DS 105 Simulated Teaching Document
Company: GreenHarbor Holdings (fictional company; simulated data only)
Document: External News and Controversy Extracts (simulated, for classroom use)

This is simulated teaching data. All outlets, quotes, and events below are fictional and do not
represent real reporting, real companies, or real events. Nothing here constitutes investment advice.

Extract 1 (fictional trade publication, 2026-07-02)
"GreenHarbor Holdings announced a 12% year-over-year reduction in reported Scope 1 and Scope 2
emissions, continuing a three-year downward trend. The company has not published a Scope 3 emissions
figure for FY2026."

Extract 2 (fictional regional business wire, 2026-07-20)
"Regulators in one jurisdiction where GreenHarbor operates opened an inquiry into a supplier's waste
handling practices. GreenHarbor says the supplier is a 'minor, indirect' part of its supply chain;
the company has not disclosed what share of its purchased inputs come from this supplier."

Extract 3 (fictional sustainability newsletter, 2026-08-05)
"GreenHarbor's marketing materials describe the company as 'carbon neutral,' but the newsletter's
review found that roughly two-thirds of the claimed reduction is attributed to purchased carbon
offsets rather than direct operational cuts. The offset projects' registry and vintage years were
not listed in the company's public disclosures reviewed for this piece."

Extract 4 (fictional analyst note, 2026-08-22)
"We see GreenHarbor's efficiency capital expenditure as a credible, if partial, transition signal:
two of five manufacturing sites now have funded upgrade plans. We would want to see a timeline for
the remaining three sites and a defined Scope 3 boundary before treating the 'carbon neutral'
claim as fully supported."

Summary for classroom use
These four extracts, read together with DS105_Sustainability_Claims.csv and
DS105_Company_Transition_Plan.txt, form one evidence pack. No single extract proves or disproves the
"carbon neutral" claim on its own; learners are expected to weigh supporting evidence, contradicting
evidence, and what remains missing before reaching a classification and a human decision.