRock and State Street have been more supportive of ESG-related shareholder resolutions compared to Vanguard[3]. While they do influence ESG practices, their policies focus more on encouraging companies to improve their ESG disclosures and practices rather than setting rigid criteria for index inclusion.

### D&I Criteria

1. **Diversity Initiatives**: The Big Three have emphasized diversity and inclusion in their engagements with companies. For instance, BlackRock and Vanguard have supported initiatives to increase board diversity, though Vanguard has recently diluted some of its diversity guidelines for U.S. board proxy voting[4][5]. While they encourage diversity, this does not necessarily translate into strict criteria for index inclusion.

2. **Proxy Voting on Diversity**: Institutional investors like BlackRock and Vanguard have used their voting power to promote diversity, but their support for specific diversity-related shareholder proposals has been limited compared to other ESG issues[4]. This suggests that while D&I is important, it is not a primary criterion for index inclusion.

### Conclusion

The claim that BlackRock, State Street, and Vanguard have adopted ESG and D&I criteria as strict requirements for companies to be included in their indexes is **partially misleading**. While these firms significantly influence ESG and D&I practices through proxy voting and engagement, their primary focus is on encouraging better corporate governance and sustainability rather than setting rigid inclusion criteria for indexes. Their policies and actions aim to improve ESG disclosures and practices, but they do not mandate specific criteria for index inclusion.

### Evidence Summary

– **ESG Influence**: The Big Three influence ESG practices through proxy voting and engagement[1][2].
– **Proxy Voting Policies**: They have detailed policies on ESG issues, but these are more about encouraging better practices than setting inclusion criteria[3].
– **Diversity Initiatives**: They support diversity initiatives, but this does not necessarily mean strict criteria for index inclusion[4][5].
– **Index Inclusion Criteria**: There is no clear evidence that they use ESG and D&I as strict criteria for index inclusion; their focus is on improving corporate practices.

Citations

• [1] https://www.weil.com/-/media/mailings/2023/q2/the-big-three–esg–a-guide-to-blackrock-state-street–vanguard-proxy-voting-policies–guidance-on-k.pdf
• [2] https://governance.weil.com/featured/the-big-three-esg-a-guide-to-blackrock-state-street-vanguard-proxy-voting-policies-guidance-on-key-esg-issues/
• [3] https://www.morningstar.com/sustainable-investing/how-blackrock-state-street-vanguard-cast-their-esg-proxy-votes
• [4] https://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2817&context=sulr
• [5] https://www.esgdive.com/news/vanguard-dilutes-diversity-guidelines-us-board-proxy-voting/739199/

Claim

Companies need a perfect score on the Human Rights Campaign to be included in certain indexes.

Veracity Rating: 1 out of 4

Facts

The claim that companies need a perfect score on the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) Corporate Equality Index (CEI) to be included in certain Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) indexes is not accurate based on the available information.

## Human Rights Campaign Corporate Equality Index (CEI)

The HRC CEI is a benchmarking tool that evaluates corporate policies and practices related to LGBTQ+ workplace equality. It assesses companies across four pillars: non-discrimination policies, equitable benefits, supporting an inclusive culture, and corporate social responsibility[2][4]. Companies like Axiom and AEG have achieved perfect scores, indicating their strong commitment to LGBTQ+ workplace inclusion[2][4]. However, there is no indication that a perfect score is a requirement for inclusion in ESG indexes.

## ESG Indexes

ESG indexes, such as the S&P 500 ESG Index, use various criteria to select companies, focusing on environmental, social, and governance factors. These criteria often include exclusions based on business activities (e.g., tobacco, controversial weapons) and ESG scores[1][3][5]. The S&P 500 ESG Index, for example, excludes companies with low ESG scores or those involved in undesirable activities but does not specifically require a perfect score on the HRC CEI for inclusion[3][5].

## Conclusion

There is no evidence to support the claim that companies must achieve a perfect score on the HRC CEI to be included in certain ESG indexes. ESG indexes typically use broader criteria that may include social factors but do not specifically mandate a perfect HRC CEI score for inclusion. The HRC CEI is one of many tools used to assess corporate social responsibility, but it is not a universal requirement for ESG index inclusion.

In summary, while achieving a high score on the HRC CEI can be beneficial for a company's social reputation and may align with some ESG criteria, it is not a prerequisite for inclusion in ESG indexes.

Citations

• [1] https://www.spglobal.com/spdji/en/documents/methodologies/methodology-sp-esg+-indices.pdf
• [2] https://www.axiomlaw.com/resources/press-releases/hrc-cei-2024
• [3] https://www.spglobal.com/_media/documents/the-sp-500-esg-index-integrating-esg-values-into-the-core.pdf
• [4] https://www.esgtoday.com/aeg-earns-top-score-in-human-rights-campaign-foundations-2024-2025-corporate-equality-index-for-sixth-consecutive-year/
• [5] https://www.sofi.com/learn/content/esg-indexes/

Claim

Bud Light sales declined by 30 to 40 percent and the company lost 40 billion dollars in market cap after a controversial partnership.

Veracity Rating: 3 out of 4

Facts

To evaluate the claim that Bud Light sales declined by 30 to 40 percent and the company lost $40 billion in market cap after a controversial partnership, we need to examine the available data on sales and stock market performance.

## Sales Decline

1. **Initial Decline**: Following the controversy with Dylan Mulvaney in April 2023, Bud Light experienced significant sales drops. In the week ending April 8, 2023, sales were down by 11%, and by April 15, 2023, this had increased to a 21% decline[3][4]. By May 1, 2023, off-premise sales had dropped by 26%[3].

2. **Sustained Impact**: The sales decline persisted, with Bud Light seeing a nearly 30% drop in sales in the weeks following the controversy[2]. By Q4 2023, sales and purchase incidence were down by about 32% compared to previous years[1]. This sustained decline indicates that the initial drop was not temporary but had a lasting impact on the brand's performance.

## Market Capitalization Loss

1. **Stock Performance**: The boycott led to a significant decline in Anheuser-Busch InBev's stock price. By July 2023, AB InBev's shares had fallen from $66 in March 2023 to $58[3]. However, there is no specific mention of a $40 billion loss in market capitalization in the available sources.

2. **Stock Stabilization and Recovery**: While the stock price did stabilize somewhat by early August 2023, the company faced ongoing challenges in recovering from the boycott's impact[3]. The stock did see a slight increase in September 2023, but overall, the company struggled to regain its pre-boycott market value[3].

## Conclusion

The claim that Bud Light sales declined by 30 to 40 percent is supported by the data showing a nearly 30% drop in sales following the controversy[2]. However, the specific figure of a 40% decline is not consistently reported across all sources. Regarding the market capitalization loss, while there was a significant decline in AB InBev's stock price, there is no direct evidence to support a $40 billion loss in market cap. The available information suggests substantial financial impacts but does not provide a precise figure for the market cap loss.

In summary, while the sales decline is well-documented and aligns with the claim, the specific market capitalization loss of $40 billion is not verified by the available data.

Citations

• [1] https://hbr.org/2024/03/lessons-from-the-bud-light-boycott-one-year-later
• [2] https://www.foxbusiness.com/media/bud-light-hasnt-recovered-from-mulvaney-controversy-ex-anheuser-busch-exec-says
• [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bud_Light_boycott
• [4] https://www.thefp.com/p/the-sad-saga-of-bud-light

Claim

Larry Fink stated he is not using the term ESG anymore because it's become too controversial and lost its meaning.

Veracity Rating: 4 out of 4

Facts

## Claim Evaluation: Larry Fink's Stance on ESG Terminology

The claim that Larry Fink, CEO of BlackRock, has stated he will no longer use the term "ESG" (Environmental, Social, and Governance) because it has become too controversial and lost its meaning can be verified through recent reports and transcripts from the Aspen Ideas Festival.

### Evidence Supporting the Claim

1. **Larry Fink's Statements**: At the Aspen Ideas Festival, Fink expressed his decision to stop using the term "ESG" due to its politicization. He stated, "I'm not going to use the word ESG because it's been misused by the far left and the far right" [1][2][3]. This indicates that Fink believes the term has been weaponized, leading to its loss of original meaning and purpose.

2. **Political Backlash**: The term "ESG" has faced significant political backlash, particularly from conservative groups who view it as part of "woke capitalism." This has led to boycotts and asset withdrawals by states like Florida and Texas, impacting BlackRock [1][3]. Fink acknowledged that Florida's decision to pull $2 billion in assets hurt his firm but emphasized that BlackRock's overall performance remained strong [1][2].

3. **Continuation of ESG Principles**: Despite abandoning the term "ESG," Fink emphasized that BlackRock will continue to focus on environmental, social, and governance issues under different terminology. He mentioned discussing "decarbonization, governance, or social issues" instead [1][3]. This suggests that while the term "ESG" is being retired, the underlying principles remain integral to BlackRock's investment strategies.

### Conclusion

The claim that Larry Fink has stopped using the term "ESG" due to its controversy and loss of meaning is supported by reliable sources. Fink's decision reflects the politicization of the term and his preference to discuss these issues under different labels to avoid political entanglements. Despite this shift in terminology, BlackRock continues to prioritize environmental, social, and governance factors in its investment approach.

### References

Citations

• [1] https://www.axios.com/2023/06/26/larry-fink-ashamed-esg-weaponized-desantis
• [2] https://www.fastcompany.com/90915196/esg-investing-meaning-blackrock-ceo-larry-fink-definition
• [3] https://time.com/6291317/larry-fink-esg-climate-action/
• [4] https://www.thecorporategovernanceinstitute.com/insights/news-analysis/larry-finks-esg-comments-make-us-a-bigger-outlier/
• [5] https://www.esgandclimatenews.com/p/larry-fink-annual-letter-2024

Claim

The CEO of Anheuser-Busch did not acknowledge the controversy around the campaign during a TV interview, giving evasive answers.

Veracity Rating: 2 out of 4

Facts

To evaluate the claim that the CEO of Anheuser-Busch did not acknowledge the controversy around the campaign during a TV interview, giving evasive answers, we can analyze the available information from reliable sources.

## Analysis of the Claim

1. **Acknowledgment of Controversy**: In an interview on "CBS Mornings," Anheuser-Busch CEO Brendan Whitworth acknowledged the controversy surrounding Bud Light's promotional campaign with transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney. He stated, "It's been a challenging few weeks. I think the conversation surrounding Bud Light has moved away from beer, and the conversation has become divisive" [1][2]. This indicates that Whitworth did acknowledge the controversy.

2. **Evasive Answers**: When questioned about whether the campaign was a mistake or if Bud Light would work with Mulvaney again, Whitworth did not provide direct answers. Instead, he emphasized the company's commitment to supporting the LGBTQ community and focusing on brewing great beer for everyone [1][2][4]. This behavior can be interpreted as evasive, as he avoided directly addressing the specific questions about the campaign's success or future collaborations.

3. **Support for LGBTQ+ Community**: Whitworth reiterated Anheuser-Busch's long-standing support for the LGBTQ+ community, stating that the company would continue to support organizations it has worked with for decades [1][4]. However, this stance was somewhat complicated by the company's past donations to anti-LGBTQ+ politicians, which Whitworth justified as supporting politicians who help the business grow [2][4].

## Conclusion

The claim that the CEO of Anheuser-Busch did not acknowledge the controversy around the campaign during a TV interview is partially incorrect. Whitworth did acknowledge the controversy but provided evasive answers when questioned about specific aspects of the campaign, such as whether it was a mistake or if similar collaborations would occur in the future. This approach allowed him to maintain a focus on the company's broader values and commitments without directly addressing the contentious issues surrounding the campaign.

## Evidence Summary

– **Acknowledgment of Controversy**: Whitworth acknowledged the controversy and its impact on the brand [1][2].
– **Evasive Answers**: Whitworth avoided direct answers regarding the campaign's success or future collaborations [1][2][4].
– **LGBTQ+ Support**: Anheuser-Busch continues to support the LGBTQ+ community despite past controversies and criticisms [1][4].

Citations

• [1] https://www.paramountpressexpress.com/cbs-news-and-stations/releases/?view=106717-anheuser-busch-ceo-addresses-bud-light-controversy-on-cbs-mornings
• [2] https://www.foxnews.com/media/anheuser-busch-ceo-refuses-say-hed-allow-bud-lights-disastrous-dylan-mulvaney-promo-hindsight
• [3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFevr-xxsQk
• [4] https://www.businessinsider.com/anheuser-busch-ceo-answer-bud-light-transgender-influencer-promo-mistake-2023-6
• [5] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/anheuser-busch-bud-light-dylan-mulvaney-campaign-brendan-whitworth/

Claim

Bud Light made $100 million in advertising deals after the controversy to try and regain customers.

Veracity Rating: 1 out of 4

Facts

## Claim Evaluation: Bud Light's $100 Million Advertising Deals Post-Controversy

The claim that Bud Light made $100 million in advertising deals after the controversy to try and regain customers is not directly supported by the available information. However, there are several key points to consider:

1. **UFC Sponsorship Deal**: Bud Light did secure a significant sponsorship deal with the UFC, valued at over $100 million for six years, starting January 1, 2024[1]. This deal is not explicitly framed as a response to the controversy but indicates that Bud Light is investing in major partnerships.

2. **Marketing Challenges**: The controversy surrounding the partnership with Dylan Mulvaney led to significant sales declines and a loss of market share for Bud Light[2][3]. The company attempted to recover through various marketing strategies, including a shift towards more traditional advertising[4].

3. **Lack of Specific Evidence**: There is no specific evidence in the provided sources that Bud Light spent $100 million solely on advertising to regain customers after the controversy. The UFC deal is a major investment but is not explicitly linked to post-controversy recovery efforts.

4. **Financial Impact**: The boycott and controversy resulted in substantial financial losses for Anheuser-Busch, including a drop in sales and stock price[3][4]. The company's response included attempts to rebrand and appeal to different demographics, but these efforts have been met with mixed success.

5. **Conclusion**: While Bud Light has engaged in significant marketing efforts, including the UFC deal, there is no direct evidence to support the claim that they spent $100 million specifically on advertising to regain customers after the controversy. The company's marketing strategies have been part of broader efforts to address declining sales and reposition the brand.

In summary, while Bud Light has made significant investments in marketing and partnerships, the specific claim about spending $100 million on advertising post-controversy lacks direct evidence. The company's marketing efforts are part of a broader strategy to address sales declines and rebrand, but the exact nature and cost of these efforts are not clearly detailed in the available sources.

Citations

• [1] https://mmajunkie.usatoday.com/2023/10/dana-white-explains-ufc-bud-light-deal-dylan-mulvaney-controversy-backlash
• [2] https://www.marketingweek.com/ritson-bud-lights-ad-backlash-mass-marketing/
• [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bud_Light_boycott
• [4] https://www.greatideasforteachingmarketing.com/bud-light-dylan-mulvaney-case-study/
• [5] https://www.fcnews.net/2023/07/marketing-lessons-from-bud-light/

Claim

He got almost a billion dollar valuation for this company in his latest round.

Veracity Rating: 1 out of 4

Facts

To evaluate the claim that a company received "almost a billion dollar valuation" in its latest round, we need to consider the context and available financial data. However, the claim does not specify which company is being referred to. If we consider Anheuser-Busch InBev (ABI.BR) as a reference point due to the additional context provided, we can assess its valuation but not directly verify the claim about a specific company receiving a valuation of almost a billion dollars.

## Anheuser-Busch InBev (ABI.BR) Valuation

– **Market Capitalization**: As of recent data, Anheuser-Busch InBev SA/NV has a market capitalization of approximately $121.23 billion[5].
– **Enterprise Value**: The enterprise value is around $182.22 billion[5].
– **Fair Value**: The fair value of ABI.BR is estimated at about €82.82 as of early April 2025, based on Peter Lynch's formula[1].

## Claim Evaluation

Given the lack of specific details about the company in question, it's challenging to directly verify the claim. However, if we are discussing a company with a valuation of "almost a billion dollars," this would typically refer to a private company or a smaller public entity, as major corporations like Anheuser-Busch InBev have valuations in the hundreds of billions.

For private companies, valuations can fluctuate significantly based on factors like market conditions, operational changes, and strategic decisions, as seen in the example of X Holdings (formerly Twitter)[2]. Without specific financial news or investment reports mentioning the company in question, it's difficult to confirm the claim.

## Conclusion

Without more specific information about the company or access to financial news directly referencing the valuation, it's not possible to verify the claim about a company receiving "almost a billion dollar valuation" in its latest round. The discussion about Anheuser-Busch InBev highlights broader issues in corporate governance and brand management but does not relate directly to the valuation claim in question.

Citations

• [1] https://valueinvesting.io/ABI.BR/valuation/fair-value
• [2] https://www.investopedia.com/articles/fundamental-analysis/11/valuing-private-companies.asp
• [3] https://stockanalysis.com/stocks/bud/statistics/
• [4] https://www.asm.com/media/1fcpm1px/asm-annual-report-2023.pdf
• [5] https://www.wisesheets.io/enterprise-value/ABI.BR

Claim

I don't think it's going to be a 3 billion company.

Veracity Rating: 2 out of 4

Facts

To evaluate the claim that "I don't think it's going to be a 3 billion company," we need to consider the context and available data regarding the company in question. However, the provided information primarily focuses on Anheuser-Busch (AB InBev) and its challenges, particularly the impact of the Bud Light boycott. Let's break down the relevant points and assess the claim based on available data and principles of financial forecasting.

## Understanding the Claim
The claim suggests skepticism about a company reaching a valuation of $3 billion. Without specific details about the company, we can't directly assess its potential valuation. However, we can discuss factors that influence company valuations and how they might apply to Anheuser-Busch or similar entities.

## Anheuser-Busch's Challenges
Anheuser-Busch, particularly through its brand Bud Light, has faced significant challenges due to a boycott sparked by a promotional partnership with a transgender influencer. This controversy led to a sustained decline in sales, with Bud Light experiencing a drop of around 32% in sales and purchase incidence by Q4 2023[1][3]. The boycott not only affected Bud Light but also impacted other Anheuser-Busch brands, contributing to a broader decline in the company's U.S. revenue[3].

## Financial Forecasting Principles
Financial forecasting involves using historical data and market trends to predict future financial performance[2]. Factors such as consumer behavior, market competition, and strategic decisions significantly influence these forecasts. For Anheuser-Busch, the boycott and subsequent sales decline indicate challenges in maintaining or increasing valuation without significant strategic adjustments.

## Evaluating the Claim
Without specific details about the company in question, it's challenging to directly assess the validity of the claim. However, if we consider Anheuser-Busch as a potential subject, its recent financial struggles suggest that reaching or maintaining a high valuation could be challenging without addressing core issues such as consumer alienation and strategic missteps.

## Conclusion
The claim's validity depends on the specific company and context. For Anheuser-Busch, recent challenges indicate difficulties in achieving significant growth without addressing underlying issues. Financial forecasting models, such as statistical forecasting or multiple linear regression, could provide insights into potential future valuations by analyzing historical data and market trends[2]. However, without more specific information about the company in question, a definitive assessment of the claim is not possible.

## Recommendations for Further Analysis
1. **Identify the Company**: Clarify which company is being referred to in the claim.
2. **Gather Historical Data**: Collect financial data and market trends for the company.
3. **Apply Financial Forecasting Models**: Use statistical methods or multiple linear regression to predict future financial performance based on historical data.
4. **Consider Market and Consumer Trends**: Analyze consumer behavior and market competition to understand potential challenges or opportunities for growth.

Citations

• [1] https://hbr.org/2024/03/lessons-from-the-bud-light-boycott-one-year-later
• [2] https://blog.hubspot.com/sales/financial-forecasting
• [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bud_Light_boycott
• [4] https://courts.delaware.gov/supreme/oralarguments/download.aspx?id=4405

Claim

80% of my cohort used to drink alcohol when we were in our 20s and now that Gen Z is in their 20s only 60% of them is drinking alcohol.

Veracity Rating: 3 out of 4

Facts

To evaluate the claim that "80% of my cohort used to drink alcohol when we were in our 20s and now that Gen Z is in their 20s only 60% of them is drinking alcohol," we need to examine available data on alcohol consumption trends across different generations.

## Evidence on Alcohol Consumption Trends

1. **Gen Z's Drinking Habits**: Research indicates that Gen Z is drinking less alcohol than previous generations. A Gallup survey found that the share of adults under 35 who say they ever drink dropped significantly over two decades, from 72% in 2001-2003 to 62% in 2021-2023[2]. This trend aligns with the notion that fewer Gen Zers are consuming alcohol.

2. **Specific Statistics for Gen Z**: Around a third of people aged 18-24 do not drink alcohol at all, which suggests that a significant portion of Gen Z is abstaining from alcohol[1]. However, specific figures indicating that only 60% of Gen Zers drink alcohol are not directly cited in the available sources.

3. **Comparison Across Generations**: Studies show that Gen Z drinks less than Millennials, who in turn drink less than older generations[3]. This supports the idea that there is a decline in alcohol consumption across younger generations.

4. **Sober Curious Movement**: There is a growing interest in the sober curious movement among Gen Z, with a significant increase in those planning to reduce their alcohol intake[5]. This trend further supports the notion that Gen Z is less inclined towards alcohol consumption.

## Conclusion

While the specific claim that "80% of my cohort used to drink alcohol when we were in our 20s and now that Gen Z is in their 20s only 60% of them is drinking alcohol" cannot be directly verified with the provided sources, the overall trend of declining alcohol consumption among younger generations is well-documented. Gen Z is indeed drinking less than previous generations, driven by factors such as health consciousness, changing social norms, and the rise of the sober curious movement[1][2][3][5]. Therefore, the claim aligns with broader trends but lacks specific statistical validation from the sources reviewed.

Citations

• [1] https://www.mintel.com/insights/food-and-drink/gen-z-sober-curious-generation/
• [2] https://time.com/7203140/gen-z-drinking-less-alcohol/
• [3] https://www.provi.com/blog/gen-z-drinking-habits-beverage-industry
• [4] https://health.clevelandclinic.org/why-gen-z-is-drinking-less
• [5] https://ncsolutions.com/press-and-media/gen-zs-interest-in-the-sober-curious-movement-increases-53-from-2023-to-2024-according-to-a-new-ncsolutions-analysis/

Claim

There has been a massive drop off in the number of people drinking alcohol.

Veracity Rating: 2 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluating the Claim: A Massive Drop Off in Alcohol Consumption

The claim of a "massive drop off" in alcohol consumption can be evaluated by examining recent trends in alcohol consumption globally and in specific regions.

### Global Trends

– **Global Volume Decline**: In 2023, the global alcoholic drinks market experienced a total volume decline for only the third time in 15 years, with a marginal decrease of 0.2%[3]. This decline is attributed to factors like inflationary pressures and a structural slowdown in China.
– **Regional Variations**: While some regions, such as Europe, have seen a steady decline in alcohol consumption since the mid-2000s[5], other areas like Southeast Asia experienced significant increases between 2010 and 2017[1].

### Regional and National Trends

– **Europe**: Alcohol consumption in Europe has been declining steadily since the mid-2000s, with a decrease of 0.5 liters per capita between 2010 and 2020[5]. This trend is influenced by the health and wellness movement and rising costs of alcoholic beverages.
– **United States**: Americans' views on alcohol are shifting, with more people seeing moderate drinking as unhealthy[2]. However, the overall consumption trend in the U.S. is mixed, with some surveys indicating a decrease in alcohol consumption during the COVID-19 pandemic[4].
– **Young Adults**: There is a notable decrease in alcohol consumption among young adults in the U.S., with a shift towards healthier lifestyle choices[2].

### Conclusion

While there are declining trends in alcohol consumption in certain regions, such as Europe, and among specific demographics like young adults in the U.S., the claim of a "massive drop off" globally might be overstated. The global decline is marginal, and trends vary significantly by region and demographic. Factors such as health consciousness, economic pressures, and generational preferences are driving these changes[3][5].

### Evidence Summary

| **Region/Group** | **Trend** | **Reasons** | **Sources** |
|——————|———–|————|————-|
| **Global** | Marginal decline (0.2%) | Inflation, structural slowdown in China | [3] |
| **Europe** | Steady decline since mid-2000s | Health and wellness trend, rising costs | [5] |
| **U.S. Young Adults** | Decrease | Health concerns, lifestyle changes | [2] |
| **Southeast Asia** | Increase between 2010 and 2017 | Economic growth, changing lifestyles | [1] |

In conclusion, while alcohol consumption is declining in some areas, the overall trend is complex and varies by region and demographic. The claim of a "massive drop off" does not accurately reflect the nuanced global situation.

Citations

• [1] https://www.statista.com/chart/17951/annual-liters-of-alcohol-consumed-per-person-and-change/
• [2] https://news.gallup.com/poll/648413/alcohol-consumption-increasingly-viewed-unhealthy.aspx
• [3] https://www.euromonitor.com/press/press-releases/august-2024/alcoholic-drinks-market-hits-total-volume-decline-worldwide-for-only-third-time-in-15-years-euromonitor-international
• [4] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8717736/
• [5] https://www.foodnavigator.com/Article/2024/07/01/Alcohol-consumption-declining/

Claim

Anheuser Busch InBev's US operations only account for about 20% of their revenue and maybe a quarter of their profits.

Veracity Rating: 2 out of 4

Facts

To evaluate the claim that Anheuser-Busch InBev's U.S. operations account for about 20% of their revenue and maybe a quarter of their profits, we need to analyze the company's financial reports and regional performance data.

## Revenue Contribution

Anheuser-Busch InBev (AB InBev) is a multinational company with operations across several regions, including North America, Middle Americas, South America, EMEA, and Asia Pacific. While specific figures for the U.S. alone are not always detailed in public reports, the North America segment includes both the U.S. and Canada.

In 2022, AB InBev reported a total revenue of $57.8 billion[4]. The North America segment's performance is a significant part of this total, but exact U.S.-specific revenue figures are not typically disclosed separately from Canada. However, given that the U.S. is a major market for AB InBev, it is reasonable to assume that it contributes substantially to the North America segment's revenue.

## Profit Contribution

Regarding profits, AB InBev reports its financial performance in terms of EBITDA (Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation, and Amortization) and EBIT (Earnings Before Interest and Taxes) for each region. In 2021, the North America segment's EBITDA was $6.131 billion, which was part of a global EBITDA of $19.209 billion[2]. This suggests that North America contributes a significant portion of the company's profits, but again, specific figures for the U.S. alone are not provided.

## Claim Evaluation

Given the lack of precise data on U.S.-specific revenue and profit contributions, it's challenging to directly verify the claim that U.S. operations account for about 20% of revenue and a quarter of profits. However, considering AB InBev's global operations and the significant market presence in the U.S., it's plausible that the U.S. contributes a substantial portion of both revenue and profits.

## Conclusion

While the claim cannot be precisely verified due to the absence of detailed U.S.-specific financial data in publicly available reports, it is reasonable to infer that the U.S. market plays a crucial role in AB InBev's overall financial performance. The company's leadership has noted improvements in the U.S. market, which suggests its importance[3]. However, without explicit figures, the exact percentages of revenue and profit contributions from U.S. operations remain speculative.

To accurately assess the claim, access to more detailed regional financial data or company-specific reports would be necessary. As of now, the claim remains plausible but unverified due to the lack of specific data.

Citations

• [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/269112/revenue-of-anheuser-busch-inbev-worldwide/
• [2] https://www.ab-inbev.com/assets/pdfs/AB%20InBev_FY_European_financials_statements_FINAL.pdf
• [3] https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2024/nov/01/a-b-inbev-revenue-finally-stabilizing-19-months-af/
• [4] https://www.ab-inbev.com/assets/pressreleases/2023/FY%20Financial%20Report%202022.pdf
• [5] https://stockanalysis.com/stocks/bud/revenue/

Claim

The company will do four and a half billion of called profits this year.

Veracity Rating: 0 out of 4

Facts

To evaluate the claim that Anheuser-Busch InBev will achieve "four and a half billion of called profits" this year, we need to clarify what "called profits" refers to. Typically, this could mean EBITDA (Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation, and Amortization), net income, or another financial metric. Given the context, let's examine the available financial forecasts and reports for Anheuser-Busch InBev.

## EBITDA Projections

Anheuser-Busch InBev has reported significant financial performance in recent years. For the first half of 2024, the company achieved a normalized EBITDA of $10.288 billion, with a margin expansion of 165bps to 34.4%[2]. However, the claim of achieving "four and a half billion of called profits" does not align with this figure, as it seems too low compared to the half-year EBITDA.

For the full year 2024, Anheuser-Busch InBev's net capital expenditure was projected between $4.0 and $4.5 billion[2]. This does not directly relate to profit but indicates significant investment in operations.

## Net Income and Earnings Per Share (EPS)

The net income for Anheuser-Busch InBev in the first half of 2024 was $2.564 billion[2]. This figure is also below the "four and a half billion" claim for the entire year. Earnings per share (EPS) projections for 2024 and 2025 suggest a continued positive trend but do not directly support the claim of achieving profits of that magnitude[5].

## Conclusion

Based on the available financial data and forecasts, the claim that Anheuser-Busch InBev will achieve "four and a half billion of called profits" this year appears to be unsubstantiated. The company's reported EBITDA and net income figures for recent periods do not align with this claim. Without specific clarification on what "called profits" refers to, it is challenging to validate this statement using current financial reports and forecasts.

**Evidence Summary:**
– **EBITDA:** The company reported a significant EBITDA for the first half of 2024, but it does not directly support the claim of "four and a half billion" for the full year[2].
– **Net Income:** The net income for the first half of 2024 was $2.564 billion, which is below the claimed figure[2].
– **EPS Projections:** While EPS projections indicate a positive trend, they do not directly support the claim[5].

In conclusion, without further clarification or specific financial metrics to support the claim, it appears to be inaccurate based on current data.

Citations

• [1] https://www.sahmcapital.com/news/content/anheuser-busch-inbev-2025-outlook-expects-ebitda-growth-of-4-8-capex-set-at-35b4b-and-net-finance-costs-estimated-to-be-190m-220m-per-quarter-2025-02-26
• [2] https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20240731260058/en/AB-InBev-Reports-Second-Quarter-2024-Results
• [3] https://www.marketscreener.com/quote/stock/ANHEUSER-BUSCH-INBEV-SA-N-36718031/finances/
• [4] https://www.ab-inbev.com/content/dam/universaltemplate/ab-inbev/investors/reports-and-filings/annual-and-hy-reports/2018/03/AB_InBev_2017_Annual_Report_complete_032218.pdf
• [5] https://www.macroaxis.com/earnings-estimate/BUD

Claim

The Budweiser brand has been intertwined with the history of the United States and supported World War I and World War II.

Veracity Rating: 2 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluating the Claim: Budweiser's Historical Role in the United States and Its Support for World War I and World War II

The claim that the Budweiser brand has been intertwined with the history of the United States and supported World War I and World War II can be evaluated by examining Budweiser's historical contributions and its role during these significant events.

### Historical Background of Budweiser

Budweiser, introduced by Adolphus Busch in 1876, became a pioneering brand in the U.S. beer industry. It was the first national beer brand in the United States, thanks to innovative transportation methods like refrigerated railroad cars[3]. However, there is no specific evidence that Budweiser directly supported World War I or World War II through unique contributions beyond general wartime efforts.

### World War I and World War II Contributions

During World War I, breweries like Anheuser-Busch faced challenges due to anti-German sentiment and later, during Prohibition (1920-1933), they had to adapt by producing non-alcoholic products[3]. There is no specific documentation highlighting Budweiser's direct support for these wars. However, breweries generally contributed to the war efforts by producing supplies and maintaining employment.

### Post-War Period and National Expansion

Following World War II, Anheuser-Busch experienced significant growth, expanding its operations across the United States[1][3]. This period marked a time of national expansion and increased popularity for Budweiser, but it does not specifically relate to direct support for the wars.

### Conclusion

While Budweiser is deeply intertwined with American history, particularly through its pioneering role in the beer industry and its national expansion, there is no clear evidence that it directly supported World War I or World War II beyond general wartime adaptations and contributions. The claim may be overstated in terms of specific wartime support.

### Additional Context

The discussion about Anheuser-Busch's decline post-acquisition by InBev in 2008 highlights changes in corporate culture and marketing strategies, which have led to controversies and sales declines. However, this aspect is separate from the historical claim regarding wartime support.

### Evidence and Citations

– **Historical Background and Innovations**: Anheuser-Busch was a pioneer in using refrigerated railroad cars for beer transportation, contributing to its national expansion[3].
– **Prohibition and Adaptation**: During Prohibition, Anheuser-Busch produced non-alcoholic products to maintain operations[1][3].
– **Post-War Expansion**: The company experienced significant growth post-WWII, expanding across the U.S.[1][3].
– **Lack of Specific Wartime Contributions**: There is no documented evidence of Budweiser's direct support for World War I or World War II beyond general wartime efforts.

Citations

• [1] https://us.budweiser.com/history
• [2] http://thettablog.blogspot.com/2015/08/precedential-no-27-fame-of-bud-for-beer.html
• [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anheuser-Busch
• [4] https://infonegocios.miami/y-ademas/the-value-of-brands-did-you-know-budweiser-faces-challenges-using-its-brand-in-many-countries
• [5] https://www.logodesign.org/the-complete-history-of-the-budweiser-logo/