*In answering your questions, we have included in this document quotes from various

experts who are able to speak knowledgably about specific requested information. These
quotes have been approved by the individual for your publication, and we have included
their full name, title, and contact information. Should you wish to contact the individual,
we simply ask that you provide us the courtesy of informing us in advance, so we can
ensure that the individual is available. We ask that the quotes are not manipulated, not
taken out of context and always used in full.

About the WE Brand(s)

Jaren Kerr asked:

Your charity began as Kids Can Free The Children, then became Free the Children,
then WE Charity. Your social enterprise is called Me to We. As mentioned above,
you also use the umbrella terms “WE,” “We,” and “WE Movement,”
which encompass both your charity and your social enterprise. If the distinction
between your charity and your social enterprise is important, then why use so
many names and choose such similar-sounding names?

On We.org the following explanation is provided: “WE is made up of WE Charity

and ME to WE. Both are part of the WE Movement, also known as ‘WE’ and ‘We.’”
Do you ever use the branding “WE,” “We,” or “WE Movement” within schools?

What specific steps do you take to make sure children understand the distinction
between WE Charity and Me to We?

History of WE and WE Charity’s Name

Founded in 1995 by 12-year-old Craig Kielburger as “the Group of 12 12-year-olds,” the

name “Kids Can Free the Children” was adopted when the organization became a
registered charity in Canada. It was always informally known as Free The Children. Given
the global nature of the charity’s work, Free the Children encountered a number of
challenges with its name, including:
• Brand confusion
• The name was similar to other international development non-profits such as Feed
The Children and Save The Children
• It was difficult to translate the name Free The Children into other languages
• In some countries, authoritarian governments stone-walled or forbid our efforts to
legally incorporate the name

As we approached our 20-year anniversary in 2015, we reflected on how to set ourselves

up for success for the next 20 years.
The project was given to Stanley Hainsworth and his team at Tether (which provided
extensive pro bono assistance), world-class branding experts for some of the most
recognizable North American brands, including Nike, Lego and Starbucks. Stanley and
his team were part of the large group of experts who supported the brand evolution,
including Leo Burnett, The Brand Project, as well as hundreds of others via stakeholder
focus groups.

The original members of Free The Children were inspired by the issue of “freeing
children,” but within less than a year, the mission expanded to helping empower people
to better the world more generally. As a group of kids, they felt powerless to create
change, but “We come together & We can change the world” became a slogan of the
organization. The fundamental belief was that ordinary individuals can create goodness
together. The core philosophy of ‘WE’ was embedded within any programs created by the
founders and the senior staff of the organization.

When we looked towards continued global expansion and evolution, we sought a more
universally-recognised brand and name that would serve to strengthen our programs and
impact around the globe.

At this time, Free The Children’s WE Day, with its TV broadcast and strong social media
presence, had eclipsed the name “Free The Children.” Given the success of WE Day, it
was decided that the charity would continue with the name “WE”.

The experts from Tether were given the clear task to create a brand structure that was
transparent as possible in the differences between the newly-named charity and the
social enterprise, ME to WE Social Enterprises Inc. The brand experts at Tether
accomplished this task by embedding the word “charity” in the evolving brand to be “WE
Charity.” Both entities “WE Charity” and “ME to WE Social Enterprises Inc.” literally have
their purpose and structure in their name. One is a charity. The other is a social enterprise.
The professionals said that they had never seen a clearer brand distinction.

Based on your questions, we respect that a small minority of individuals may have a
different opinion, but an esteemed branding agency, using rigorous user testing, multiple
focus groups and survey data, determined that this brand structure was the best and
clearest approach.

If you are approaching your article with the spirit of facts, any commentary about the
opinion of a few individuals should be given context that a professional agency and the
vast majority of people experience a very high degree of brand distinction and clarity.

Furthermore, if there was the slightest of confusion, any person would quickly understand
the distinction prior to a financial interaction. At times of donation, WE Charity clearly
states its CRA and IRS registration numbers, and information specifying that donations
receive tax receipts. At times of purchase, ME to WE Social Enterprisesclearly states on
all packaging and points of interaction that it is a social enterprise, and that a minimum of
half of proceeds are donated to WE Charity, while the balance is re-invested to grow the
social mission. Multiple systems are in place to ensure legal, financial, and brand clarity.

There has been a great deal of care to ensure that all stakeholders have a clear
understanding of the distinct and different functions of WE Charity and ME to WE.

Quote from Stanley Hainsworth, CEO Tether, on the WE and WE Charity brands:

“I have dedicated the last 30 years to building some of the world’s most successful brands,
including Lego, Nike and Starbucks. The WE brand was designed to ensure absolute
clarity between entities in a way that consumers would easily understand. We conducted
multiple focus groups and consumer research studies. We worked hard to develop robust
brand guidelines for both WE Charity and ME to WE. Great care was taken to ensure
distinction—the word “charity” is even in the name of WE Charity—this is almost unheard
of in the charity sector. We took great pains to make sure that there was a clear distinction
between the WE Charity side and the ME to WE Social Enterprises side to ensure clarity
for regulatory purposes, for our own employees and for potential donors, participants and
consumers. The absolute attention to clarity is the clearest example of transparency—to
imply otherwise would not only be factually incorrect, but bewildering, as to how someone
could arrive at that conclusion once they have done their most basic homework.”
– Stanley Hainsworth, founder & CEO, Tether Inc. and WE Charity Board Member.
[email protected]

WE

Leading voices such as the Dalai Lama and Elie Wiesel have often stated that the single
greatest challenge facing our global community is to shift to ‘we’. Inspired by these
visionaries of compassion and social justice, we have long called for a WE movement.

We are seeking a more globally connected, compassionate, and socially-responsible

world. Our mission to make ‘doing good, doable.’ We do this through two legal entities:
WE Charity and ME to WE Social Enterprisess. It is important to note that WE Charity
and ME to WE Social Enterprisesexist for the same purpose. If these entities were created
in almost any other nation, they would legally be one entity.

Due to the archaic laws governing the charitable sector in Canada, ME to WE Social
Enterprisesand WE Charity need to operate as two separate entities but share a common
mission.

Please note this structure would be significantly different if the organizations were
headquartered in countries such as the UK, or in almost 40 U.S. states, or various
Scandinavian nations that have fully embraced Social Enterprise in the charitable sector
as a means for charities to create a sustainable income source through for-profit
business.
Our Co-Founders Craig Kielburger and Marc Kielburger have been very transparent
about social enterprise, and their leadership in this area has been widely celebrated.
Social enterprise is important to diversify funding sources for social causes, and to assist
to leverage business to address fundamental social needs such as employing vulnerable
populations (such as the women ME to WE Social Enterprises artisans who are facing
extreme poverty levels in Africa). Given their clear expertise in this area, as recently as
September 24th, 2018, co-Founder Craig Kielburger testified at the Special Senate
Committee on the charitable sector advocating for Canada to adopt the European models
that classify social enterprises. It is worth noting that in the UK there are 70,000+ social
enterprises. The system of social enterprise is very common globally.

You may agree or disagree with the concept of social enterprise, but this is the norm in
many countries around the world. Perhaps the world’s most famous social enterprise is
the Grameen Bank. It received the Noble Peace Prize as a legal for-profit institution that
operates for a non-profit purpose to end global poverty.

Social enterprise is less common in Canada because of the restrictive treatment under
Canadian law of what “enterprise” activities are available to charities and non-profits. This
means, for instance, that a charity mandated to alleviate poverty can run a second-hand
clothing store, but that it can’t, as part of its operations, own a recycling plant and use the
profits from the plant to fund its other work. Moreover, two recent rulings from the Canada
Revenue Agency suggest that non-profit organizations cannot intentionally generate
surpluses and retain their Income Tax Act (ITA) non-profit status. If they earn revenues
in excess of their costs, they are only entitled to have those revenues as tax-exempt if
they earn them accidentally or serendipitously. That calls into question the ability of non-
profit organizations to accumulate reserves for innovation, growth, or scaled impact.
Due to these limitations, ME to WE Social Enterprises is a legally separate organisation,
but it fundamentally exists to further the same mission as WE Charity. ME to WE Social
Enterprises seeks to fund WE Charity. The ME to WE Social Enterprises financials are
reported to the WE Charity Board of Directors. ME to WE Social Enterprises seeks to
provide extensive in-kind support.

What is WE Charity?

WE Charity is an international charity and educational partner. Our organization is unique

among Canadian charities in that it operates collaborative programs both domestically
and internationally. In Canada, the U.S., and the UK, WE Schools and the youth
empowerment event WE Day are initiatives of WE Charity that educate and empower
young people to make a difference. WE Schools is a year-long educational program that
nurtures compassion in students and gives them the tools to create transformative social
change. WE Day is a series of stadium-sized events that celebrate youth making a
difference in their local and global communities.

Through WE Villages, also an initiative of WE Charity, we partner with communities in

Africa, Asia and Latin America to implement a holistic, five-pillar international
development model designed to achieve sustainable change. Together with local leaders
and families, we transform lives with solutions that are adaptive, effective and sustained
long term by the community itself.
• WE Schools is a year-long experiential service-learning program that empowers
youth to make positive impacts in local and global communities. With over 16,000
schools engaged globally, WE Schools aims to revitalize the fundamental purpose
of education: instil a love of learning in students, move them to develop life skills
to better the world, and empower them to forge their own personal paths to
success. Educators are given the tools to engage their classes, allowing students
to further their core-curricular learning while gaining an understanding of the root
causes of the pressing issues around them.

• WE Day is a day-long educational and inspirational event that celebrates the power
of young people to make a positive difference in the world. As part of the WE
Schools program, students earn their way to WE Day, WE Charity’s signature
youth empowerment event. While the event is free for schools and youth to attend,
participants must earn their tickets through a commitment to one local and one
global action of their choice through the WE Schools program.

• WE Villages is an adaptive, effective five-pillar model built on 20 years of

experience collaborating with dedicated community members and international
development experts to find solutions that work. Our model is designed to address
the root causes of poverty and remove the barriers to education to break the cycle
of poverty. It is not a handout or single solution, but a combination of key
interventions that empower a community to help themselves through our five
Pillars of Impact: Education, Water, Health, Food, and Opportunity. At the heart
of the asset-based community development approach lies the belief that the
community’s own assets and resources including the people, institutions, skills and
capabilities are the most critical resources for development. In essence, it is an
approach that seeks to build sustainable livelihoods and to break the cycle of long-
term dependency to promote self-sufficiency. We currently work in nine countries
overseas: Kenya, Tanzania, Ecuador, Nicaragua, India, Rural China, Sierra
Leone, Haiti, and Ethiopia.

What is ME to WE?

ME to WE is a social enterprise that creates socially conscious products and experiences

that allow people to do good through their everyday choices. ME to WE operates based
on a unique social enterprise model and uses its income to support the operating costs
incurred by its partner, WE Charity. Through the sale of socially conscious retail products
and immersive volunteer trips, ME to WE drives impact by supporting WE Charity’s WE
Villages communities around the world with its unique selling points and experience
offerings. ME to WE has two principle lines of social entrepreneurship:
 • Trips ME to WE’s world-class service trips are deeply impactful. Each life-changing
experience provides young people, adults, families and corporate groups with the
unique opportunity to volunteer on a WE Charity international development project.
This can include assisting with local harvests, collecting water or even building a
school.

ME to WE Trips introduce young people to international development. Annually

ME to WE Trips host young people who are seeking to learn about sustainable
development. Towards that outcome, youth trips financials are designed to be ‘at-
costs’ (i.e. in 2018 there was purposely a financial deficit) when accounting for the
number of scholarships and other youth-support programs. ME to WE Trips
introduce donors to the work of WE Charity, which on an annual basis results in
the donation of several millions of dollars to WE Charity by trip participants during
the trip or shortly thereafter.

It is important to note that ME to WE Trips operates at almost zero margin due to

the substantial costs of operations in remote locations and the very high number
of full scholarship trips given to support the global citizenship education mission of
WE Charity. To be very transparent, ME to WE Trips operates at a 1% profitability.

The infrastructure for ME to WE Trips is built and funded by the social enterprise.
To be clear, WE Charity benefits from the ability to host prospective donors, without
having to allocate precious donor dollars towards building the hosting
infrastructure.

• Retail: ME to WE retail products offer consumer choices that give back, and every
product sold contributes to local programming or creates lasting change in a
community overseas. To make this process even more transparent and powerful,
our innovative Track Your Impact model uses an 8 digit code to show supporters
exactly what charitable impact their purchase will have in support of WE Charity.
ME to WE Social Enterprises’ impacts include artisans in Kenya earning 4x on
average their previous wages, and Fair-Trade certification process for its
chocolate. ME to WE supports WE Charity’s mission of creating economic
sustainability, fair wages, and uplifting economic progress in communities to end
extreme poverty.

What makes ME to WE a true social enterprise is that its bottom line is not measured by
profits, but by the people empowered and the lives transformed. Every decision begins
and ends with ‘how will this make the world a better place,’ and every action brings us
closer to this crucial goal and helps support the work of WE Charity.

ME to WE donates a minimum of half of its net profit to support WE Charity, while the
balance is reinvested to grow the mission of the social enterprise, including launching the
next socially-responsible product, fair trade production location, and other social cause
innovations. While ME to WE’s commitment is to donate a minimum 50% of its net profit
to WE Charity, it often donates as much as 80+% of its yearly profit and millions of dollars
of cost offsetting in-kind to WE Charity. Since 2009, ME to WE has donated CAD $20
million (cash and cost off setting in-kind) to WE Charity. Using a highly effective
model, ME to WE is structured to offset expenses and help provide pro bono services to
WE Charity’s work, ensuring that the charity achieves a remarkable rate of financial
efficiency. In part, due to this model of ME to WE supporting WE Charity’s administration
costs, WE Charity is able to achieve a remarkable level of efficiency within the non-profit
sector, with less than 10% of its budget spent on administration costs. This results in an
average of 90% of its donations going directly to charitable efforts at home and abroad.
The impact is more lives transformed.

Please see quote from Nicola Marr, Associate Director, WE Charity

“What attracted me to WE Charity was the unique opportunity to be part of a global
movement doing some truly innovative work to disrupt the traditional charity landscape.
Having worked for a traditional non-profit for the last 4 years, I was often frustrated by the
antiquated fundraising models that saw us compete for limited donor dollars at a high
admin rate. Since joining the WE Charity, I feel like I’m part of something truly unique—a
fresh perspective to charitable giving which allows us to be more efficient with every dollar
we raise. This is, in part, because of our relationship with ME to WE, of which I am
extremely proud. The entire non-profit sector is in desperate need of disruption and
innovation, and I’m extremely grateful to have joined the organization leading that
charge. – Nicola Marr, Associate Director, WE Charity. [email protected]

What led to the creation of the social enterprise?

A reality for many non-profits in Canada, in its earlier days WE Charity faced the challenge
of not having a reliable and sustainable funding source that could guarantee the charity’s
ability to effectively scale its operations to support the delivery of world class programs
aimed to create sustainable and transformative change both domestically and
internationally. After natural disasters like the 2004 Tsunami in Sri Lanka/Thailand, WE
Charity saw a massive shift toward donors funding urgent relief efforts and away from
donating to support long-term international development efforts. It was after this shift that
WE Charity realized the organization could no longer solely rely on unpredictable donor
dollars. Moreover the 170,000+ registered charities and non-profits in Canada, coupled
with the limited amount of income people are spending on charitable donations each year
(only 20.9% of Canadians make charitable donations donating only 0.56% of their
income), the senior leadership at the then-named Free The Children faced the challenge
of seeking to secure for a very small portion of these limited funds.

Facing these limitations within the charitable sector that doesn’t allow registered charities
and non-profit organizations to develop business-driven activities to create sustainable
funding sources, the charities senior leadership made the bold decision to establish a
separately structured social enterprise that would support the charity financially while at
the same time furthering its mission.
Today, ME to WE Social Enterprises is an award-winning social enterprise that drives
social impact through offering consumers socially conscious products and experiences to
help support the charity. ME to WE is B Corp Certified and scores among the top 5% of
all Canadian B Corp organizations meeting rigorous standards of social and
environmental performance, accountability, and transparency. ME to WE provides
financial reporting to the WE Charity Board of Directors.

What is the relationship between WE Charity and ME to WE and how is it structured?

WE Charity and ME to WE Social Enterprises operate exactly as outlined by the rules

developed by a series of experts—including Torys and Miller Thompson and approved by
the Ontario Public Guardian Trustee—to ensure governance, financial accountability, and
overwhelming benefit always to WE Charity.

WE Charity is a registered charity. WE Charity’s Headquarters are located at 339 Queen

St. East.

ME to WE is a social enterprise. ME to WE’s Headquarters are located at 145 Berkeley

St.

WE Charity has an active Board of Directors who oversee the organization and drive the
strategic direction of the charity. The board provides legal, financial, and fiduciary
oversight to the charity and appoints the Executive Director to oversee the day-to-day
operations.

ME to WE has an active Board of Directors that oversees the social enterprise and
provides strategic guidance to the business. The Chair of WE Charity participates on the
ME to WE board to ensure the social enterprise acts in the best interests of WE Charity.
Furthermore, the Executive Director of ME to WE provides a full annual report to the WE
Charity Board of Directors.

ME to WE and WE Charity are legally distinct entities and maintain separate financials,
governance, and headquarters. However, each entity shares a common mission and work
towards a common goal.

Any interactions between the two entities is defined by a legal partnership agreement that
outlines the roles and responsibilities of each party and is reviewed and signed off
annually by the Executive Directors and Board of Directors of both organizations. Benefit
must be overwhelming for the charity.

The structure of the partnership is such that ME to WE’s primary function is to support the
mission of WE Charity. ME to WE designs its programs and products in such a way to
support and reinforce the core activities of the charity.

WE Charity and ME to WE recognized that the social enterprise model was not common
place in the Canadian context. Consequently, they have taken a number of
unprecedented steps to ensure the model and partnership structure has been assessed
by independent experts. This includes modes of interactions and areas of financial
engagement including financial transfers, staff allocation and office space. These areas
have been reviewed by a series of experts and independent groups:

• Provincial Guardian Trustee Sign off on Model

The Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee (“PGT”) is a branch of the Ontario
government’s Ministry of the Attorney General which provides services that safeguard the
legal, personal and financial interests of certain private individuals and estates. As a
matter of legal due diligence, WE Charity and ME to WE underwent a full assessment
from the PGT and were awarded an official court order supporting the structure and
relationship.

• Evaluation and Endorsement from the Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada
The Honourable Peter DeCarteret Cory, C.C., C.D., Q.C., LLD performed a
comprehensive review of all governance and operations of the charity and social
enterprise and provided an unconditional commendation and formal recognition of the
financial diligence demonstrated by both ME to WE and WE Charity.

• Model Proposed and Structured by two top law firms

To help create a sound corporate structure, governance model and reporting
requirements for the partnership, WE Charity and ME to WE engaged two of Canada’s
top law firms, Torys and Miller Thomson, who offered pro bono legal services in creating
the governing documents of the partnership.

• On-Going Legal Advice from Miller Thomson LLP

Miller Thompson LLP is a national legal practice which specializes in business law and
works with non-profit organizations and businesses alike, as an internationally recognized
law firm. Since the inception of ME to WE, we have sought legal counsel from Miller
Thomson, and continue to receive ongoing confirmation of the legitimacy of the structure
of our operations.

Clear Distinctions

The distinction between WE Charity and ME to WE Social Enterprises is very clear on

multiple levels. As one example, the following is evident with the website:

• A clear distinction between properties is easily visible in top navigation (not

uncommon in website architecture for organizations with various properties under
one umbrella—i.e. Virgin, Sick Kids, BC Cancer Agency)
• Clearly defined user journeys from first interaction with website there is a separate
domain, including wecharity.org and metowe.com
• From main homepage tile, visitors can watch video on model or visit
https://www.we.org/we-movement/ to learn more (illustration of breakdown, plus
another video)
 • Doing good differently section contains more detailed breakdown
https://www.we.org/we-movement/doing-good-differently/

This is especially clear for educators and students:

• As part of the original brand creation process, there were extensive focus groups
conducted among nearly 100 students and over 50 educators who unanimously
(100%) understood the difference between WE Charity and ME to WE Social
Enterprises. The fact is that there was literally zero brand confusion. It is important
to include this fact regarding any commentary on this subject.

Quote from Elizabeth Wicik, Educator, Blessed Cardinal Newman Catholic High School
“In our classroom, as I’m certain is the case for the vast majority of others, there is no
confusion between WE Charity and ME to WE. The business model is quite clearly
outlined in the introduction of all onboarding WE Schools materials, as well as clearly
signposted on the website. Not only is the difference between the charity and the social
enterprise very easy to understand, it has also become an incredibly useful teaching tool
which allows me to use a tangible, real-life example of the various innovative ways
organizations can create change through collaboration in the non-profit and for-profit
sectors. My students are extremely engaged with this content, and any indication that the
organization intentionally tries to confuse young people would be absurd. They seek to
make this all very clear”. – Elizabeth Wicik, educator, Blessed Cardinal Newman
Catholic High School. [email protected]

Quote from Gerry Connelly, former Director of Education, Toronto District School Board
and WE Charity board member
“Both ME to WE and WE Charity are fundamentally designed to do good, to encourage
people to “live WE”, albeit in different ways. WE Charity engage companies responsibly,
with the best interests of young people front and centre, and any statement to the contrary
would be incorrect.” - Gerry Connelly, former Director of Education, Toronto District
School Board and WE Charity Board Member , [email protected]

Allow us to reiterate that if there was the slightest of confusion, any person would quickly
understand the distinction prior to a financial interaction. At times of donation, WE Charity
clearly states its CRA and IRS registration numbers, and information specifying that
donations receive tax receipts. At times of purchase, ME to WE Social Enterprises clearly
states on all packaging and points of interaction that it is a social enterprise, and that a
minimum of half of proceeds are donated to WE Charity, while the balance is re-invested
to grow the social mission. Multiple systems are in place to ensure legal, financial, and
brand clarity.
 ME to WE and WE Charity Employees

Jaren Kerr asked:

You mention that Human Resources and IT teams are shared by both WE Charity
and Me to We. Which entity employs their members?

We spoke to employees of WE Charity who expressed concerns because, as

employees of a charity, they were dismayed when their work overlapped with ME
to WE, a for-profit social enterprise. How do you respond?

WE Charity and ME to WE are separate and distinct entities and staff are either employed
by WE Charity or ME to WE. Employees’ job responsibilities, salaries, and benefits align
to the respective organization by which they are employed. To enable better efficiency
and effectiveness of both the charity and social enterprise, a few functions support both
entities. In these teams, the vast majority of staff are paid by and aligned to the entities
separately, i.e., ME to WE staff supporting ME to WE and WE Charity Staff supporting
WE Charity.

In the very few cases where an employee supports both entities, a formal reconciliation
process is put in place led by the Executive Directors and HR leads to ensure staff time
allocations are tracked and reconciled formally. If in doubt, the allocation is always made
to ME to WE to pay all costs. This process has shown that ME to WE staff support the
work of WE Charity overwhelmingly, and any financial benefit goes to WE Charity. This
will be continued as a matter of policy. In part due to this model of ME to WE supporting
WE Charity’s administration costs, WE Charity is been able to achieve a remarkable level
of efficiency within the non-profit sector, with less than 10% of its budget spent on
administration costs. This results in an average of 90% of its donations going directly to
charitable efforts at home and abroad.

Both organizations maintain strong financial integrity and rigor. WE Charity and ME to
WE on an annual basis, go through the standard process of reconciling and accounting
for the support of WE Charity by ME to WE. This annual reconciliation process is designed
to fulfil the legal obligation of tracking income and expenses, and to document all financial
records. The Board of Directors of WE Charity is deeply engaged in this process.
Documentation is provided to the Board of Directors with the details to ensure full insight
by the Board into the relationship. This reconciliation process and review provides
oversight to the following:
1. All financial transactions between the two organizations,
2. The nature and value of the in-kind support provided by ME to WE to WE
Charity; and
3. Any other substantive work done in partnership.

In addition to the annual reconciliation, throughout the year, any other substantive
decisions involving both parties are reviewed and signed off by the WE Charity Board of
Directors and if there is ever any item in question ME to WE pays the cost. There is an
overwhelming benefit to WE Charity. To say that ME to WE is receiving benefit(s) from
WE Charity in any capacity is factually incorrect.

Quote from Heidi Pyper, Associate Director, WE Charity

“I come from a grassroots organization with a hyper local focus. What’s exciting for me
about working at WE is the sheer scale of the programs and opportunities to grow
partnerships through the many avenues WE offers, both locally and internationally. It’s
also great to be able to work on national partnerships with multi-year contracts. It allows
us to plan and be strategic about where we focus our energies, and look at long term
investments and activations as opposed to more immediate and short-term plans.
Furthermore, working at WE provides an opportunity to learn from a diversity of
partnerships outside of my own portfolio. Regardless of the scale of the program, we’ve
got some interesting and passionate partners doing great things with WE. I’m always
learning from my colleagues and their partners which is the very best kind of professional
development.” Heidi Pyper, Associate Director, WE Charity, [email protected]

Jaren Kerr Asked: We are aware that employees have raised concerns about some
of your corporate partnerships on ethical grounds. Specifically, employees raised
a concern to WE Charity management about partnering with Dow Chemical, with
regard to its environmental record. They allege that their concerns were dismissed
by management, and one reports that a We Charity vice president told them it was
“none of their business” who WE Charity partners with. How do you respond?

Neither WE Charity, nor ME to WE, employs “vice-presidents”, and neither organization

has ever operated with this staff structure. This raises strong concerns about the accuracy
of the journalist and media outlet. It brings into question the validity of the journalist's
documentation of other interviews, a bias on the part of the journalist or the person
interviewed and/or the accuracy of the interviewees’ memory or understanding of the
organization. Inaccuracies such as these continue to erode the credibility of this overall
potential article, as well as the sources used to support the article's framework.

If you have a specific source statement, please provide it in full quotes rather than an
abbreviation. Until then, we cannot respond with specifics to a statement so blatantly
factually inaccurate.

As a general practice, WE is fully transparent with employees about partnerships and we

often engage team members on these topics through town halls or all-staff
retreats. Employees are also encouraged to share concerns and have open
conversations with their Manager, Executive or a member or the People Operations and
Culture Team. WE has an open door policy.
Additionally, WE has an anonymous process, including an email address, for employees
to send through any concerns on any organizational issues. This mailbox is monitored by
our Internal Communications team and concerns are answered promptly. Any issues
raised are addressed in a timely manner.

Given the size of WE Charity and ME to WE, there may be a difference of opinion with a
small minority. However, 1000+ employees choose to remain with the organization
because of our best-practice in creating inclusive and open work environments.

As you can see based on the information above, there is a very robust process in place
to address any concerns or thoughts by staff. A statement otherwise would be clearly
factually incorrect.

Jaren Kerr asked What specific procedures or policies, if any, does WE Charity have
in place for employees to voice ethical concerns about the organization’s
partnerships or activities?

As noted above, WE is fully transparent and we often engage team members on these
topics through town hall settings.

WE also has an anonymous process, including an email address, for employees to send
through any concerns on any organizational issues. This mailbox is monitored by our
Internal Communications team and concerns are answered promptly. Any issues raised
are addressed in a timely manner.

Employees are encouraged to also share concerns with their Manager, Executive or a
member or the People Operations and Culture Team. WE has an open door policy. The
Chief People Officer is the point of escalation for any concerns.

Please see quote from Rann Sharma, Former Global Head, People and Culture,
WE Charity

“When I worked at WE Charity, there were clear policies and mechanisms in place that
allowed all employees to easily and safely raise concerns about any aspect of their staff
experience, including questions about our corporate partnerships. Examples of the ways
we would regularly solicit staff feedback include three staff townhalls throughout the year,
regular department meetings, open door policies with supervising staff, regular
confidential staff surveys and an anonymous email address where staff could submit
confidential feedback. WE went to great lengths to gather employee feedback, and any
claims to the contrary would be false. WE also had a clear and robust reconciliation
process in place that ensures clearly defined lines between WE Charity staff and ME to
WE staff. When overlap did occur, it is always to the benefit of WE Charity. This resulted
in very significant cost savings for WE Charity. This reconciliation process always took
place to ensure fiscal transparency. WE Charity staff could opt-in to hosting volunteer
trips abroad. They do so for two reasons: either because they are hosting one of their
donors, or they want the inspiring experience of visiting the project overseas and enjoying
global travel. It was always voluntary and are paid by ME to WE. In my experience in
speaking with the hundreds of staff who had the opportunity to travel overseas to witness
the change the organization makes in communities first-hand, this was always cited as a
significant employee highlight and employee benefit. This is one of the reasons why we
were able to attract and retain highly talented and engaged staff.” Rann Sharma, HR
Director at Heath Shared Services Ontario. Former Global Head, People and
Culture, WE Charity, [email protected]

Quote from Alex Rayment, Senior Manager, WE Charity

“I’ve been involved in facilitating overseas trips throughout various roles across the
organization. Taking part in overseas trips and community programming continues to be
a significant source of motivation in my role at WE. The opportunity to step outside of my
day-to-day work to connect in person with our international development work is
something that really helps me to connect to the mission on a deeper level.” Quote from
Alex Rayment, Senior Manager, WE Charity [email protected]
 WE Day Partnerships
Jaren Kerr asked
WE Day is a project of WE Charities and in your CRA tax filing is included as a
charitable endeavour. However, children at WE Day are exposed to marketing from
your corporate partners and from Me To We, including advertisements for ME to
WE Trips. How does this marketing promote charitable works?

In an earlier reply, you informed us that corporate partners who sponsor WE Day
do not receive charitable receipts. They are sponsorships, where the provision of
funds provides the partner “an advantage received in return.” Is this “advantage”
the opportunity to promote and market their brands? Would it be accurate to say
that WE Charity sells marketing opportunities to corporate partners?

As a journalist, we trust that you carefully choose your words. Given your question:
“Would it be accurate to say that WE Charity sells marketing opportunities to corporate
partners?”, allow us to provide you with the Oxford Dictionary:

Marketing is defined as “The action or business of promoting and selling products or

services, including market research and advertising.”(Oxford,
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/marketing).

WE Day does not promote products or services of their sponsors. Thus your statement is
not accurate.

WE Day in fact promotes social causes as activated by corporate partners – causes such
as anti-bullying, financial literacy, hunger, access to clean water have all been activated
via social campaigns at WE Day. All causes activated are all tied to social outcomes and
not corporate products and services.

WE Day operates with strict systems in place. We will not welcome any partner to a WE
Day activation unless they seek to achieve genuine social outcomes. As further evidence
of this statement about the intentions of WE Day partners, many of the companies
supporting WE Day only operate ‘business-to-business’, and thus have no products or
services to market to the audience.

The cause outcome of these activations includes tens of millions of pounds of food
collected for foodbanks, tens of millions of dollars raised for variety of causes, and tens
of millions of hours of service completed.

WE Day is made possible by the generous support of a community of sponsors who fund
the events and make it possible for schools, youth and families to participate free of
charge. ME to WE is one of the many proud supporters enabling WE Day. ME to WE
Social Enterprises has also provided both financial contributions and cost offsetting in-
kind contributions to enable the celebration, and to help maintain its free status to all
students and educators who attend. ME to WE has donated tens of thousands of hours
of paid staff time to support WE Day.

To be clear, ME to WE is a key program partner and sponsor of the event, with clearly
defined roles and responsibilities, just like other leading sponsors and partners. As such,
ME to WE has the opportunity to share its message of creating meaningful and lasting
change via WE Day. It is important to note that less than 5% of a typical WE Day show
has references to ME to WE programming and content – a significant portion of which is
educational in nature.

The vast majority of any WE Day show is designed to deliver content that inspires,
educates, and uplifts. We are grateful that many see the clear educational value of WE
Day, and they have provided their support and endorsement with their precious time.
Individuals who have chosen to support WE Day include His Holiness the Dalai Lama,
Nobel Peace Prize winner Elie Wiesel, Nobel Peace Prize winner Archbishop Desmond
Tutu, Dr. Jane Goodall, Nobel Peace Prize winner President Sirleaf Johnson, Nobel
Peace Prize winner Malala Yousafzai, Nobel Peace Prize winner Mikhail Gorbachev, and
many others.

The following is a quote from Mary-Eileen Donovan, Superintendent of Education

(Retired), Toronto Catholic School Board and WE Charity Board Member
"WE Day has been factually shown as overwhelmingly beneficial for students'
engagement in the classroom and participation in important social causes. WE Day
specifically engages students on educational content of many causes including causes
that companies care about, for example financial literacy, anti-bulling, well-being, and
homelessness. The engagement mechanism is specifically centered around relevant
causes, as opposed to their corporate products. This is a very important distinction on
how youth are engaged by the corporate sector and any statement to the contrary would
be incorrect." - Mary-Eileen Donovan, Superintendent of Education (Retired),
Toronto Catholic School Board and WE Charity Board Member
[email protected]

The following is quote from Leah Meers, COO SheEO, Fomer Head of WE Day
"When executing a WE Day show, care is always taken to ensure corporate partners are
represented in a relevant and ethical way. From the on-stage activation to the scripting,
WE seeks to represent the causes our corporate partners care about. The intention
behind WE Day programming is to make it 100% educational in nature and free from any
products or services associated with corporate partners. Where corporate causes are
included in the WE Day programing, the respective partner always funds the opportunity
to elevate the cause they care about, as opposed to any products or services they
provide. In regards to ME to WE, it’s important to note that in a typical 5-6 hour WE Day
show, they are referenced in less than 5% of the content."- Leah Meers, COO SheEO,
Former Head of WE Day. [email protected]
Jaren Kerr asked: There is widespread concern about the intrusion of advertising
and marketing into schools. What standards and policies does WE Charity adhere
to when encouraging children, while they are at school, to purchase specific brand-
name products manufactured by your corporate partners?

This is completely inaccurate assertion – and a leading question with no validity. We do

not encourage youth to purchase specific brand-name products manufactured by our
corporate sponsors in schools.

WE engages corporate partners to support programming and bring attention to causes,

such as combatting cyber bullying, diversity and inclusion, food security and mental well-
being, to achieve significant social good.

To state otherwise would be highly inaccurate.

See the quote form Gerry Connelly Former Director of Toronto District School Board and
WE Charity Board Member on the topic. Given her unassailable reputation through a
lifetime commitment to education, and after spending literally thousands of hours with WE
School programming, she is qualified and credible on this subject:

“WE Charity consistently delivers world-class programming, and always engages

companies responsibly – they have never once activated a product of a partner within
schools. WE Charity always engages companies responsibly, and any statements to the
contrary would be factually incorrect” Gerry Connelly, Director of Education, Toronto
District School Board and WE Charity Board Member, [email protected]
 WE Charity Partnerships
Jaren Kerr asked: Documents we have obtained show that in 2017, WE Charity
received $3.7 million from Unilever. How much of this money went to WE Day
events? How much of it went to other WE Charity programs, and specifically, which
ones?

Again, this statement is factually incorrect.

We can only assume that you may be referring to Unilever having an outstanding
accounts receivable over the span a few years for a multiyear partnership. Printing this
number is factually incorrect. Given the the inaccuracy of your principle statement, it is
not possible to further comment on your inquiry.

Jaren Kerr asked: Documents we have obtained show that in June 2017, WE Charity
forecast an annual revenue of approximately $47million from corporate
partnerships. How much of this money went to WE Day events? How much of it
went to other WE Charity programs, and specifically, which ones?

Again, this information is factually incorrect.

Any financial number of this magnitude would reflect a large diversity of hundreds of
partners, including foundations, institutional partners, and private fundraising partners
dedicated to supporting our domestic and international work. To be clear, this number
could not be exclusively corporate partners or corporate foundations.

Given the the inaccuracy of your principle statement, it is not possible to further comment
on your inquiry.

Jaren Kerr asked: You have detailed the “strict vetting process” you employ to
determine whether to accept a corporation as your partner. Among your criteria,
you cite scrutiny of a potential partner corporation’s environmental impact, their
workers’ well-being, and their ethical sourcing. You also cite the need for a
potential partner to have “sound practices” in terms of labour. With respect to all
this, I submit the following questions:

a) It has been widely reported that your partner Hershey’s has used child labour
and slave labour to source cocoa from countries in West Africa. The consumer
rights firm Hagens Berman is suing Hershey’s, alleging they did not inform
consumers that Hershey’s chocolate may come from child or slave labour.

Your partner Unilever was found in 2016 by Amnesty International to use palm oil
produced with the use of child labour.
 Does a company’s use of child labour disqualify them from consideration as a WE
Charity partner?
If it does disqualify them, how specifically has WE Charity ensured that Hershey’s
and Unilever do not use child labour?

As with all partners, WE Charity conducted a rigorous and thorough vetting process to
determine suitability of the partnership with Unilever, given our commitment to the
Sustainable Development Goals. At the heart of our partnership philosophy is the UN
Sustainable Development Goal #17, and the belief that businesses have an essential role
in supporting social causes and solutions.

We continue to work with multiple partners, including corporate, foundations, government

and international agencies, who we believe are genuinely committed to the Sustainable
Development Goals.

In the case of Unilever, we reviewed the findings of multiple global organizations, UN

agencies, and third-party verification organizations that determined a strong and clear
commitment by Unilever to fulfilling the Sustainable Development Goals, including its
supply chain. Organizations made this laudatory assessment of Unilever because of their
leadership in key professional groups and accrediting bodies involving their supply chain.

It is not to state that a company is perfect; however, Unilever and its senior leadership
have been the recipient of a number of global certifications and recognition for their
commitment to the Sustainable Development Goals, including continuously improving for
global leadership on their supply chain.

Awards and recognition include:

• Oxfam behind the brands leader: The campaign assesses and rates agricultural
sourcing policies of the world’s ten largest food and beverage companies. Unilever
awarded top position with a 71% score in the latest Oxfam Behind the Brands
Scorecard, published in March 2015. Currently, Unilever remains in the top ranking
with a 74% score
• GlobeScan/SustainAbility Top Ranking. For the 8th year in a row, Unilever is
ranked as a leading global corporate sustainability leader, receiving close to half
the total mentions by experts
• 2017 Appeal of Conscience Foundation Award, given to Paul Polman
• 2015 United Nations Champions of the Earth Award in the Entrepreneurial Vision,
awarded to Paul Polman
• CEO Paul Polman was named Vice-Chair of United Nations Global Compact
Board.
• Unilever has been a member of UN Global Compact since 2000.

WE Charity supports corporations seeking to strengthen their positive social responsibility

commitments, and we provide our expertise to help them achieve their social goals.
If you choose to reference Hershey in relation to WE Charity, we ask you to print this
quote IN FULL without “selective” editing, as the full context is very critical on such an
important topic. This is especially important based on the nature of your question. It is
important to note that you do NOT have the fullest facts on this matter, as explained
below. Therefore, should you point to this partnership in your piece please fully provide
the following information in full.

The following is a quote from Chris Besse, WE Charity Board and Finance Comittee
Member
“Working alongside the Boys and Girls Clubs of America and the Harvard Graduate
School of Education, we commenced last month a specific partnership with Hershey's
around the “The Heart-Warming Project”. This project is designed to help promote social
emotional learning. Separately and pro-actively, we engaged with the company on
important conversations to help support their cocoa sustainability strategies. This is done
in a volunteer capacity. We are very passionate about supporting companies in their
efforts to be sustainable thought their supply chain. Due to our extensive history and
experience working on difficult international development issues, we have unique insights
on how to work with small farmers. The WE Charity team conducted an extensive due
diligence process on Hershey’s. It is public record that the company’s cacao is now 75%
sustainably sourced and they are committed to 100% sustainable sourcing via Fair Trade
by 2020. Through our engagement with the company we’ve had access to further
information on this pledge, and the company’s rapid advancements in its supply chain.
This is the kind of progress that we expect from our corporate partners and we believe
that partnerships strengthen our unique position to help companies make important shifts
in their sustainable practices.” – Chris Besse, WE Charity Board and Finance
committee Member, [email protected]
b) You describe Me to We as “empowering people to change the world with their
everyday consumer choices.” But WE encourages people to buy Hershey’s and
Unilever’s products, which are alleged to be made with the use of child and
slave labour. Is Me to We encouraging consumers to make choices that support
child labour?

No, this is incorrect on multiple levels.

In no way is “ME to WE encouraging consumers to make choices that support child

labour”. ME to WE is a globally-recognized leader in its sourcing and socially-responsible
commitment, including via third-party verification of our sourcing. We are incredibly proud
of the products created by ME to WE and the social impact it drives through offering
consumers socially conscious products and experiences. We are certified as a B
Corporation in Canada, meeting rigorous standards of social and environmental
performance, accountability, and transparency. We are proud to have attain a score in
the top 5% of Canadian Certified B Corporations.
The high impact policies and practices include producing financials that are annually
independently verified, tracking the impact of its work with small-scale suppliers, such as
the women from Kenya who make handmade accessories for ME to WE Artisans; and
reaching underserved and Fair-Trade certified manufacturing of ME to WE Chocolate in
Ecuador:
• ME to WE pays the artisans who supply handmade accessories 2.2 times more
than what is considered a fair wage by the B Lab;
• 76% of our total Cost of Goods Sold is spent on providing opportunity and paying
fair wages to small-scale, independent suppliers in “low-income, poor or very poor
markets”.
• ME to WE produces financials that are verified annually by an independent source
through an audit or review.
We are proud of the Track Your Impact promise and the innovation that allows for the
transparency to show supporters exactly what charitable impact their purchase will have
in support of WE charity.

Given our expertise in this area, we are highly recognized and praised as a world leader
and called upon, formally and informally, to support other non-profit organizations, social
enterprises and corporations.

A rational review of the facts would show that ME to WE has dedicated extensive
resources and effort to achieve the highest level of social-responsibility. Any statement
otherwise is clearly factually incorrect.

Jaren Kerr asked: Your literature on corporate partnerships states that you seek
partners whose “fundamental purpose of engaging with WE Charity is
overwhelming social good” and that WE Charity “seeks partners who are
interested in more than a transactional relationship.” We are also aware that many
of the corporate sponsors of WE Day also contribute to your other programs.
But some do not. Specifically, we are aware that in 2016/2017, companies including
EQ3, Farm Boy, and Jugo Juice partnered with you on WE Day and received
promotional consideration at WE Day events, but did not provide any funds for WE
Villages, WE schools, or any other programs. Would it be accurate to describe
these transactions as private corporations paying a charity for marketing
opportunities?

Again, this is factually inaccurate.

Each listed entity you cited was a partner providing support to WE Charity on a variety of
levels, including both sponsorship of WE Day and benefits to support the charity:
• EQ3 provided furniture for staff (at the WE Global Learning Centre)
• Farm Boy provided food for staff and volunteers at WE Day
• Jugo Juice provided food for staff and volunteers at WE Day
It is highly irresponsible to describe these relationships in the way in which you
characterized them.

Jaren Kerr asked: Has WE Charity ever held a WE Day-like event for Loblaws,
PacSun, or any other corporate partners?

It is unclear what information you are seeking. Given WE Day is a celebration of making
a difference, honouring the positive commitment made by the people in the audience, a
“WE Day-like event” could be any celebration of doing good honouring the positive
commitment made by the audience.

Here are some fundamental cores of WE Day:

• WE Days are accessible to the public.
• Participants must earn their entry through service, with at least one local action of
service and one global action of service.

Our signature WE Day events in stadium-sized venues reaching on average 18,000

young people per event.

We also host WE Day Community events, which is similar to a WE Day, but the youth
audience size is smaller, typically 2,000-8,000 students.

We also host WE Day Family events with programming geared specifically towards
families.

We’ve recently introduced WE DayX events (similar to TEDx), which allow independent
communities, groups and schools to launch their own WE Day-style event. We are not
involved in the operations of these events.

We have also hosted employee engagement events:

• Unlike WE Day, these events are designed for corporate employee audiences, and
all costs are fully paid for by the corporate partner.
• The goal of these events is to support employee engagement outcomes and
celebrate the partnership the organization has with WE Charity
• Any charitable resources involved in the planning or execution of the event are
fully recouped. Plus when considering these events, there must be a clear benefit
for the charity.
• It would be inaccurate to describe these employee engagement events as WE Day
events.
 Media
Jaren Kerr asked: Has WE Charity or Me to We ever sought to suppress the
publication of critical news stories or investigations through direct contact with
media executives known to you through your media partnerships?

Any assertion to the above claim is factually inaccurate, and defamatory.

• In previous reporting on WE Charity’s media partnerships, CANADALAND has

inaccurately stated this.
• If you have specific incidents you are seeking comment on, please provide further
detail and WE Charity or ME to WE will provide comment.

Jaren Kerr asked: In 2013, Alison Atkinson, a teacher in British Columbia, confused
Me To We with WE Charity in an article published by The Tyee. She alleges that WE
responded by contacting the superintendent of her school board. Is this true?

• As per our previous comments in this document, WE Charity and ME to WE have

always acted to ensure that there is full clarity with the brand of the two entities.
Your cited example is a clear reference to our commitment. In the very rare cases
when the WE Charity or ME to WE brands have been confused in publication, we
have acted to ensure appropriate characterization. In this specific case, WE
Charity contacted all relevant parties to ensure there was a high degree of
accuracy and clarity, this included Alison Atkinson, the publication and the
superintendent of her school board.
• With a commitment to facts, our intention was to ensure everyone engaged or
impacted by the story was provided the correct information.

The following is a quote from Brian Beal, Director of Education Simcoe Muskoka Catholic
School Board
“I strongly believe that our schools are better when we have great partners who help us
deliver high quality programming. You will always find a small handful of individuals who
are against something – there will always be a statistic minority who find fault in
something. But when I look at WE Day and the phenomenal impact it’s had on the
teaching landscape, I can confidently say the overwhelming majority of educators in this
country love being part of the program. This is evident in the number of schools engaged
in the programming, as well as the massive waitlist of schools waiting to be part of it. The
high value, educational content provided through WE Schools is always cause-focused,
and never inappropriate for a youth audience. I strongly recommend that you quote this
within any article you write, because I want to speak on behalf of the vast majority of
educators, who support the positive educational content and transformative learning
experience being created by our students through the organization.”
- Brian Beal, Director of Education Simcoe Muskoka Catholic School Board,
[email protected]
Jaren Kerr asked: Atkinson’s article was flagged for its error in confusing Me to We
with WE Charity. In an article on MediaPost about We Charity winning the Good
Housekeeping Humanitarian Seal, the article conflates the WE movement with WE
Charity. A recent article in the Globe and Mail also describes actress Olivia Holt
taking a trip to Kenya with WE Charity, when ME to WE Trips is the trip provider.
Did WE Charity reach out to MediaPost and/or the Globe and Mail to ask for a
correction?

In the rare cases that there is an error, time permitting, we make every effort to reach out
to media outlets that have reported on our brand incorrectly.

• That said, in the specific G&M article referenced above about Olivia Holt: Holt
serves as an Ambassador for WE Charity, as such, she recently traveled to Kenya
to see WE Charity’s international development projects. Therefore, reference to “A
trip to Kenya with WE Charity” is correct. In this case, ME to WE served only as
the provider of the trip and assumed all costs in support of WE Charity.
• Moreover, you will note that there is clearly no confusion in the article. There is a
clear distinction used when expressing the charitable mission of WE Charity vs.
products of ME to WE Artisans.
o “But when she went to Kenya, and as she has become more involved with
We Charity…”
o “Ms. Holt’s African trip was just one of the ways she’s been involved in We
Charity activities. She has also been part of six We Day stadium shows to
date, including last year in Ottawa…”
o However, when referencing products, the article notes that she “beaded
with Me to We artisan”
o https://www.theglobeandmail.com/featured-reports/article-olivia-holts-
kenyan-trip-a-journey-of-self-discovery/
• We are searching our records, but we do not believe that we were previously
familiar with the MediaPost publication. We will check our records to see if we
previously requested clarification. Nonetheless, Good Housekeeping clearly
bestowed the award, as per the GHK comment “WE Charity to Earn Inaugural
Emblem”

Despite your purpose to show a negative, your selected example of the G&M shows a
perfect understanding by the journalist, and a perfect execution of our brand distinction. I
trust that you will be fair and reflect this fact when reporting that the brand distinction is
clear and well executed.

Jaren Kerr asked: Scott Baker, WE Charity’s Executive Director, wrote a response
to the Tyee article that said there were “incorrect assertions” remaining in the
article. What were they, and why didn’t WE ask for them to be corrected as well?

WE Charity reached out to the publication to ask for corrections to the posted article.
Most importantly, we asked for the correction of organization names from “Me to We” to
“Free The Children” and from “Me to We” app to “WE 365 app”. Other changes were
requested at the time but were not made by the publisher.

Jaren Kerr asked: In 1996, Saturday Night magazine wrote an article entitled “The
Most Powerful 13-Year-Old In The World.” Craig Kielburger sued Saturday Night
magazine for libel after the piece was published. Why? Which contents of the article
did Craig Kielburger consider libellous?

The above-mentioned lawsuit and all information pertaining to the question is publicly
available and fully accessible through court files. If you have difficultly accessing the court
files, our lawyer at the below contact would be happy to assist:

Robert Reuter
[email protected]
(416) 869-3363

We ask that any reference to the above-mentioned lawsuit is done accurately and fairly
with an acute view of the facts themselves.

Jaren Kerr asked: WE Charity was the first organization to receive the Good
Housekeeping Humanitarian Seal. A former employee alleges that WE Charity
asked Good Housekeeping to create the award and then present it to the charity.
How do you respond?

This is factually inaccurate.

The Good Housekeeping Humanitarian Seal was solely created and led by the Good
Housekeeping Institute team.
Additional Information
We would like to re-iterate our approach to corporate sponsors:
Engaging corporate partners to support programming, bringing attention to causes, and
mobilizing the community is a backbone and normal practice of the overall charitable
sector. Meaningful and collaborative multi-sector partnerships is core to the work of WE
Charity and aligned to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal #17:
Partnerships for the Goals: Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the
global partnership for sustainable development.
The SDG #17 encourages multi-sector partnerships (national governments, the
international community, civil society, the private sector and other actors) as the best
means forward to make positive social progress.
Why corporate partnerships
WE Charity believes that corporations have a fundamental responsibility to create a more
just, humane and equitable world.
We engage corporations to i) ensure financial efficiencies ii) secure sustainable funding
and deliver long-term system change programs iii) ensure full accessibility to our
programs to all stakeholders regardless of socio-economic factors iv) engage companies
in sustainable development.
The value of corporate partnerships
WE Charity’s programs in North America and the UK would not be possible without the
dedicated support, time and collaboration of incredible partners who make our programs
possible. When we leverage the expertise and resources of our corporate partners we
are able to more effectively achieve large-scale and transformative outcomes. WE
Charity’s corporate partners provide a variety supports including:
• Financial support
• Technical knowledge
• Access to logistical and travel support
• Amplification support

Re-affirmation of the Social Enterprise Model

As shared, there is a danger in ignoring key facts. And there is overwhelming evidence
to suggest there is incredible benefit to the social enterprise model. In regards to the work,
branding, context, delivery of WE Charity and ME to WE interactions, any indication that
this is done covertly or hidden intent or intent to confuse is simply false. We have been
very transparent about our model of social enterprise at all times. Any inuendo presented
in your article would be irresponsible. We have shown clear facts, links and user data to
show this is not the case.
Moreover, as the package submitted on October 1 st, 2018 highlighted, ME to WE has
been celebrated for its innovative model and went through a rigorous process for
establishing its legal structure, sound corporate structure, governance model and
reporting requirements. Two of Canada’s top law firms, Torys and Miller Thomson offered
pro-bono legal support through this detailed process. To create a system of checks and
balances, we submitted the the legal structure and governing system for review by the
Public Guardian Trustee of Ontario as well as engaged third parties for further review,
which included Canadian Supreme Court Justice Peter Corey and Former Canadian
Prime Minister John Turner (via his law firm) – who both independently reviewed ME to
WE and WE Charity – their governance models and the relationship between them. Both
organizations were issued unqualified laudatory reports by outside experts who examined
the facts, in detail.
In short, ME to WE exists to benefit WE Charity, it would be incorrect and harmful to state
that ME to WE receives any undue benefit from WE Charity

ME to WE is B Corp Certified and scores among the top 5% of all Canadian B Corp
organizations meeting rigorous standards of social and environmental performance,
accountability, and transparency. Including: Financial Contributions
o A minimum of 50% of its ME to WE’s profits are donated annually to WE
Charity.
o Any outstanding balance is re-invested to grow the social mission (ex:
investing to launch the next Fairtrade sourcing site).
o ME to WE often donates as much as 80% of its yearly profits and in-kind
revenue to WE Charity.
o The ME to WE financials are reviewed by the WE Charity Board of Directors,
as part of annual larger review process, in collaboration with ME to WE’s
Executive Director, Russ McLeod.
o To date, ME to WE has donated $20 million (in cash and offsetting in-kind
costs) to WE Charity

Similarly, the model has been the subject of scrutiny by unbiased individuals and it has
been awarded winning for its social impact, governance structure and sustainability.