THANK YOU FOR DOWNLOADING THIS ETHICAL CONSUMER RESEARCH REPORT. It contains a buyers’ guide complete with: • a detailed article • rankings table • Best Buy advice • all the stories behind the marks on the table • company ownership and contact details • full list of references £4.25 EC121 November/December 2009 www.ethicalconsumer.org Subscribe to Ethical Consumer and get instant access to over 80 similar reports (worth over £240) as part of your subscription. Subscribers also get: Revealing the dark heart Ethical Consumer magazine of the chocolate industry – play fair, not dirty Toys & games consoles – cutting the environmental costs - keeping you up to date with all the latest ethical news and analysis Razors & shavers Rating • Unique buyers’ guides with detailed ratings tables, Best Buys advice, (out of 20) Brand 17 company profiles, news, boycotts, comment and more Equal Exchange tea 17 [F,O] 17 Online back issues archive HampsteadCo tea Tea [F,O] & Coffee • 17 Purely Organic tea [F,O] Steenbergs English • Available in print through the post or as a digital download breakfast tea [F,O] Unlimited, 24 hour access to our premium website ethiscore.org been a contributor to carbon emissions which had a damaging effect on the environment. (ref: 3) or dolphin No palm oil policy Sustainable(July 2009) forestry policy (2008) contacted, 123 had a dmitted to selling whale and/ A search was madeWal-Mart of the Walmart did not website respond (www.walmartstores. to a request by ECRA in Ocober 2008 meat. It said Sea Shepherd had been urging its members and the com) on 8th July 2009.for the No company’s policy on popalmlicy oil on could the sustainable be found. sourcing of wood. concerned public to contact the Wal-Mart website to complain, razors & shavers Walmart received Thenegative company’s marks forwebsite climate (www.walmartstore change, impact ons.com), when viewed and to withhold their custom. (ref: 12) endangered speciesin Novemband habitater 2008,destruction, stated whichthat Wal-Mart were all resultshad joined the WWF’s st & Trade Network in July 2008. According to the of unsustainable Globalpalm oil Fore production. Palm oil is used in a vast Sale of meat not labelled as free range or organic (2008) company to completing anassessment array of consumerwebsite, products. this (ref: commited 4) the Wal-Mart did not respond to a request by ECRAin October 2008 was coming from and whther it was of where its wood furniture for the comapny’s animal welfare policy. No such policy, nor any Pollution &legal Toxics and well-managed. Once this assessment was completed, Sold children’s clothes coated with Teflon (May 2007) commitment to stocking organic or free range meat, poultry or eggs mited to eliminating wood f rom illegal the company was com could be found on the company’s website (www.walmartstores. - helping you choose the most ethical brands The ASDA website was visited in May 2007 and was found tocompany would and unknown sources within five years. The ASDA be selling children’s clothes coated with Teflon. Chemicals such com) when it was viewed in November 2008. As a result, ECRA also eliminate wood fro m forests of critical importance due to Owned by Asda Group Ltd as Teflon, belonging to the “non-stick” family of perfluorinated considered it likely that the company was selling meat products their environmental, socio-economic, biodiversity or landscape Asda Group Ltd, Corporate Social Responsibility, Asda, ASDA chemicals (PFCs) had been classified as cancer-causing by the from factory farmed animals. (ref: 3) s to be a positive step toward s the House, Southbank, Great Wilson Street, Leeds, LS11 5AD, US Environmentalvalues. ECRAProtection considered Agency thiand had been found in , the company still sold England a wide rangesustainable of species sourcing including of polarwood. bears, However dolphins and many wood and paper-based products that were not labelled as People Asda Group Ltd is owned by Wal-Mart Stores Inc humans worldwide. Environmental campaigners had called for FSC certified, and therefore t he company received a negative Human Rights Wal-Mart Stores Inc, PO Box 1039, Bentonville, Arkansas, PFCs to be replaced with safer alternatives especially in clothing Conflict Diamond Survey Results (May 2007) and othermark consumer in this products. category. PFCs (ref: such229) as Teflon were used in 72716-8611, USA In May 2007 Amnesty International and Global Witness released many school trousers and skirts to give them durability and are a report entitled “Conflict Diamonds, UK jewellery retailers still Wal-Mart Stores Inc also owns ASDA Extra Special chocolate frequently labelled “non-iron”. (ref: 5) [O] not doing enough.” Asda were mentioned in this report. No policyAnimals for reduction of harmful chemicals (2008) The report wa s based on findings fr om a questionnaire sent to Wal-Mart did not respond to a request made by ECRA in October Animal Testing leading retailers. The report stated that “although most companies Environment 2008 for information on its policies forl testindealingg policywith harmful (September Worst ECRA rating for anima adhere to the industry’s minimal system of self regulation, these Environmental Reporting chemicals2009) in its products. A statement naming three priority Middle ECRA rating for environmental report (August are not effective in preventing the trade in blood diamonds, and chemicalsAccording of concern, to the FAQ identified section by of theWal-Mart ASDA in webs 2006,ite, waswww.asda. 2008) more needs to be done by industry leaders to ensure that diamonds foundco.uk, on the viewed company’s on 4th websiteSeptember (www.walmartstores.com) 2009, ASDAwas against in animal In May/June 2009, ECRA contacted Asda and a copy of the no longer fuel conflict.” dsaA itself failed to disclose its auditing Novembertesting the 2008. wesite The stdocumentated “A SDAstated is that against Wal-Mart ani mal had testing worked and company’s environment report was requested. The company did policy and other measures taken to combat conflict diamonds. It withfunds suppliers research and into developed alternatives.” a timeline However for the it eradication did not state of how not respond. On 8th July 2009, a search of the company website had no policy on its company website and it was not a member thesethis chemicalswas implemen of concern.ted i.e. However, through noa fixed date wascut-off given date nor or any five Customise Ethiscores to reflect the issues you care most about was made. Under the section “Sustainability”, information of any jewellery trade associations. (ref: 13) informationyear rolling on rule further and theresearch company the company did not supply was undertaking any additional to about the company’s environmental activities was found. The identify other harmful chemicals.SDA was ECRA also not did endorsed not consider in the this 2008 to section contained at least 2 future, dated, quantified targets. relevant information. A demonstrate any realassionate commitment Shopping to the Guidereduction. In of addition chemicals the Dropped from Norwegian pension fund (2006) No evidence of independent verification of the section could Naturewatch Comp • companyand pesticides sold brandedin the company’s cos met products,ics, toiletries, and as medicines such, it received and According to issue 71 (November 2006) of Indonesia’s Down be found. The website had a copyright date of 2008 and the a negative mark in this category. (ref: 3) ere actively announced that it was dropping section text appeared to be current. No mention of the issue of household products made by companies which w to Earth magazine, Norway had Water pollution and fine (2004) st und for “serious, the business being dependent, at the time of writing, on customer testing their products on animals. ASDA received ECRA’s wor Wal-Mart Stores from its Government Pension F According to an article posted on Sustainable Business (www. ghts and labour rights”. (ref: car use, could be found. Although the section covered several rating for animal testing policy. (ref: 7) systematic violations of h uman ri sustainablebusiness.com) titled ‘Wal-Mart: Every Day Low... environmental aspects, there was no mention of pesticides and 15) FactoryImpact,’ farming Wal-Mart had been accused of indifference to evidence other agricultural impacts that occur as a result of producing Sale thatof factory pesticides farmed and fertilisers turkey (2006) were escaping into waterways fromWorkers’ Rights goods for the company, therefore the company was not deemed Accordinggardening to ‘Su productspermarkets stored & Farmunprotected Animal in Welfa its carre - parks.Raising It thewas Workers’ rights abuses in Bangladesh (October 2008) to have a reasonable understanding of the main environmental eek Standard’fined published $3.1 million by thine Compas2004 by sionthe inUS WorldEnvironmental Farming TrustProtection According to a story dated 9 October 2008 on the BusinessW impacts of its business. The company was given ECRA’s middle in 2006,Agency over 90%for Clean of het waterturkeys Act sol violations.d by ASDA (ref: were 6) intensively website (www.businessweek.com), Wal-Mart had been accused fo rating for environmental reporting. (ref: 1) farmed. In addition, the m ajority of ducks sold by ASDA were buying school uniforms that were made under extreme sweatchop Poor independent rating on CSR in supermarkets also intensively reared. (ref: 10) conditions at a factory in Bangladesh. The report came from sed (November 2006) FactoryHabitats farmed chicke & Resourcesn (2006) SweatFree Communities, an anti-sweatshop activist group ba Ethical Performance November 2006 reported that Asda receivedAccording to ‘Supermarkets & Farm Animal Welfare - Raising in Bangor, who conducted interviews with over 90 workers from hifts a poor rating (rated as a ‘D’) in a report by the National Consumerthe Standard’ Voters publishe say nod toby Wal-Mart the Compass (Marchion in 2004) World Far ming the factory. The report stated thatthey worked up to 19 hour s Council on supermarkets’ progress on corporate responsibility.