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
Subscribe to Ethical Consumer and get instant access to over
80 similar reports (worth over £240) as part of your subscription.
Subscribers also get:
Ethical Consumer magazine
Revealing the dark heart
of the chocolate industry
Unlimited, 24 hour access to our premium website ethiscore.org
- helping you choose the most ethical brands
• Customise Ethiscores to reflect the issues you care most about
• Ethiscore is updated daily by our team of dedicated researchers
• The latest scores for the brands in all the Research Reports
£4.25
EC121 November/December 2009
www.ethicalconsumer.org
- keeping you up to date with all the latest ethical news and analysis
• Unique buyers’ guides with detailed ratings tables, Best Buys advice,
company profiles, news, boycotts, comment and more
• Online back issues archive
• Available in print through the post or as a digital download
Toys & games consoles – play fair, not dirty
Razors & shavers – cutting the environmental costs
Rating
Brand
(out of 20)
Equal Exchange tea
[F,O]
17
Hampstead Tea & Coffee
Co tea [F,O]
17
Purely Organic tea [F,O]
17
Steenbergs English
breakfast tea [F,O]
17
Access all these print and web products for just 58p a week.
razors & shavers
been a contributor to carbon emissions which had a damaging
effect on the environment. (ref: 3)
Sign up and unlock all our content for the introductory offer price of just £29.95 a year
(normally £34).
You can cancel at any time in the first four weeks for a full refund.
Subscribe via our website (click the sign up tab below), or call us on 0161 226 2929
(Monday to Friday).
No palm oil policy (July 2009)
A search was made Sustainabl
of the Walmart website (www.walmartstores.
e forestry
com) on 8th July 2009.
No policy
on palm oil could be found.
Wal-Mart
policy
did notfor climate
Walmart received for
negative
marks
(2008)impact on
respond change,
the company’s
to a request
endangered species
and
habitat destruction,
were all results
The
company’s
policywhich
byaECRA
of unsustainable in
palm
oil production.
oilthe
is used
in
vast in
websitePalmon
November
sustainable
Ocober
contacted,
(www.walm
2008,
array of consumer
products. (ref:
4) stated
Global
123 had
artstores.cosourcing of 2008 meat.
Forest
that Wal-Mart
wood.
& Trade
It said
admitted
m),
Pollution &ofwebsite,
Toxicsthis commited
Network
to selling
had joinedwhen viewed concerned Sea Shepherd
where coated with Teflon
in July
public
whale
had been
Sold children’s clothes
(May
2007)
the company
the WWF’s and to
its wood
2008.
and/or
legal
withhold to contact
urging
furniture
to completing
The ASDA websiteand
waswell-manag
visited in
May 2007
found According
to
their custom.the Wal-Mart its members dolphin
was and was
to the
the company
an assessment
and the
ed. Once
website
be selling children’s
clothes coated with
Teflon.coming
Chemicals
(ref: 12)
fromsuch
and unknown was commited
to complain,
Sale of
and
as Teflon, belonging
to the “non-stick” familythis
of assessment
perfluorinated whther it
meat not
also eliminate
sources
to eliminating
was Wal-Mart
was completed,
labelled
chemicals (PFCs)
had beenwood
classified
as cancer-causing
by the
within
did not
as free
their environmen
wood
five
for the
from forests
range
comapny’s respond to
US Environmental
Agency
and hadyears.
been The
found in from illegal
or organic
values. Protection
a request
commitmen
tal, socio-econ
animal
of critical
ECRA including
a wide range
of species
bears,
dolphins company
and
by ECRA
(2008)
t to stocking welfare
sustainable
considered polar omic,
importance would could
biodiversity
humans worldwide.
Environmental
campaigners
had called for
organic policy. No suchin October 2008
sourcing
this
due to com) be found on
many
or free
be a positive
the company’s
wood
of wood. toespecially
policy,
or landscape
when
PFCs to be
replaced
with
alternatives
in clothing
range
andsafer
nor any
FSC
considered it was viewed
paper-base However,
step towards
certified,
website meat, poultry
and othermark
consumer
products.
PFCs such
as Teflon the
were
used in
d products
(www.walm or eggs
and therefore
company
the from factoryit likely that in November
in this and
that
many school trousers
skirts to givethethem durability
and are still
the company 2008.
artstores.
category.
farmed
As
company were not labelledsold
animals.
was selling a result, ECRA
frequently labelled “non-iron”.(ref:
(ref:229)
5)
received
Middle ECRA rating for environmental report (August
(ref: 3)
as People
meat products
a negative
No policy
for reduction of harmful chemicals (2008)
2008)
Animal
Human
to a request made by ECRA in October
In May/June 2009, ECRA contacted Asda and a copy of the Wal-Mart did not respond
Conflict Rights
Animal s on its policies for dealing with harmful
company’s environment report was requested. The company did 2008 for information
Testing
In May Diamond Survey
Worst
2007 Amnesty
its products. A statement naming three priority
not respond. On 8th July 2009, a search of the company website chemicals inECRA
Results
a report
2009)
rating
Internation (May 2007)
entitled
for animal
by Wal-Mart in 2006, was
was made. Under the section “Sustainability”, information chemicals of concern, identified
not
“Conflict
According
doing
al
testing
in
enough.”
about the company’s environmental activities was found. The found on the company’s
Diamonds,and Global
to the FAQwebsite (www.walmartstores.com)
policy
co.uk,
Witness
The report
Asda were
(Septembe
UK
viewed
section
2008. The
document
stated that Wal-Mart had
worked
section contained at least 2 future, dated, quantified targets. November
released
was
on 4th
mentioned jewellery retailers
testing
of the ASDA
r
leading
September
the wesite
suppliers
and developed
a timeline
for the
eradication of
No evidence of independent verification of the section could with
retailers. based on findings
in this
still
funds
website,
adhere
2009, date was
report.
The report
stated However,
researchof concern.
from a
givenwww.asda.
nor any
to
be found. The website had a copyright date of 2008 and the these
“ASDA noASDA
stated
this chemicals
questionna
into
was against
are not the industry’s
was implemente
is againstwas
on furtheralternatives
research the company
undertaking
to
effective
section text appeared to be current. No mention of the issue of information
minimal that “although
ire sent
animal
year rolling
more needs
.” However animal
in preventing system
to
most companies
dchemicals.
testing
i.e.
other
harmful
ECRA
did
not
consider
this
to
the business being dependent, at the time of writing, on customer identify
rule
through
of
relevant
it did not
self regulation,
and no longer to be done
and the
the
information
fixed
demonstrate
any real commitment
reduction
car use, could be found. Although the section covered several Naturewatc
company to athe
state how policy
fuel conflict.”by industry trade in blood
cut-offof chemicals
these
did
. ASDA products,
and pesticides
in the company’s
as such,date
it received
environmental aspects, there was no mention of pesticides and company
Adsa itselfleaders to ensure diamonds,
h Compassio
supply
or five had and other measures
was also notand
and
any additional
no policy
that diamonds
a negativesold
markbranded
in this category.
(ref: not
3) endorsed
nate Shopping
other agricultural impacts that occur as a result of producing household
taken failed to disclose
on
of any
in the
jewellery its company to combat
goods for the company, therefore the company was not deemed testing
cosmetics,
productsand fine
Guide.
Water pollution
(2004)
2008
conflict its auditing
website
trade association
their products made by
toiletries, In addition
diamonds.
to have a reasonable understanding of the main environmental rating
and
According
to an article posted
on Sustainablemedicines
Business (www.
companies
the
It
s. (ref: it was not a
for animal
on animals.
Dropped
impacts of its business. The company was given ECRA’s middle sustainablebusiness.com)
member
13)
which
titledASDA
‘Wal-Mart:
Every Day Low...
and
testing
Factory
According from Norwegian
received were toactively
rating for environmental reporting. (ref: 1)
Wal-Mart hadpolicy.
been accused
(ref: 7) of indifference
farming
ECRA’s evidence to
to issue
SaleImpact,’
pension
of factory
worst
that
pesticides and fertilisers were escaping into waterways
from Earth magazine, 71 (November fund
Poor independent rating on CSR in supermarkets
According
(2006)
farmed
Wal-Mart
Norway
2006)
gardening
products turkey
stored unprotected in its car parks. It was
(November 2006)
to ‘Supermark
Standard’
had announcedof Indonesia’s
systematic Stores from
(2006)
finedpublished
$3.1 million inets2004
by the US Environmental Protection
Ethical Performance November 2006 reported that Asda received
& Farm
violations its Governmen
in 2006,
Down
that
15)
by the
Animal (ref: 6)
over 90%
for Clean
water
Act violations.
t Pension it was dropping
a poor rating (rated as a ‘D’) in a report by the National Consumer
of human
Compassio
Welfare
farmed.Agency
Fund
rights
In addition,of the turkeys
n in World - Raising
Workers
Council on supermarkets’ progress on corporate responsibility.also
The
and labour for “serious,
the majoritysold by ASDA Farming the Workers’ ’ Rights
rights”.
rating covered supermarkets progress on CSR factors including: intensively reared.
Trust
(ref:
Factory
& Resources
(ref: 10) of ducks sold were intensively According rights abuses
commitment to stocking seasonal food and organics, sustainable Habitats
Accordingfarmed chicken
by ASDA
in Banglades
to a story
sourcing policies and attempts at cutting waste. (ref: 2)
were website (www.busin
to ‘Supermark (2006)
dated 9
the Standard’
October h (October
buying
Voters say no toets
Wal-Mart (March 2004)
essweek.co
school
2008)
2008 on
published
Trust in
& Farm
Climate Change
uniforms
conditions
The Ecologist reported
that voters
from Inglewood in Los Angeles
the
m),
Animal
2006,
intensively
Policy on stocking local produce (October 2008)
over 90% by the Compassio Welfare
at a factory that were Wal-Mart had BusinessWeek
had voted in
March
2003 not to let Wal-Mart build
a store inSweatFree
their
made
been
of the
n in World - Raising in
maximum farmed.
Wal-Mart did not respond to a request made by ECRA in October
Communiti in Bangladesh under extreme accused
chickens
The report
neighbourhood.
According
to thesold
Ecologist, Wal-Mart
to
Bangor,
of
stocking
Farming wanted
es, an anti-sweats. The
of floor
sweatchop
2008 for details on its policy towards stocking locally produced
who conducted
stated
the
report
ASDA
build theguideline
store on a piece
of land theby
size
of nearly 20 football
space,
maximum
were to factory. The
which
food. ECRA searched the company’s website (www.walmartstores.
of 38kg that ASDA
interviews hop activist came from
report
pitches, yetexceeded
didn’t see the
need
for an environmental
impact finish
study the
had
birdstated
group
with over
chickens
per-metre-s set a to
com) in November 2008 and found a page entitled ‘Locally
Grown of 34kg bird-per-m the governmen
that
based
stand
public hearings.
The Ecologist said localsquared
voted 61 to 39
per for Wal-Mart’s
wereorbred
justlocally
etre-square
orders they worked 90 workers from
Products’, which stated that Wal-Mart noted that buying
t guidelines
hours
6 weeks. cent
to grow
were frequently
up
under
against
the
project.
(ref:
227)
to
as
d
19
punishmen
of
quickly
tight deadlines; hour
CIWF
of a Allegedly,
grown produce was “a hot marketplace trend”. However,and
no figures
they suffered
shifts
argue
so they floor space. Broiler
subject
that of
sustainable
fishing policy (2006)
reached
were made
to verbal t for arrivng
some
their
were given for the percentage of Wal-Mart’s salesAccording
accounted Announcement
painful
which
bones
late to
was even workers earned abuse and
According toand
the crippling
March
2006could
issue ofslaughter
ENDS Report,
Wal-Mart
were ‘fast-growi
work;
for by local produce. ECRA also downloaded a document
withto CIWF,
in $24
not keep
and
the majority
as little kickings or
per month. less than
that it waslameness
implementing
a pace
policy on sourcing
ng’ announced
the title “Wal-Mart makes national commitment toAnimal
buy locally had
strains.
of chickens
(ref: 16) the country’s as $20 each beatings.
Lawsuitthat
a result.
(ref:
of sustainable
fish.
wasassaid
to have claimed
per month,
legal minimum
Rights
grown produce”, but again, this contained no figuresSea
for sales and
10)The companysold
over Banglades
According
by American
Shepherd within three to five years all fish in North
ASDA stores
would
wage of
set no targets to increase sales of local produce. ECRA
did not Boycott
to an
h working
According
news
in line with Marine Stewardship Council
guidelines,
website article dated
(5 March
conditions
to the be sourced
consider that this constituted a real commitment to
encouraging
accessed
16th August
New
a lawsuit
Sea Shepherd
2004) ASDA would be following
(2006)
and
that UK subsidiary
suit after
on
had been Nation, nation.ittef 2006
sales of locally produced products, and as a result
company
forthe
Conservati worst supermarket inFund
a boycott 12th being
on
March
taken
thisinarea
by
California
2004, the country’s
received a negative mark in this category. It hadthemselves
been noted by
aq.com, the Bangladesh
of Wal-Martnamed
with internation against out by the
the societyon Society
i
was said to cover frozen
and
Internation in August
storesThe announcement
environmental campaigners that the issue of ‘food
-ofthetheirGreenpeace.
chainmiles’
had been website, in supplier
al labour Wal-Mart, for
untilfish
al Labour 2006
called
37%wild-caught
fresh
no mention
was made of operations
theybut
shares
distance travelled by a product from supplier todolphin
consumer -Seiyu
had Ltd,
calling
had
have chosenfactories in standards and alleged non-complRights
in the
either
meat.
or convinced
outside
the USA
and Japanese
UK. (ref:
228)divested
Bangladesh
its own
2
that labour to use US
iance
It said
Code of
supermarke
. The organisatio
it to stop
alien
that the
Conduct
rights
selling
recently
t hearing
US Environme
campaignetort law for
n
whale
and Gender in Bangladesh
rs could the suit on was said to
inquire hired a researcher
ntal Investigatio
the
if they
not be
discrimina . (ref: 17)
3
to call
sold whale
guaranteedgrounds
According
n Agency
tion lawsuits
or dolphin 202 Seiyu
a fair
to information
(March
meat, and retail outletshad huffingtonp
to to oppose ost.com), datedon the Huffington2009)
of the
202 stores
a class
23 March
and 2 million
Post website
action
(www.
female lawsuit. The 2009, Wal-Mart
employees lawsuit
involved was trying
who claimed
Betty Dukes
the company
had
ASDA
Owned by Asda Group Ltd
Asda Group Ltd, Corporate Social Responsibility, Asda, ASDA
House, Southbank, Great Wilson Street, Leeds, LS11 5AD,
England
Asda Group Ltd is owned by Wal-Mart Stores Inc
Wal-Mart Stores Inc, PO Box 1039, Bentonville, Arkansas,
72716-8611, USA
Wal-Mart Stores Inc also owns ASDA Extra Special chocolate
[O]
Environment
Environmental Reporting
trial sign up
“Ethical Consumer helps me know the real story of what I’m buying.” Mr Cassy, Suffolk
WIND AND SOLAR PV
Home Electricity
Generation
Rob Harrison introduces our
microgeneration Special Report.
“The UK feed-in tariff...
is a real chance for
households, businesses,
communities, local
authorities, farmers and
others to take some
degree of control over
their energy supply
away from the energy
companies, to cut their
carbon emissions,
protect themselves
against future fossil fuel
price rises and gain a
stake in creating a lowcarbon economy.”
Friends of the Earth1
I
n April this year the UK government
revolutionised the incentives for
domestic and small scale renewable
energy installations. It introduced a system
of ‘feed-in tariffs’ (FiTs) in place of limited
grants towards the capital costs. FiTs offer
regular payments for up to 25 years based on
the size of the equipment you install.
These feed-in tariffs are designed to
guarantee a return on investment of between
5% and 8% over the 25 years of the scheme.1
You also get to use any electricity actually
generated for free. Given interest rates
on savings accounts there’s been a wave
of interest in the new schemes far wider
than committed environmentalists. Some
individuals are apparently looking at FiTs as
a pension booster,2 whilst one commercial
company in the North East of England is even
installing solar panels ‘free’ on whole streets of
houses in exchange for the FiT payments.3
Perhaps most exciting are some of the
community schemes in the pipeline. British
Gas is just one provider involved in a scheme
to install free solar panels on 1,100 schools,4
and many housing associations and local
authorities are looking to develop rooftop
schemes which give the free electricity to
social housing tenants whilst using FiTs to
recover the capital costs.
What’s in the Microgeneration
Special Report:
Solar Panels
8
Buyers’ guide to photovoltaic (PV) panels
looking at issues such as toxics in manufacture.
PV or not PV
11
A look at controversies around the technology.
Small Wind Turbines
12
Buyers’ Guide to products most appropriate for
home and community-sized schemes.
Practical Issues
14
Finding reliable installers and further good
sources for advice.
The Renewable Heat Initiative
15
Proposals for a feed-in tariff for heating
schemes in 2011.
Further information
One of the best place for UK readers
to start getting more information is
the government’s own website at www.
energysavingtrust.org.uk. They have a
series of interactive surveys to take as well
as specific data on geographical location
and the type of house to recommend
the most appropriate technologies for
your particular circumstances. The
Energy Saving Trust also has a Green
Communities program on the same
website which ‘aims to support, facilitate
and promote community-based projects.’
The other key source of information is
the Centre for Alternative Technology and
its advice and futher resources are covered
extensively in the pages that follow.
image © Matt Trommer | Dreamstime.com
www.ethicalconsumer.org
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER ‘10
buyers’ guide
First Steps
to be introduced until 2011. We cover the RHI
in more details on page 15.
Rules for FiTs
The Broader Context
The UK’s new feed-in tariff scheme (FiT),
also known as Clean Energy Cashback
is designed to encourage householders
and communities to install the following
renewable electricity generation technologies:
•
•
•
•
•
Solar Electricity
(PV – roof mounted or stand alone)
Wind Turbine
(building mounted or free standing)
Hydroelectricity
Anaerobic Digestion
Micro CHP
(combined heat and power – pilot only)
In this Special Report we look at the two
technologies most likely to be appropriate
to households – solar PV and wind. Both
technologies are also appropriate for small
community schemes.
Despite the name, the new FiT is actually a
generation tariff. The scheme requires energy
companies to make regular payments at an
agreed level to anyone installing generating
capacity and registering with the scheme.
Although the tariffs are guaranteed for 25
years, the scheme is only currently offering
payments at these levels for microgeneration
installed before March 2012.
You can only sign up for the FiT scheme if:
the products you install, and the company
you use to install them are approved by the
government’s Microgeneration Certification
Scheme (MCS).
This means that you can’t claim the FiT
incentives for DIY schemes. We discuss the
MCS in a bit more detail under Practical
Issues below.
Energy Efficiency
Everyone agrees that the best approach
for households is only to invest in
microgeneration after all the simpler, more
cost-effective, carbon reduction steps have
already been taken. These include the usual
less dramatic but eminently sensible measures
like:
• roof and wall insulation
• double glazing
• low energy lightbulbs throughout.
In addition, from a carbon point of view,
it is likely that low-carbon heating systems
– such as wood fuel boilers or heat pumps
– may make a better investment than
microgeneration. This is slightly complicated
by the fact that a parallel government scheme
to incentivise such products – called the
Renewable Heat Initiative (RHI) – is not due
The FiT scheme in the UK was deliberately
designed to replicate the hugely successful
German scheme which has seen community
turbines and domestic solar sprout across
the country. It is just one part of a complex
Europe-wide agreement to get 20% of all
energy from renewables by 2020.5 The UK
scheme aims to have supported 1.5 million
households – one in fourteen – to produce
their own energy by 2016, saving 7m tonnes
of CO2.1
In 2008, Friends of the Earth pointed to one
study which suggested that by 2050 small scale
renewable energy at a domestic level could
provide 30-40% of the UK’s total electricity
needs.5
Another key element in this program are
the zero carbon homes proposals - whereby,
from 2016, all new homes in the UK must be
‘zero carbon’. This effectively means that, if the
proposals are not abandoned, some element
of domestic microgeneration will have to be
installed in all new homes from that date.7
Many of these very encouraging
developments have only been achieved by
effective lobbying from campaigners such
as Friends of the Earth. It is vital that we
remember to keep up political pressure on
climate change as well as taking individual
carbon reduction steps (particularly with the
change of government where many of these
plans are under review). After all, the relative
cost of say £30 per year to Friends of the
Earth (over 25 years) pales into insignificance
when compared to a typical solar installation
cost of more than £10,000. Our article on
the Renewable Heat Initiative (page 15) also
points to some actions to take to make sure
this proposal is not abandoned or diluted.
References 1 Friends of the Earth: In defence of feed-in tariffsresponse to George Monbiot March 2010 (the 5-8% is just
for solar PV - returns may be higher for other technologies)
2 www.times&star.co.uk 17/5/10 3 www.ashadegreener.
co.uk viewed 17/7/10 4 www.catalyst-commercial.co.uk
blog UK Energy Industry News 15/7/10 5 Friends of the Earth
- Renewable Energy Your Questions Answered 2008 6 www.
renewableenergyfocus.com 15/7/09 UK to cut emissions by
34% by 2020 7 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6176229.
stm ‘Zero carbon’ homes plan unveiled 13/12/06
My Solar
Array
Sam’s pv roof
Sam Kimmins, a sustainability advisor with
Forum for the Future, recently had a solar
photovoltaic system installed on his 1975 excouncil maisonette in Holloway, London.
I’ve been working in the sustainability
advice sector for 15 years, mainly as a
consultant to the construction industry so I’ve
been relatively familiar with the technology
for a while, and always wanted to practice
what I preach, by investing in a system of my
own.
The whole process was managed
through Islington Council’s grant scheme,
(administered by Sustain) who arranged all
the surveys, scaffolding, planning permission,
and installation. This made the whole process
extremely smooth and cut out the risk of
cowboy installers. The whole process took
about four months, although it would have
been considerably shorter had it not been for
a couple of postponed visits due to the snow.
The installation itself took three days and the
Southern Solar installers were really friendly
and professional.
As for the technical bit, my system is a
2.6kWp (Kilowatt Peak) system, measuring
6.5m by 3.1m – this pretty much fills the
entire roof of my little maisonette. The total
cost was £13,500 including installation.
So what do I get for this? On a sunny
summer day, the panels give me around
17kWh per day - that’s equivalent to a kettle
boiling continuously for about six hours. On
a dull day it’s considerably less – about 4kWh
– but still more than I use.
Since I had the system installed ten weeks
ago in May it’s produced just over 840kWh of
electricity – about ten times what I’ve used,
worth about £370 in feed – in tariff and sales
to the grid
Contrary to the common phenomenon
of ‘free’ energy simply resulting in higher
usage, I’m now very conscious of how much
energy I’m using, as the solar output gives
me a concept of an energy ‘budget’. I’ve also
become a bit of an energy geek, running down
to the meter cupboard whenever the sun goes
in/comes out to see what’s happening to the
output!
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER ‘10
www.ethiscore.org WIND AND SOLAR PV
Solar PV Panels
su mer m
S T BU
Best Buys for solar PV panels are the
GB-Sol, Solar Century and SolarWorld
brands. Solar Century also make solar
roof tiles.
14.5
12.5
12.5
Also performing well, particularly in the
area of formal standards for workers’
rights, is Yingli Solar Energy Company.
Toxics
PV panels involve the same manufacturing
processes as other electronics products and, as
such, are complex and potentially damaging.
For example, Chinese company Luoyang
Zhonggui High Technology, which makes
polysilicon for solar panels, was discovered
dumping highly toxic
waste onto land just
“Because of the
outside its factory in
complex processes
2008.1 The company was
reported to be a supplier
involved, I have an
of Suntech – a company in
innate doubt about this report.
Y
BE
There are three key issues to consider when
looking at the ethical performance of solar
photovoltaic (PV) panel manufacturers:
controversial activities, toxics in manufacture
and disposal, and workers’ rights in
production supply chains.
azine
e th
on
ag
i c al c
Solar photovoltaic (PV) panels have long been central to many serious visions of a
sustainable future and Ethical Consumer published its first buyers’ guide to them in
1991. Jo Southall reviews the sector in the light of new feed-in tariff subsidies.
Because the panel
subsidies are not available
for DIY installations you
are unlikely to buy direct
from any of the companies
on the table. As the
customer though you will
be able to specify in most
cases the product you
want, and we have covered
the issue of installation
under Practical Issues
on page 14. More
information about the
feed-in tariff itself appears
on page 6.
how green solar
PVs are.”
Fortunately the
excellent US campaign
group Silicon Valley Toxics
Dick Strawbridge:
Coalition has become
‘Its not Easy Being Green’
involved. It produced
(BBC Books)
a detailed report in
2009 called ‘Towards a
Just and Sustainable Solar Industry’ which
shares an enthusiasm for the key role the
Controversial activities
technology will play in de-carbonising global
Unlike the wind turbine manufacturers which
energy systems, with a profound desire to
are mainly small specialist companies, PV
make manufacturers fully accountable for
manufacturers include some of the biggest
their social and environmental impacts. A
companies in the world. BP’s reputation,
spin-off of the report is a new website www.
following the huge Gulf of Mexico pollution
solarscorecard.com which plans an annual
incident, appears beyond redemption, and its
rating of solar manufacturers against key
solar panel offerings are unlikely to capture
issues including: recycling, supply chain
the attention of many ethical shoppers.
monitoring, chemical use and disclosure. The
crossover with our own report was not large
Less well known will be some of the
but the table below shows how the German
military interests of other PV suppliers, such
company SolarWorld and the Chinese
as Mitsubishi Electric’s supply of missile
company Yingli stood out as relatively good
systems and satellites. See Company Profiles
performers.
on page 10 for more details.
Other ranking systems
Silicon Valley Toxics
Coalition Solar
Scorecard (out of 100)
Take back my TV
Recycling report card
(USA) (A-F. A is best)
Greenpeace guide
to greener electronics
(out of 10)
D
4.5
Sanyo
(Panasonic)
D
4.9
Mitsubishi
F
12.5
None of the companies is currently
eligible for the Best Buy label at
this stage, either due to lack of
environmental reporting or supply
chain policy.
www.ethicalconsumer.org
SolarWorld
88
Yingli
69
Sharp
0
Suntech
0
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER ‘10
buyers’ guide
GB-Sol
Solarcentury
SolarWorld
Yingli
Suntech
Kyocera
Romag
Schueco
Mitsubishi Electric
Sharp
Schott
Sanyo
BP
14.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12
11.5
10.5
10.5
9.5
8.5
8
7
4
E
H
H
H
H
h
h
h h
H
H
h
H
h
H
H
H
h
H
h
H
H
h
h
h
H
E
H
H
h
H
h
H
h
H
h
H
H
h
H h H
H H H
H
H
H
H H H h
H H H
H
E
h
h
h h
h
H h
H H
E
E
image © SEG (Sarah Guthrie)
Product Sustainability
Company Ethos
+ve
Anti-Social Finance
Political Activity
Boycott Call
Genetic Engineering
Politics
Arms & Military Supply
Irresponsible Marketing
Supply Chain Policy
Workers’ Rights
People
Human Rights
Animal Rights
Factory Farming
Animal Testing
Animals
Habitats & Resources
Pollution & Toxics
Climate Change
Nuclear Power
BRAND
Environmental Reporting
Those companies that
specialise in renewable
energy and don’t
produce anything
else receive a positive
Company Ethos mark.
Ethiscore (out of 20)
Environment
COMPANY GROUP
B Cross
Solar Century Holdings Ltd
SolarWorld AG
Yingli Green Energy Holding
China Solar Power (Holdings)
Kyocera Corporation
Atorka Group
SCHUCO International KG
Mitsubishi Electric Corp
Sharp Corporation
Carl-Zeiss-Stifung
Panasonic Corporation
BP plc
USING THE TABLES
Ethiscore: the higher the score, the better the company across the criticism categories.  bottom rating  middle rating
See ‘Our Rating System’ page at www.ethicalconsumer.org for category definitions
Positive ratings (+ve): Company Ethos:  full mark  half mark Product Sustainability: Maximum of five positive marks
top rating (no criticisms)
All the research behind these ratings is available together with a PDF of this report www.ethicalconsumer.org for £3
image © Patrik Winbjörk | Dreamstime.com
Two of the companies on the table were not
listed as members in July 2010: GB-Sol and
Romag. GB-Sol, the only smaller company
in this report, tells us it intends to join the
scheme in the medium term.
Recycling
Solar panels can become toxic waste at the end
of their working lives if they are not properly
recycled. In the EU, solar panels are currently
exempt from the WEEE regulations requiring
manufacturers to take back all equipment at
the end of its life. This is partly because the
EU was convinced that the manufacturers
own voluntary take-back scheme, PV Cycle, is
effective.2
Supply Chain Policies
Solar Century has spent some time
discussing with Ethical Consumer how
its buyer uses site visits, self assessment
questionnaires and existing audits to check
on suppliers and vet potential suppliers. Solar
Century has plans to improve its management
of labour standards, including commissioning
an independent audit.
Given the toxic chemicals involved in PV
manufacture, it is particularly important in
this sector that formal policies exist to check
that risks are not being taken with workers’
health. Perhaps unsurprisingly our research
found little in the way of reassurance from
the bulk of the companies involved. Even
where policies existed, they were sometimes
insufficient to avoid a worst rating.
Not all components factories are in low
wage economies where concerns about
workers’ rights are usually greatest. Sharp, for
example, manufacturers in Wales, the USA
and Japan and SolarWorld manufactures
in Germany. Both also operate in low wage
economies and score worst for supply chain
policy.
Standing out was the Chinese company
Yingli whose factory was formally certified
to the SA8000 standard for workers’ rights.
This standard, one of the best formal global
management systems in this area, delivers on
most of the key areas we currently require for
a best rating in this category.
The small Welsh company GB-Sol, which
does not manufacture its own silicon wafers,
was open with us about the suppliers it used.
It sources from Europe only and, in case of
smaller companies, we treat the avoidance
of suppliers from low-wage economies as an
effective if not explicit supply chain policy.
Which brands to cover?
To cut down the solar PV list to a
manageable size, we asked a trade
association, the Micropower Council, to
recommend which of the 34 companies
on the Microgeneration Certification
Scheme’s website were most relevant to
cover for individual consumers.
We did not cover ‘solar inverters’ in this
report. They are an important bit of kit
that converts the DC current that the panel
generates to AC current that the home/
grid can use, and which all installations
will need.
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER ‘10
www.ethiscore.org WIND AND SOLAR PV
image © Chris Brignell | Dreamstime.com
Cost and income
A fully installed grid-connected domestic
photovoltaic (PV) system is likely to cost
from £4,000 to £8,000 per kilowatt
(kW) rated capacity. So a typical
2.5kW PV roof will cost around
£15,000.
Maintenance costs are generally low
as there are no moving parts, and the panels
are expected to operate 30 years or longer. The only
major part that will probably require replacement
over a system life span is the inverter, which costs £1,000 - £2,000 in
a domestic system. Against this you need to factor electricity savings
and income from the new feed-in tariff scheme.
A domestic PV system will be particularly financially attractive if
you’re undertaking substantial renovation work or building a house
from new, as the panels can be used in place of roof tiles, and many
associated costs (such as scaffolding) will be incurred when roofing
anyway.
Company Profiles
BP is accused of land rights abuses
including allegations of intimidation and
violence,7 and
involvement in
Canadian tar sands
operations where
there were related
health concerns for
local communities.8
Kyocera, Sharp
and Sanyo all use
coltan (tantalum)
in some part of
their businesses.9
This mineral
was said to fuel
conflict, including
mass rape, in
the Democratic
Republic of
Congo.10,11 Also
contributing to
Sanyo’s score is
a criticism for
failing to speak
out about human
rights abuses in
China whilst being
a sponsor of the
Olympics that took
place there.12
• Generation tariff 2,000kWh x £0.413/kWh £826
• Export tariff 1,000kWh x £0.03/kWh £30
• Electricity savings 1,000kWh x 0.12/kWh £120
Total annual income £976
The scheme will therefore pay back costs in 15 years and generate
income for at least 25 years.
This extract was taken from the excellent Centre for Alternative
Technology website at http://info.cat.org.uk.
Romag supplies the Israeli Defence Force
and the Singapore Army.6
Solar Century was set up by Jeremy Leggett
– a one man solar power campaign
– who chose the
entrepreneurial
route after
seven years as
scientific director
of Greenpeace
International’s
climate change
campaign.
Solar Century
manufactures
its own-brand
products as well
as installing Sharp,
Yingli, Suntech,
Sanyo and Sunpower
products. The
first four are
covered on the
table. The Utility
company Scottish
and Southern and
a few specialist
green venture
capital funds
own Solarcentury
Preference Shares.
Alternative Technology
Because preferred
“It is sometimes said that
photovoltaic (PV) solar
electric panels require more
energy for their production
than they ever produce
during their lifetime. This
seems to be the kind of
‘urban myth’ that can’t be
eradicated. A PV system
mounted in the UK will
probably have produced
between 3 and 7 times as
much energy as was required
for its production.”
Centre for
A family installs a solar PV array with a maximum output of 2.5
kW on their existing unshaded south-facing roof. The system costs
£14,500 – this includes a 25-year warranty extension for the inverter
(bear in mind that inverters are unlikely to last 25 years without
replacement or repairs). The roof produces around 2,000 kWh of
electricity per year. They use 50% of the electricity directly at the time
when it is produced and sell the other 50% on to the grid. They can
expect to receive:
stock does not normally carry voting rights
we haven’t treated this as ‘ownership’
which might otherwise adversely affect
Solarcentury’s rating.
Panasonic Corporation formerly known as
Matsushita Electric took over 51% of Sanyo
Electric in 2009. There have been reports of
pollution incidents at a Sanyo Video facility
in Tijuana, Mexico and elsewhere.4
Schott is owned by the German company
Carl-Zeiss-Stiftung. A subsidiary, Carl Zeiss
Optronics GmbH, provided the following
military/armaments products: missile
guidance, reconnaissance cameras, and
sensors and masts.5 According to the Schott
website (schott.com), searched on 8 July
2010, the company also provided core
services to the nuclear industry.
Mitsubishi Electric has supplied various
products to the military including: missile
systems, communication equipment,
radars, satellites, computers.5
References 1 Washington Post March 9th 2008 Solar Energy Firms Leave Waste Behind in China 2 Environment Committee Changes WEEE directive June 29th 2010 http://www.recycle.co.uk/
news/2350000.html 3 email from GB-Sol owner, Bruce Cross, received on 15 July 2010 4 February 2007 Greenpeace report ‘Cutting Edge Contamination’ 5 2007 edition of Jane’s International
Defence Directory 6 http://www.romag.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=52&Itemid=53 viewed 16/7/10 7 CORE (Corporate Responsibility) Coalition reports:The reality
of rights: Barriers to accessing remedies when business operates across borders (May 2009 8 BP plc Corporate Communications:www.bp.com (8 July 2009) 9 http://www.avx.com/prodinfo_
searchresults.asp?form=number 10 Enoughproject.org, Congo’s Conflict Minerals:12 June 2009 11 Raise hope for congo:Conflict minerals (10 July 2010) 12 Human Rights Watch:China: Olympic
Flame Turns Up Heat on Sponsors (5 April 2008)
image © Madmaxer | Dreamstime.com
10 www.ethicalconsumer.org
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER ‘10
buyers’ guide
PV or not PV?
James Page outlines his concerns regarding the effects
of some recent criticisms of solar PV and feed-in tariffs.
The UK solar PV business has been brisk of
late. Why would anyone turn down a return
of 5-8% (tax-free) for an investment in solar
panels that provide electricity and help keep
the rain off the roof ?
But things got cloudy in March when
columnist George Monbiot let rip with an
article entitled ‘Are we really going to let
ourselves be duped into this solar panel
rip-off?’ A vigorous debate ensued with
solar entrepreneur and fellow Guardian
columnist Jeremy Leggett. But for the benefit
of those who might be attracted to solar
for reasons other than the financial return,
his arguments deserve further analysis. The
window of opportunity for the top feed
in tariffs (FiTs) is due to end in less than
20 months. Householders, businesses and
manufacturers are in serious danger of
missing the boat again.
Monbiot’s first criticism is that the
economies of scale are lost in domestic PV.
In fact PV lends itself admirably to small
installations. The panels used are the same
as in large systems, and no less efficient.
Transmission losses are actually lower.
board. The ETS is designed to work alongside
other energy saving measures without which
either nothing changes or the lights start
going out on a regular basis.
Conceding that solar panels are the best
investment a householder can make, Monbiot
says they are wasteful. If he is referring to
the admittedly low technical efficiency of
converting the energy of light to electricity
(14-18%) it’s infinitely better than the black
slates on my roof, which just get hot in the
sun. Everyone agrees that insulation should
come first, and that solar water heating should
also be considered, but PV has its place.
Monbiot also accused FiTs of being
‘regressive’ – ‘subsidising the middle-class’.
That was perhaps his worst misconception.
Already we are seeing councils, such as
Ipswich, inviting bids to carpet their housing
stock with solar panels. The bidder keeps the
income from FiTs, and the residents get free
electricity. Whoever has paid for the panels,
the electricity will be used and welcomed by
the community in years to come. Far from
being a financial burden they will in time
become a boon to the local economy, helping
to keep energy prices low.
George Monbiot
Jeremy Leggett
image source:www.
windenergyplanning.com
image source: http://
peakoiltaskforce.net
FiTs are not the only way. But alternatives
such as subsidies worked far too slowly and
personal carbon quotas will have to wait for
a few more Green Party MPs (despite the
support of David Milliband and Conservative
Tim Yeo.) FiTs give us a fighting chance to cut
carbon while building a renewables industry
to match Germany’s.
James Page is an industry policy advisor for the
Green Party and Operations Manager at Joju
Ltd, an installer of Solar PV.
More importantly there are also behavioural
benefits that arise from generating electricity
at the domestic level. About half the electricity
used by householders will be ‘free’ – once
the panels are installed – focussing minds on
the high prices being paid for the other half,
hence reducing demand. People with apple
trees hate buying apples, and readers of the
Sunday Times are none too keen to pay for
internet access, which was previously free.
This consumer pressure to reduce fossil fuel
consumption would not occur if PV were
deployed in centralised ‘solar farms’ (whether
or not controlled by oligopolists like British
Gas and npower) and the electricity generated
sold at standard market prices.
He then argues that FiTs create no carbon
savings since we already have an Emissions
Trading Scheme (ETS) in Europe, so other
sectors/regions will take up the permits
released by savings from PV. This might be
true in the short term (provided the ETS is
actually working, which hasn’t always been
the case.) But that would be a signal for the
authorities to reduce the number of permits
allotted in the next round, in exactly the same
way that any other reductions are taken on
Around 2,000 homes in Germany, the Netherlands and Kirklees (pictured) are to benefit from free
solar electricity (saving up to £50 a year on electricity bills) as part of European project SunCities.
image © Donna Munro, source: http://www.pvdatabase.org/urban_view_details.php?ID=8
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER ‘10
www.ethiscore.org 11
buyers’ guide
The Renewable Heat Initiative
Matt Fawcett explains how the Renewable Heat Initiative (RHI), scheduled for
introduction in April 2011, is expected to revolutionise home heating and support
consumers in dramatically reducing carbon emissions.
What is the RHI?
The Renewable Heat Initiative is the
equivalent of the feed-in tariff (FiT) but for
renewable space and water heating rather
than electricity production. This is important
as space and water heating accounts for 70%
of the average household’s energy usage and
is therefore where the greatest opportunities
exist for ethical consumers to lower their
carbon impact.1
The RHI is calculated on the the basis of
giving a 12% rate of return on investment
(except for the 6% currently proposed for
solar thermal: see table). This is significantly
higher than the level set for the FiT – a
reflection both of the government’s higher
aspirations for renewable heat (with a target
of 12% of national energy need by 2020)
and the relative immaturity of the market
compared to renewable electricity.
Unlike the FiT payments (which are based
on meter readings of energy produced), RHI
payments will be made on the basis of a
study into what level of heat the building is
expected to need. This has replaced the initial
metering model as it was pointed out that, as
the subsidy may be significantly higher than
the cost of the fuel, there was nothing to stop
unscrupulous householders from chucking
another log on the fire and opening the
windows to increase their payout. This is also
good news for ethical consumers as it means
that those of us happy living at 18 degrees
aren’t penalised.
solar thermal panel
Proposed Renewable Heat Initiative
(as of second consultation paper – February 2010)
Scale
Proposed
tariff (pence/
kWh)
Tariff
lifetime
(years)
Return on
Investment
(ROI)
Solid biomass
Up to 45kW
9
15
12%
Bio-liquids
Up to 45kW
6.5
15
12%
Bio-gas on-site combustion
Up to 45kW
5.5
10
12%
Ground source heat pumps
Up to 45kW
7
23
12%
Air source heat pumps
Up to 45kW
7.5
18
12%
Solar Thermal
Up to 20kW
18
20
6%
Technology
Criticism
Is there still uncertainty?
The second consultation on the RHI ran
between February and April and elicited over
700 responses. While there was widespread
support for the concept, questions were
raised about the implementation. Criticism
has mainly focused on the fact that rate
of payment is based on a financial rate of
return rather than the efficiency of the
technology. The government had argued
that this is necessary to support emerging
technology, as less efficient technologies may
need a higher subsidy to make up for their
more modest energy savings. This policy is
particularly controversial when it comes to Air
Source Heat Pumps (ASHP), which require
a constant power source and are therefore
arguably less efficient in terms of carbon
reduction than modern gas combi-boilers.
When the RHI is introduced, all new, eligible,
equipment installed after 15 July 2009 will be
covered by the scheme and will be treated as
if it was installed in April 2011. However, the
renewable energy market is still reeling from
the Coalition governments’ surprise ditching
of the Low Carbon Building Program back
in May, and many consumers are waiting for
definite signals from ministers that the RHI
will go forward as planned.
While Chris Huhne’s new ‘Green Deal’ for
housing is right to focus on insulation as the
primary target, the uncertainty is damaging
Britain’s fledgeling renewables market as
householders wait to see what the final detail
will be.
The solar industry has, perhaps
unsurprisingly, been extremely critical
of the decision to award half the return
on investment to solar thermal as other
technologies. They argue that, although
slightly more developed than other markets,
it should still be considered as an emerging
technology and that given its status as a
‘virtually zero-carbon technology’ it shouldn’t
see a lower rate of return than less efficient
methods. The fact that the Energy Saving
Trust predicts solar thermal technology costs
over time to fall more quickly than any other
single dwelling heating technology suggests
that the market does still have great growth
potential.3 It should be noted however that
solar thermal can only provide 60% of home
heating and hot-water needs, in comparison
to other technologies which can achieve
carbon savings of up to 100%.
116 MPs have so far signed up to the Early
Day Motion (EDM143) supporting the
RHI, to find out if your MP is one of them
visit: http://www.edms.org.uk/edms/20102011/143.htm
If they haven’t, contact them and tell them
why they should at www.theyworkforyou.com
Want to see it happen?
Matt Fawcett is a climate campaigner and is
currently working with the Carbon Coop
(www.carbon.coop) to increase take up of low
carbon technologies in Greater Manchester.
References: 1 www.therenewableenergycentre.co.uk 2 Solar
Trade Association response to RHI Consultation - 26/04/10 3
‘Power in numbers’ Energy Saving Trust, 2008
image source: www.animatrans.cz
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER ‘10
www.ethiscore.org 15
solar PV panels
BP Solar PV panels
Owned by BP Solar
BP Solar is owned by BP plc
BP plc, BP plc, 1 St. James’s Square, London, SW1Y 4PD, UK
BP Solar is also owned by JP Morgan Chase & Company
(28%)
JP Morgan Chase & Company, 270 Park Avenue, New York,
NY 10017
Environment
Environmental Reporting
Worst ECRA rating for Environmental Report (July 2010)
In July 2010 a search was made of the BP website (bp.com). The
Sustainability Review 2009 was downloaded. Some assurance
of the report was provided by Ernst and Young, who pointed out
the lack of future targets in the report.
The report provided basic coverage of tar sands, CO2, the
Tanggah project in Indonesia, future gas and oil supplies, Iraq,
deep water work, water and tar sands, carbon capture and storage,
greenhouse gases, fuel efficiency, renewables including biofuel,
safety and protected areas such as SSSIs. The company provided
no information about office or industrial waste and no information
about impacts from transport. Coverage of water was limited to
the tar sands section. For these reasons the company could not be
said to have a reasonable understanding of its main impacts.
The report also stated that “we report on air emissions, waste,
water and biodiversity at a local level, where it’s most relevant.”
but did not provide links to this reporting.
Due to the lack of targets, the company received ECRA’s worst
rating for environmental reporting. (ref: 1)
Climate Change
Gulf of Mexico oil spill, 11 workers dead (April 2010)
According to article in the Times Online, www.timesonline.
co.uk, dated April 25th 2010, an explosion at an oil rig in the
Gulf of Mexico had left eleven workers presumed dead a week
earlier. Some of those working on the rig were BP employees. An
investigation was being launched into the incident. (ref: 2)
Investment in Libyan oil operations (May 2007)
According to the BBC’s online news webiste dated and viewed
on 30 May 2007 [www.bbc.co.uk], BP had announced a US$900
million (£453 million) oil exploration venture with the Libya
Investment Corporation. The article identified that the company
would ‘explore about 54,000 square kilometres - at the onshore
Ghadames and offshore Sirt basins’. Furthermore, at the time of
writing ECRA considered Libya to be governed by an oppressive
regime. (ref: 3)
Criticism of safety procedures (20 March 2007)
According to an article on the BBC website (www.bbc.co.uk),
dated 22nd July 2007, the US Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) had fined BP $92,000 for an explosion
in Texas in 2005. The blast was said to have killed 15 and injured
180. The OSHA findings also stated that the safety violations
may have caused another “major accident”. BP had already
paid millions in settlements with employees and their families
in relation to this incident.
It was also said that BP had closed down a section of its Prudhoe
Bay oil field earlier in 2007 due to a leaking pipe. (ref: 4)
Pollution & Toxics
Gulf of Mexico oil spill, habitats, pollution and GHG
impacts (13 July 2010)
An article on the BBC website, dated 13 July 2010, outlines
the impacts of the 2010 BP Gulf of Mexico oil spill on the
environment.
The article stated that birds had been coated in oil and there were
also dead dolphins. It also stated that a conservation scientist
had said that clouds/plumes of oil dispersed in tiny droplets in
the water (as was the case with some of the oil from the spill),
had never been seen before. The article went on to state that
scientists found it hard to even speculate about some of the
impacts, particularly in the deep ocean.
Regarding the wetlands, the impacts range from, at best a 1-2
year recovery, at worst a total loss of wetland areas where oil has
penetrated to root level.
Regarding animal death, a scientist from Ocean Conservancy
stated that the “rule of thumb” for bird carcasses was that 1 in 10
carcasses is found, but that this rule of thumb may be optimistic.
The article stated that so far, 1000 carcasses had been found (half
of them oiled). A few hundred dead turtles and about 50 dead
dolphins had been found, again, carcasses found was said to be
a small proportion of the death toll.
In terms of recovery, estimates vary depending on the type of
lifeform, animals such as shrimp were said to take 1-2 years
whereas coral would take longer, given that it had a lifecycle
of hundreds of years. The article stated that the impacts of
bluefin tuna “could be severe”. ECRA considers a species to be
endangered if it is on the CITES list and/or a reputable campaign
group has identified use of the species to be unsustainable. As
the Marine Conservation Society had stated that fishing bluefin
tuna was unsustainable, this impact was also recorded on BPs
record on the ECRA’s database.
The article stated that the effects of nature’s responce to the crisis
would also cause CO2 and methane to be produced as naturallypresent microbes degraded the oil.
It was said that the ecosystem in the area already had “a number
of stresses” on it and that some lifeforms may not regain their
former place in the system once it had “recovered” from the
spill. A previous BBC article had stated that the spill was one of
America’s worst environmental disasters. (ref: 5)
Operations in Canadian tar sands (July 2009)
According to the BP p.l.c website, www.bp.com, viewed by
Ethical Consumer on 8th July 2009, the company had a a 50%
share in the Sunrise oil sands field in Alberta, Canada, and a
50% share in the Toledo oil refinery in Ohio, USA. These were
said to ?between them form... an integrated North American oil
sands business?. According to a report by the World Wildlife
Fund and the Co-operative Group ?Unconventional Oil: scraping
the bottom of the barrel?? published in May 2008, the Canadian
tar sands developments were extremely carbon intensive and
thereby a major contributor to climate change; resulted in the
deforestation of large areas of boreal forest and the creation of
tailing ponds which were highly toxic; used massive amounts of
water; and raised concerns over the health impacts on the First
Nations communities that lived downstream from the tar sands.
The Assembly of First Nations Treaty Chiefs had issued a call to
implement a full moratorium on tar sands development. (ref: 6)
Fine for non-compliance of Clean Air Act regulations (19
February 2009)
According to a press release on the US Environmental Protection
Agency’s website, dated 19 February 2009, BP Products North
America Inc. agreed to spend more than $161 million on pollution
controls, enhanced maintenance and monitoring, and improved
internal management practices to resolve Clean Air Act violations
at its Texas City refinery. The company also agreed to pay a $12
million civil penalty and spend $6 million on a supplemental
project to reduce air pollution in Texas City.The settlement
addressed the company?s noncompliance with a 2001 consent
decree and Clean Air Act regulations requiring strict controls
on benzene and benzene-containing wastes generated during
petroleum refining operation.
?BP failed to fulfill its obligations under the law, putting air
quality and public health at risk,? said Catherine R. McCabe,
acting assistant administrator for EPA?s Office of Enforcement
and Compliance Assurance.
The Environmental Protection Agenc identified the violations
during a series of inspections of the Texas City refinery initiated
after a catastrophic explosion and fire in March 2005 that killed
15 people and injured more than 170 others. In October 2007,
the company pleaded guilty to a felony violation of the Clean Air
Act and agreed to pay a $50 million fine for violations related to
the explosion, the largest criminal fine ever assessed against a
corporation for Clean Air Act violations. (ref: 7)
Habitats & Resources
(See also ‘Gulf of Mexico oil spill, habitats, pollution and
GHG impacts’ in Pollution & Toxics above.)
(See also ‘Operations in Canadian tar sands’ in Pollution &
Toxics above.)
Concerns about project in Azerbaijan (June 2006)
In a report by the economic research consultancy Profundo, titled
‘Involvement of UBS in the global mining and oil & gas sectors’,
published in June 2006, BP was criticised for its involvement
in an Azerbaijani oil exploration project with oil fields in the
Caspian Sea. According to the report, the project ‘posed various
risks to the environment, as drilling waste water was discharged
directly into the Caspian Sea’. The report also stated that a pipeline
built for the project, the Western Route Export Pipeline, passed
through ‘five conservation areas and twenty-seven watershed
areas in Azerbaijan and Georgia’. It was argued that the Supsa
Terminal which was also developed for the project, threatened
the Kolkhety wetlands, an area protected under the Ramsar
Convention on Wetlands. (ref: 8)
People
Human Rights
(See also ‘Operations in Canadian tar sands’ in Pollution &
Toxics above.)
Human rights abuses of Georgian communities (2009)
According to a report published by The Corporate Responsibility
(CORE) Coalition in 2009, BP was one of a number of powerful
corporates involved in the development of the 1,770km long
Baku-Tblisi-Ceyham pipeline designed to transport up to a million
barrels of crude oil per day from Azerbaijan, through Georgia, to
Turkey. According to this report, the project was linked to numerous
human rights abuses. Large numbers of affected communities
alleged that construction had begun before compensation was
provided, and that levels of compensation were inadequate. Many
reported significant damage to livelihood resources, including
loss or degradation of land due to the construction, damage to
irrigation or drinking water supply pipes, lack of access to land
plots due to the pipeline, and loss of economic activities due, for
example, to eradication of colonies of bees or loss of agricultural
income. Many claims also focussed on ancillary damage ton
houses and local infrastructure as a result of blasting and other
construction activities. In addition there were widespread reports
of intimidation and violence directed at villagers who attempted
to protest against construction of the pipeline. (ref: 9)
Human rights abuses in Colombia (July 2008)
According to an article which appeared on the Business & Human
Rights Resource Centre website (www.business-humanrights.org)
on 24 July 2008, The Permanent Peoples? Tribunal (PPT), headed
by Nobel peace prize winner, Adolfo Pérez Esquivel, delivered
?judgment? on 43 companies after its session on Colombia from
21-23 July, 2008. The Tribunal, consisting of internationally
renowned notables, investigated accusations of human rights
violations in Colombia for three years, before its ruling.
A total of 43 companies have violated human rights in Colombia,
the Tribunal says, one of which was BP. The PPT said the
Colombian Government was equally responsible for the violation
of human rights, ?favoring capital over people?s lives?. The
international companies on the list were given the possibility
to respond, but only 6 of the 43 companies on the list took
advantage of that.?
BP was one of these six, but its comments were only available
in Spanish. (ref: 10)
Workers’ Rights
(See also ‘Gulf of Mexico oil spill, 11 workers dead’ in
Climate Change above.)
£53m fine for failure to address hazards at Texas City
refinery (October 2009)
The Guardian website reported on 30 October 2009 that the US
government had imposed a record fine of $87.4m (£53m) on BP
for failing to fix hazards at its Texas City oil refinery in the wake
of the explosion that killed 15 people in March 2005, described
in the artilce as “the worst industrial accident in the US for a
generation”. The fine was four times higher than any previous
penalty levied by America’s workplace safety regulator, the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and it
raised the possibility that a criminal prosecution of BP over the
incident could be reopened.
US labour secretary, Hilda Solis, said that BP had reneged on
commitments to fix flaws at America’s third-biggest refinery,
leaving the plant in a condition that “could lead to another
catastrophe”.
Solis added that BP had a moral responsibility to look after its
employees at Texas City. (ref: 11)
Settled case after explosion killed fifteen people (February
2009)
According to the Financial Times (19 December 2006) the
US Department of Labor?s Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (Osha) uncovered more than 300 ?egregious,
wilful violations? in Texas City ? BP?s biggest refinery - leading
to an explosion in 2005. The explostion was the worst industrial
accident in the US in a decade - 15 people died and 500 were
injured.
The Financial Times went on to report that BP did not admit guilt
but agreed to a maximum allowable $21m fine and said it would
spend $1bn improving and maintaining the refinery over the next
five years. According to the report many of the problems at the
70-year-old plant had been inherited by BP when it acquired the
refinery in 1998 as part of its purchase of Amoco.
There was a history of safety problems at the plant, wth 23 fatalities
in the last 30 years ? four since BP took over. But, accoring to
the report, instead of making the investments needed to improve
safety, BP in 1999 ordered a 25 per cent cut in fixed costs. Federal
investigators concluded that these budget cuts caused a progressive
deterioration of safety.
Update: The ENDS Report issue 410 (March 2009) reported
that BP had been ordered to pay $179m to settle the case. This
amounted to almost 1% of the company’s 2008 profits. Under
the settlement, an American subsidiary of the company was to
spend more than $161m on improving the sites polluition control
and was orederd to pay a $12m civil penalty. A further project to
reduce air pollution from local vehicles added $6m to the bill. The
setlement was agreed on 19 February 2009 with the US Department
of Justice and the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
after BP failed to comply with a 2001 agreement to ensure its
refineries complied with the US Clean AIr Act, which regulated
industrial emmissions to air. The agreement allowed the company
to avoid legal proceedings for preevious pollution offences on the
condition that it installed pollution abatement equipment and and
restricetd air pollution emissions at its refineries. It formed part of
a federal enforcement strategy intended to ensure US refineries
complied with the Act. However, an explosion at the site which
killed 15 people led EPA inspectors to discover unrelated but
serious violations of the agreement. (ref: 12)
Report criticises BTC pipeline building process (2005)
A 2005 report by Georgian NGO Green Alternative reported
that BP was the main shareholder in the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan
pipeline, being built to carry oil from Azerbaijan, through Georgia,
to Turkey. The report expressed a range of concerns about the
environmental and social impacts of the pipeline, claiming
that, far from benefiting the people of Georgia, by destroying
the environment, historical buildings and people’s homes and
farmland, the pipe was inhibiting the ability of many people to
lift themselves out of poverty. Specific allegations made against
the pipeline included:
Supply Chain Policy
- that the construction company failed to manage waste from the
construction sites properly, allowing organic waste to build up,
causing pollution and attracting vermin;
Worst ECRA rating for supply chain policy (July 2010)
According to the BP website (bp.com), searched in July 2010,
the company had a code of conduct. However, this code was a
broad code covering corruption etc, not a code focussed on the
rights of workers in the supply chain. The company had been
contacted in June 2010 by ECRA and a copy of its supply chain
policy requested, the company did not respond.
The website stated that “BP?s code of conduct, for example,
states our commitment to fair employment and equal employment
opportunity. It also expresses our commitment to engage in open
and transparent dialogue with communities. Additionally, we
make a very explicit statement against the use of child labour
and forced or compulsory labour.” These explicit statements
could not be found.
This same section of the website contained some detail about the
steps that the company was starting to make in monitoring labour
standards in the supply chain. There was no evidence that the
company was commissioning independent third party audits with
the use of an NGO/trade union or not for profit entity.
For these reasons the company received ECRA’s worst rating for
supply chain policy. (ref: 1)
Arms & Military Supply
Military supply: obstruction lights and telecoms kit (July
2010)
According to the 2007 edition of Janes International Defence
Directory, BP Solar provided airfield telecoms and navaid and
obstruction lights to the military. (ref: 13)
- that it had cut large areas of timber outside of those trees permitted
under its license for the pipeline, and then created incorrect and
possibly fraudulent information about the uses of the wood in
local schools etc;
- that it had caused damage to historical buildings, including Atskuri
Castle and Cathedral, both at least a thousand years old, and also
to residential properties. When villagers claimed compensation,
they were told that the company denied the charges. Tests carried
out by the company on the possibility of vibration damage to
houses were said to have been done by the company on houses
away from their lorry traffic and made of wood;
- that it had refused to compensate some people on whose land it
had built sections of the pipeline, or had incorrectly compensated
the wrong people, and then refused to pay appropriate money to
the right people;
- that incorrect coatings had been used on the pipeline, contravening
international safety standards for such installations, and that
some coatings had been detaching within months of the line
being laid;
- that BP had been lobbying the Georgian government to give it
exemptions from environmental law. The Georgian Minister of the
Environment was said to have complained to the British authorities
that “Bp representatives are requesting the Georgian government
to violate our own environmental legislation.” (ref: 17)
Anti-Social Finance
Supply of fuel to US military (2007)
A document was downloaded from the US Department of
Defence website (www.dod.mil) in June 2009 “DoD TOP 100
COMPANIES FY2007 (INTERIM)” listing the top 100 contractors
to the US military in financial year 2007. BP PLC was listed
40th. (ref: 14)
(See also ‘Report criticises BTC pipeline building process’
in Political Activities above.)
Operations in 5 tax havens (July 2010)
According to the BP website (www.bp.com/multipleimagesection.
do?categoryId=23&contentId=7017765), searched in July 2010,
the company had subsidiaries in the following countries deemed
by ECRA at the time of writing to be tax havens:
Politics
Hong Kong
Political Activities
Philippines
Lobbying in Europe and beyond (July 2007)
According to the June/July 2007 Corporate Watch newsletter, BP
was one of 20 companies that the organisation had criticised for
having ?enormous influence over the daily life of Europeans? and
beyond. The report detailed how companies used their power
to try to influence decision-making in Europe and the rest of the
world. (ref: 15)
Lobbying US Congress (2009)
According to the Centre for Responsive Politics Website (www.
opensecrets.org) BP America spent $10.45m on lobbying the US
Congress in 2008, and just under $4m by July 2009. On 17 June
2009 The American Clean Energy and Security Act, addressing
climate change emissions, was passed. The Act occassioned
intense lobbying from the US oil industry. (ref: 16)
Singapore
Ireland
Luxemborg (ref: 1)
Excessive Director’s pay (2008)
According to the BP Annual Review 2008 found by ECRA on the
BP website (www.BP.com) and viewed in July 2009, 5 members
of the board earned over £1million per year. ECRA considered
this to be excessive. (ref: 18)
GB-Sol is owned by B Cross
effluent, transport, end of life issues, raw materials, packageing,
water, waste (including internal waste, product waste, liquid and
office waste), toxics, reconditioning products (reuse), procurement,
conservation, edible oil waste as biofuel. The report did not cover
the mining impacts of the raw materials used in its products but
it did cover some of the other raw material impacts.
Environment
Overall the company had a reasonable understanding of its main
impacts.
GB-Sol solar panels
Owned by GB-Sol
GB-Sol, Unit 2 Glan Llyn Industrial Estate,, Cardiff Road,, Taffs
Well,, CF15 7JD, CF15 7JD
Environmental Reporting
Exemption from environmental reporting (June 2010)
A copy of the company’s environmental report was requested in
2010. In June 2010 the company replied, saying that it had an
environmental policy, however, it did not provide a copy and no
copy could be found on the company website (gb-sol.co.uk).
However, because the company was an SME providing an ethical
alternative with a turnover of less than £5m, ECRA granted it an
exemption in this category. (ref: 19)
People
Supply Chain Policy
Effective if not explicit supply chain policy (July 2010)
According to an email from GB-Sol owner, Bruce Cross, received
on 15 July 2010, the company manufactured its products in
Wales. ECRA sought clarification; GB-Sol replied on the 22
July stating the following:
“The Cells come from Germany, as does the EVA, and the
backsheet comes from
Austria. Aluminium frame comes from UK and Italy, terminal
boxes from Germany,
interconnections from UK, Glass from UK.”
This represented an effective if not explicit supply chain policy
as labour standards in these countries were known to be of a
certain standard, and for a company of this size dealing only
in environmental alternatives, ECRA did not expect it to have
mapped its supply chain beyond the first tier.
The company had a turnover of under £5m according to its
response to an ECRA questionnaire completed within 4 weeks
of the date of the original email. (ref: 20)
Politics
Company Ethos
All products are innovative environmental alternatives
(July 2010)
A search was made of the GB-Sol website in July 2010. It
showed that the company was only involved in the solar energy
trade, considered by ECRA to be an innovative environmental
alternative. (ref: 21)
The company received ECRA’s best rating for environmental
reporting. (ref: 22)
Pollution & Toxics
Nanotech involvment (July 2010)
In July 2010 a search was made of the Kyocera website (global.
kyocera.com) and the CSR report was downloaded. The report
stated that the company had supported the establishment of a
nanotechnologies research facility.
Ethical Consumer regarded nanotech as a pollution and toxics
issue because according to Jim Thomas of ETC Group, in 2009 the
European Commission had a view that the toxicology of genetically
modified organisms can be assessed, but had a provisional view
that the toxicology of nanomaterials cannot be assessed using
traditional methods. This provisional view was based on the
highest EU body on toxicology (the Scientific Committee on
Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks) which spent a year
researching whether existing toxicology methods were appropriate
for assessing nanomaterials. Their answer was basically ‘no’, but
what little toxicology there was on the subject brought experts
to the conclusion that ?there is already much more evidence for
the toxicity of nanoparticles than, for example, GMOs (although
toxicity varies from nanoparticle to nanoparticle, as it does from
GMO to GMO).? (ref: 22)
People
Human Rights
Tantalum production (March 2005)
The Hoovers Online factsheet for AVX Corporation reported that
one of the company’s specialities was the manufacture of tantalum
capacitors. Tantalum is a mineral which has been eliminated
from the production schedules of a number of companies due to
global concerns about its mining, much of which takes place in
the war-torn region of the Congo and has been condemned for
its destructive influences on local species, including mountain
gorillas. (ref: 23)
Operations in 1 oppressive regime (July 2010)
According to the Kyocera 2008 Annual Report, downloaded from
global.kyocera.com in July 2010, the company had operations in
China, this country was on ECRA’s list of oppressive regimes at
the time of writing. (ref: 22)
Supply Chain Policy
Kyocera solar panels
Owned by Kyocera Corporation
Kyocera Corporation, 6 Takeda Tobadono-cho, Fushimi-ku,
Kyoto, 612-8501, Japan
Environment
Environmental Reporting
Best rating for environmental reporting (July 2010)
A search was made of the Kyocera website (global.kyocera.com)
on 9th July 2010. The sustainability report was downloaded. The
report was independantly verified by J-SUS and was dated 2009.
The report contained many future, dated and quantifiable targets.
The report covered the following areas:
green products, factory premises impacts, production processes,
soil and groundwater contamination, CO2, greenhouse gases,
Worst ECRA rating for supply chain policy (July 2010)
The Kyocera 2009 CSR report, downloaded via globaly.kyocera.
com in July 2010 did not contain a supply chain policy. The
company was contacted in June 2010 and a copy of the supply
chain policy was requested, the company had not responded.
The CSR report contained a section on suppliers (“business
associates”) which made mention of a guidebook given to suppliers.
This guidebook was not to be found online.
For these reasons, the company received ECRA’s worst rating
for supply chain policy. (ref: 22)
Arms & Military Supply
Military components (March 2005)
According to the Kyocera corporate website americas.kyocera.
com, viewed by ECRA in March 2005, the company’s US division
offered wire manufacture facilities at its California and Japan
plants which “specialise[d] in high yield assembly to meet...
military requirement.” An earlier press release on the same
website announced a joint enterprise with a California company
to offer a range of wire, sealing and finishing services to military
specifications. (ref: 24)
Supply Chain Policy
Mitsubishi Electric solar panels
Therefore the company received ECRA’s worst rating for supply
chain policy. (ref: 25)
Owned by Mitsubishi Electric Corp
Mitsubishi Electric Corp, Tokyo Building, 2-7-3, Marunouchi,
Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 100-8310, Japan, Japan
Environment
Environmental Reporting
Middle ECRA rating for environmental reporting. (July
2010)
In July 2010 a search was made of the Mitsubishi Electric website
(global.mitsubishielectric.com). The company did not have an
environmental report document, however environmental reporting
was found in a section of the website that was dated within 2 years
of the time of writing. No evidence of independent verification
could be found. At least 2 future, dated, quantified targets were
found, these included a reduction in CO2 from production by
48,000 tons by 2012 and a reduction in emissions from VOCs
by 40% by 2012.
The reporting covered WEEE, products, CO2, packaging, ISO
14001 accreditation, audits, recycling, chemicals, premises,
transport and “material balance” and environmental impact. ECRA
felt that the company had shown a reasonable understanding of
its main impacts.
The company received ECRA’s middle rating for environmental
reporting. (ref: 25)
Pollution & Toxics
Lowest score on take back policy (2010)
In 2009 the Take Back My TV campaign (takebackmytv.com)
released its report card. Mitsubishi scored F, along with 8 other
companies. F was the lowest score. 8 other companies scored
above Mitsubishi. No companies scored A. The “take-back” of
electronic equipment was important due to the vast flows of e-waste
to “developing” countries, most of which was not recycled in a
safe way leading to pollution and impacts on human health.
A further websearch showed that Mitsubishi Electric sold TVs.
The company picked up a mark in the habitats and resources
column, due to the impacts of waste on the habitats where it
is disposed of and the additional resources extracted to fulfil
demand that could have been satisfied by the recyclate. Waste
impacts on habitats not just through any toxics that the material
may contain, but also due to the effects of replacing habitats with
waste processing and storage sites. (ref: 26)
Worst ECRA rating for supply chain policy (July 2010)
A search was made of the Mitsubishi Electric Group website
(global.mitsubishielectric.com) in July 2010. No supply chain
policy could be found. The company did not respond to a written
request for information.
Irresponsible Marketing
Dangerous phone batteries (2006)
According to the December 13th 2006 issue of CSR Asia Weekly,
in 2006 NTT DoCoMo and Mitsubishi Electric were forced to
recall 1.3 million mobile phone batteries after it was found that
a fault could cause them to overheat and in some cases explode.
At least 18 cases were said to have been recorded, including one
which resulted in burns. (ref: 27)
Arms & Military Supply
Military supply - various (2007)
According to the 2007 edition of Jane’s International Defence
Directory, Mitsubishi Electric Corporation supplied various
products to the military. These included:
missile systems
communication equipment
radars
satellites
computers (ref: 13)
Military supply - unspecified (2007)
According to the 2007 edition of Jane’s International Defence
Directory, Mitsubishi Electronics America provided products to
the military. No further detail was given (ref: 13)
Manufacturer of simulator systems (2005)
According to the company webiste www.mpcnet.co.jp. viewed by
ECRA in August 2005, Mitsubishi Precision Co made simulator
makers which were sold to the Japanese Defence Agency for
training and demonstration purposes. (ref: 28)
Romag solar panels
Owned by Romag
Romag, LOPE HILL ROAD, LEADGATE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE,
LOPE HIL, CONSETT, COUNTY DURHAM, DH8 7RS
Romag is owned by Atorka Group hf (24%)
Atorka Group hf,
Environment
Environmental Reporting
People
Worst ECRA rating for environmental reporting (July
2010)
A search was made of the Romag website, romag.co.uk in July
2010. No environmental report or similar was found. Therefore
the company received ECRA’s worst rating for environmental
reporting. (ref: 29)
Human Rights
Pollution & Toxics
Operations in 3 oppressive regimes (2009)
According to the Mitsubishi Electric Corporation 2009 Annual
Report, the company had operations in countries including the
following:
Not a member of recycling scheme (July 2010)
According to the PV Cycle website (pvcycle.org), checked
on 7 July 2010, Romag were not a member. The site stated
that “PV CYCLE was founded in July 2007 to implement the
photovoltaic industry?s commitment to set up a voluntary take
back and recycling programme for end-of-life-modules and to
take responsibility for PV modules throughout their entire value
chain.” Ethical Consumer discovered this information whilst
researching a buyers’ guide to solar PV, the guide contained 13
Habitats & Resources
(See also ‘Lowest score on take back policy’ in Pollution &
Toxics above.)
China
USA
Thailand.
These 3 countries were deemed to be oppressive regimes by
ECRA at the time of writing. (ref: 25)
companies. The company was notable by its absence, as it was
one of only 3 of the 13 companies that was not a member of PV
Cycle. The company also picked up a mark in the habitats and
resources column, due to the impacts of waste on the habitats where
it is disposed of and the additional resources extracted to fulfil
demand that could have been satisfied by the recyclate. Waste
impacts on habitats not just through any toxics that the material
may contain, but also due to the effects of replacing habitats with
waste processing and storage sites. (ref: 30)
Habitats & Resources
(See also ‘Not a member of recycling scheme’ in Pollution
& Toxics above.)
Landfill builder (July 2010)
At the time of writing, Bjorgun was 100% owned by Atorka.
The Atorka website (atorka.com) searched in July 2010 stated
that Bjorgun builds landfills. Landfilling waste was taking place
at a level that was way beyond sustainable, resulting in use of
additional resources to replace the recyclables that could have
been recovered from the waste before being landfilled. Landfilling
also meant that land was used to store waste instead of continuing
to provide habitat. (ref: 31)
People
Human Rights
Operations in 4 oppressive regimes (July 2010)
According to the Promens website (www.promens.com) searched
on 23 July 2010, the company had operations in the following
countries deemed by ECRA to be oppressive regimes at the time
of writing:
Russia
China
US
Philippines (ref: 32)
Supply Chain Policy
Worst ECRA rating for supply chain policy (July 2010)
A search was made of the Romag website, romag.co.uk in July
2010. No supply chain policy or similar was found. Therefore the
company received ECRA’s worst rating for supply chain policy.
The company had not responded to a written request from ECRA
for information. (ref: 29)
Arms & Military Supply
Military supply - strategic (July 2010)
According to the Romag website (romag.co.uk), searched on
July 2010, the company provided the following products to the
military:
“High profile customers and clients include the British Army,
United Nations, Israeli Defence Force, and Singapore Army,
and applications are wide including Jeeps, trucks and military
tanks, MOD frigates, logistical vehicles, as well as pleasure and
work boats.” (ref: 29)
Sanyo solar panels
Owned by Sanyo Electric Co Ltd
Sanyo Electric Co Ltd, 5-5 Keihan-Hondori, 2-Chome, Moriguchi
City, Osaka, 570-8677, Japan
Sanyo Electric Co Ltd is owned by Panasonic Corporation
(51%)
Panasonic Corporation, 1006 Kadoma, Kadoma City, Osaka
571-8501, Japan
Environment
Environmental Reporting
Middle ECRA rating for environmental reporting (July
2010)
In July 2010 a search was made of the Sanyo website (sanyo.
com) and the 2009 environmental report was downloaded. It was
not independantly verified but did contain at least 2 dated, future,
quantified targets (eg 1.6 millon ton reduction of CO2 by end
2010, reduction in waste related to business activities of 0.3%).
It covered the following areas: energy, chemicals, procurement,
recycling, products, CO2 production process, renewables, waste,
water, biodiversity, Environmental Management Systems; thereby
showing a reasonable understanding of its main impacts. The
company did not cover its impacts related to the mining of raw
materials that it used or transport impacts. Due mainly to the
lack of independant verification, the company received ECRA’s
middle rating for environmental reporting. (ref: 33)
Pollution & Toxics
Greenpeace rating for chemicals and takeback (2010)
The latest version of Greenpeace’s Guide to Greener Electronics
(version 15) was released in May 2010. The guide ranks the 18
top manufacturers of personal computers, mobile phones, TV’s
and games consoles according to their policies on toxic chemicals,
recycling and climate change.
Panasonic moved from 10th place to 6th but with the same
score.
It scored 4.9 our of 10.
Its climb up the ranking was due to the drop in scores of other
companies, rather than in improvements in its own performance. It
scores best on the energy criteria and is weakest on those relating
to e-waste and recycling.
Panasonic?s score on use of toxic chemicals is boosted by many
models of PVC-free products on the market, including DVD
players and recorders, home cinemas, video players and lighting
equipment.
Panasonic gives two examples of products free of brominated
flame retardants (BFRs) ? fluorescent ceiling lamps and a kitchen
lamp.
Despite putting these PVC-free and BFR-free products on the
market, Panasonic has yet to commit to fully eliminating all PVC
and BFRs across its whole product portfolio.
It also fails to show support for improvements to the revised
EU RoHS Directive (Restriction of Hazardous Substances in
electronics); specifically, a methodology for further restrictions of
hazardous substances, and an immediate ban on BFRs, chlorinated
flame retardants (CFRs) and PVC vinyl plastic. (ref: 34)
Criticism for toxic chemical use (2005)
According to the October 2005 issue of ENDS Report, Sanyo was
one of a number of companies making electrical and electronic
goods which had been given a ‘red’ (bottom) rating by Greenpeace
for their failure to make progress in removing toxic chemicals such
as PVC and brominated flame retardants from their products. [A
search was made in July 2010, this showed that Greenpeace no
longer included Sanyo as a separate entity as Sanyo was a part
of Panasonic, which was covered by Greenpeace in its ratings.]
(ref: 35)
One of worst US polluters (2005)
[In 2008, Matsushita Electric Co Ltd changed its name to
Panasonic Corporation, according to Panasonic Corporation’s
2009 Annual Report]
According to a report published by the Political Economy Research
Institute on 30th April 2008 on the website www.peri.umass.edu,
Matsushita was on the list of the 100 worst polluters of US air in
2005. The report had taken into account the toxicity of chemicals
and number of people impacted by the companies’ air releases
in the US. (ref: 36)
Habitats & Resources
Lowest rating on take-back policy (2010)
In 2009 the Take Back My TV campaign (takebackmytv.com)
released its report card. Sanyo scored F, along with 8 other
companies. F was the lowest score. 8 other companies scored
above Sanyo. No companies scored A. The “take-back” of
electronic equipment was important due to the vast flows of e-waste
to “developing” countries, most of which was not recycled in a
safe way leading to pollution and impacts on human health.
The company picked up a mark in the habitats and resources
column, due to the impacts of waste on the habitats where it
is disposed of and the additional resources extracted to fulfil
demand that could have been satisfied by the recyclate. Waste
impacts on habitats not just through any toxics that the material
may contain, but also due to the effects of replacing habitats with
waste processing and storage sites. (ref: 37)
People
Human Rights
Sourcing minerals from the Congo (July 2010)
The Raise Hope for Congo website viewed in July 2010 and
produced by the US-based Enough Project was running a campaign
to email the 21 largest electronics companies, including Panasonic,
and urge them to sign the Conflict Minerals Pledge and commit
to ensuring that their products will be conflict free.
directly related to preparations for the Games. They were said to
include ongoing violations of media freedom and intensification
of persecution of Chinese human rights defenders who spoke out
publicly about the Games, as well as the continuing crackdown in
Tibetan areas. China was on Ethical Consumer’s list of oppressive
regimes at the time of writing. Panasonic was named as a TOP
sponsor. (ref: 39)
Operations in 4 oppressive regimes (July 2010)
A search was made of the Sanyo website (sanyo.com) in July
2010. It was found that the company had operations in China,
Indonesia, Russia and the USA. All of these countries were on
ECRA’s oppressive regimes list at the time of writing.
It should be noted that the company stated that it had 206
subsidiaries and affiliates, most of the 206 were subsidiaries.
However, after searching the website a list of these could not
be found. (ref: 33)
Workers’ Rights
Workers’ rights abuses at Chinese supplier factories
(January 2007)
According to an article dated 10 January 2007 on the Business
& Human Rights resource centre website (www.businesshumanrights.org), an investigation by Students and Scholars
against Corporate Misbehaviour (SACOM) of 13 Shenzhen
electronics factories producing components for many well-known
brand names found widespread labour abuses including issues
such as: child labour, excessive overtime and overtime pay below
legal minimum, maximum working hours, marital and sick
leave, maternity leave, pregnancy, marital status and disability
discrimination, minimum wage and social insurance. According
to SACOM, the factories supplied 47 well-known brands, one
of whom was Panasonic. (ref: 40)
According to Enough, the conflict in eastern Congo - the deadliest
since World War II - is fuelled in significant part by a multi-million
dollar trade in minerals. Armed groups generate an estimated $144
million each year by trading four main minerals: the ores that
produce the metals tin, tantalum (often called coltan), tungsten, and
gold. These materials eventually wind up in electronic devices,
such as cell phones, portable music players, and computers.
Given the lack of a transparent minerals supply chain, consumers
continue to indirectly finance armed groups that regularly commit
atrocities and mass rape.
Sexual harassment led to suicide attempt and firing (2008)
According to CSR Asia Weekly Vol.4 Week 17 as reported in the
Chinese press (CCTV, 17 April 2008) a Panasonic employee was
said to have swallowed sleeping pills in an attempt to commit
suicide in the company’s conference room after her boss refused her
resignation that contained allegations she was sexually assaulted
by him. During the two years the employee worked for Panasonic
she was said to have been subjected to explicit text messages
and e-mails, which escalated to requests for sex. Her resignation
wasn’t accepted as her boss refused to admit to the allegations.
She alleged her contact details were then posted to a pornographic
website which resulted in outside calls of a sexual nature during
work time. Panasonic dismissed the employee and was said to
have ordered staff not to comment on the issue. (ref: 41)
Enough said that companies that use these minerals in their
products have an obligation to ensure that they are not helping
finance armed groups or contributing to human rights abuses
and crimes against humanity along the supply chain and should
commit to the following steps:
Sackings at supplier company (2007)
According to the 7th February 2007 issue of CSR Asia Weekly,
Cal-Comp Electronics was a Thai subsidiary of a Taiwanese
electronics company. Cal-Comp was said to manufacture electronic
brands for international brands including Panasonic.
1.trace the supply chain for all tin, tantalum, tungsten, or gold in
their products to verify their mines of origin; and
In 2007 a story was said to have broken in the Chinese press
regarding treatment of workers at the company’s factory in China.
In 2007 22 workers at the plant were said to have tested positive
for Hepatitis B during routine medical check-ups at the plant, and
were immediately dismissed. Some of the workers were said to
have pointed out that Hep B was not transmissible during normal
workplace activities, and that some of them had tested positive
only as carriers of the disease and did not have symptoms. They
were not said to be protected by Chinese labour law. (ref: 42)
2.conduct independently verifiable supply chain audits to document
the routes taken, intermediaries involved, and transactions made
from mine of origin to final product. (ref: 38)
Criticised for sponsorship of Chinese Olympics (15 April
2008)
In April 2008 the article ?China: Olympic Flame Turns Up Heat
on Sponsors? was published on Human Rights Watch, www.hrw.
org. It criticised the 12 TOP sponsors (?The Olympic Partner?), of
the Olympics for failing to speak out about human rights abuses
in China in the lead up to the 2008 Olympic Games, despite their
?publicized commitments to the principles of corporate social
responsibility and human rights?. It stated that Human Rights
Watch had documented an increase in human rights abuses
Supply Chain Policy
Worst ECRA rating for supply chain policy (July 2010)
In June 2010 ECRA wrote to Sanyo requesting a copy of the
company’s supply chain policy. The company did not respond.
In July 2010, a search was made of the company website and
the Sustainability Report 2009 was downloaded. The report did
not contain a supply chain policy. The company had a Code
of Conduct and Ethics but this did not apply to workers in the
supply chain. (ref: 33)
Irresponsible Marketing
Water heaters responsible for Carbon Monoxide poisoning
related deaths (2007)
[In 2008, Matsushita Electric Co Ltd changed its name to
Panasonic Corporation, according to Panasonic Corporation’s
2009 Annual Report]
According to CSR Asia Weekly Vol 3 Week 9 (2007) Matsushita
Electric Co. had stated that its products were not to blame in the
case of claims which had come to light that 48 people had died
of carbon monoxide poisoning since 1986 relating to its water
heaters.
The alleged 48 deaths in 27 cases were not revealed until the Japan
Industrial Association of Gas and Kerosene Appliances released
the results of a survey on CO poisoning accidents involving water
heaters manufactured by member companies. The survey was said
to have found that all gas powered water heaters manufactured
by Matsushita Electric Industrial were “open-type” models,
which take in oxygen from inside a room and discharge exhaust
containing CO back into the room. (ref: 43)
The company also had operations in:
Luxembourg
Ireland
These 2 countries were on ECRA’s list at the time of writing but
it was not clear from Sanyo’s website whether or not they were
subsidiaries. (ref: 33)
Operations in 9 tax havens (2010)
According to the Panasonic website (www.panasonic.net) viewed
by ECRA in July 2010 the company had subsidiaries in the
following 9 countries considered at the time of writing to be tax
havens: Costa Rica, Guatemala, Hong Kong, Ireland, Luxembourg,
Singapore, Panama, Uruguay and the Philippines. (ref: 46)
Schott solar panels
Owned by Schott AG
Schott AG is owned by Carl Zeiss AG
owned by Carl-Zeiss-Stiftung
Carl-Zeiss-Stiftung, Carl-Zeiss-Stiftung, 73446, Oberkochen,
Germany, Germany
Environment
Politics
Environmental Reporting
Political Activities
Worst ECRA rating for environmental reporting (July
2010)
In June 2010 ECRA contacted Schott and requested a copy of the
company’s environmental report. The company did not respond.
In July 2010, the company website, schott.com, was searched and
no environmental report for the company was found. There was
some detail about the environmental stance of one of the company’s
subsidiaries (Schott North America). There was a CSR flyer that
contained a brief paragraph on the environment.
Membership of WBCSD (2007)
According to the organisation’s website www.wbcsd.org, viewed
by ECRA in January 2007, in 2007 Sanyo Electric was a member
of the World Business Council for Sustainable Development.
This was regarded by ECRA as an international corporate lobby
group which exerted undue corporate influence on policy-makers
in favour of market solutions that were potentially detrimental to
the environment and human rights. (ref: 44)
Lobbying for consumers to pay for e-waste recycling (2005)
According to the 2005 Computer Report Card, produced by
Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition (SVTC) and the Computer
TakeBack Campaign (CTBC), Sanyo was one of a number of
companies that was part of a US trade coalition actively lobbying
in favour of a recycling system that would charge the consumer
a fee on purchase of electronic equipment to fund its recovery
and processing. According to SVTC/CTBC, unlike producer
responsibility recycling systems, this model, called an Advanced
Recycling Fee (ARF), provided no incentives for the companies
to design products which were less toxic or easier to recycle
properly. (ref: 45)
Lobbying for consumers to pay for e-waste recycling (2005)
According to the 2005 Computer Report Card, produced by
Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition (SVTC) and the Computer
TakeBack Campaign (CTBC), Panasonic was one of a number
of companies that was part of a US trade coalition actively
lobbying in favour of a recycling system that would charge the
consumer a fee on purchase of electronic equipment to fund its
recovery and processing. According to SVTC/CTBC, unlike
producer responsibility recycling systems, this model, called an
Advanced Recycling Fee (ARF), provided no incentives for the
companies to design products which were less toxic or easier to
recycle properly. (ref: 45)
Anti-Social Finance
Subsidiaries in 2 tax havens (July 2010)
A search was made of the Sanyo website (sanyo.com) in July
2010. It was found that the company had subsidiaries in the
following countries that were on ECRA’s tax havens list at the
time of writing:
Hong Kong
Singapore
As there was no evidence of group-wide environmental reporting,
Schott received ECRA’s worst rating for environmental reporting.
(ref: 47)
Nuclear Power
Nuclear equipment (July 2010)
According to the Schott website (schott.com), searched on 8 July
2010, the company provided core services to the nuclear industry.
The company provided Electrical Penetration Assemblies, which
it stated were “critical safety components”. (ref: 47)
Pollution & Toxics
Nanotech division (July 2010)
According a document downloaded from the to the Carl Zeiss
website (zeiss.de), Carl Zeiss SMT had a “Nano Technology
Systems Division”. In July 2009, ECRA published its research
into nanotechnologies, that found that the highest EU body on
toxicology had concluded that what little nanotech toxicology
there is tells us that “there is already much more evidence for the
toxicology of nanoparticles than, for example, GMOs......(although
toxicity varies from nanoparticle to nanoparticle, as it does from
GMO to GMO).” (ref: 48)
Nanotech involvement (July 2010)
According to the Carl Zeiss website (zeiss.de) searched in
July 2010, the company was involved in the promotion of
nanotechologies through its Carl Zeiss Nano Image Contest in
which the company invited users of its electron and ion microscopes
to submit images to be judged.
In July 2009, ECRA published its research into nanotechnologies,
that found that the highest EU body on toxicology had concluded
that what little nanotech toxicology there is tells us that “there is
already much more evidence for the toxicology of nanoparticles
than, for example, GMOs......(although toxicity varies from
nanoparticle to nanoparticle, as it does from GMO to GMO).”
(ref: 48)
People
Thailand
Human Rights
Hong Kong (ref: 48)
Operations in 6 oppressive regimes (July 2010)
According to the Schott website (www.schott.com), accessed
on 8 July 2010, the company had operations in the following
countries deemed by ECRA to be oppressive regimes at the
time of writing:
USA
Russia
China
Indonesia
Thailand
Vietnam (ref: 47)
Operations in 4 oppressive regimes (September 2009)
According to the Carl Zeiss Group annual report 2008-2009
(downloaded from zeiss.de in July 2010), the company operations
in the following countries that were on ECRA’s list of oppressive
regimes at the time of writing:
Belarus
USA
China
Thailand (ref: 48)
Supply Chain Policy
Worst ECRA rating for supply chain policy (July 2010)
In June 2010, ECRA contacted Schott and requested a copy of
the company’s supply chain policy. The company did not reply.
In July 2010, a search of the website (schott.com) was made.
No supply chain policy could be found. Therefore the company
received ECRA’s worst rating for supply chain policy. (ref: 47)
Schueco solar panels
Owned by SCHUCO International KG
SCHUCO International KG, Schüco International KG,
Karolinenstraße 1-15, D-33609 Bielefeld, Germany, Germany
Environment
Environmental Reporting
Worst ECRA rating for environmental reporting (July
2010)
In June 2010, ECRA contacted Schueco and requested a copy
of the company’s environmental report. The company did not
respond. In July 2010, the company website (schueco.com)
was searched and the environmental policy was found at the
following location:
http://www.schueco.com/web/uk/schueco
The policy stated that the company would measure and audit
progress against benchmarks and industry standards, but further
searches revealed no evidence of this. The policy was dated 2010.
It contained no targets or enough reasonable understanding of
the company’s main impacts.
For these reasons, the company received ECRA’s worst rating
for environmental reporting. (ref: 49)
People
Human Rights
Provision of weapons components (2007)
According to Jane’s International Defence Directory 2007, Carl
Zeiss Optronik Wetzlar GmbH provided the following military/
armaments products:
Operations in 21 oppressive regimes (July 2010)
A search was made of the Schuco website (schueco.com, it is
the same company, the “u” has an umlaut) in July 2010. It was
found that the company has operations in the following countries
deemed by ECRA at the time of writing to be oppressive regimes.
It should be noted that, compared to most of the companies on
the ECRA database, this is a particularly long list.
weapons
UAE
equipment used in boresighting (boresighting is typically the
term used for equipment used in order to aim better at targets).
(ref: 13)
Libya
Provision of various military/armaments products (2007)
According to Jane’s International Defence Directory 2007, Carl
Zeiss Optronics GmbH provided the following military/armaments
products:
China
missile guidance
Burma
reconnaissance cameras
Philippines
sensors and masts
Tajikistan
and other equipment. (ref: 13)
Thailand
Arms & Military Supply
Sudan
Zimbabwe
Indonesia
Kazakhstan
Uzbekhistan
Politics
Vietnam
Anti-Social Finance
Belarus
Subsidiaries in 2 tax havens (July 2010)
According to the Schott website (schott.com), searched in July
2010, the company had subsidiaries in the following countries
regarded by ECRA to be tax havens at the time of writing:
Russia
Iran
Kuwait
Hong Kong
Lebanon
Singapore (ref: 47)
Saudi Arabia
Subsidiaries in 2 tax havens (September 2009)
According to the Carl Zeiss Group annual report 2008-2009
(downloaded from zeiss.de in July 2010), the company operations
in the following countries that were on ECRA’s list of tax havens
at the time of writing:
Syria
10
USA (ref: 50)
Supply Chain Policy
Worst ECRA rating for supply chain policy (July 2010)
In June 2010, Schueco/Schuco (it’s spelt with an e sometimes to
reflect the fact that there is an umlaut on the u) were contacted and
a copy of its supply chain policy was requested. The company
did not respond. In July 2010, the company website (schueco.
com) was accessed, no supply chain could be found. Therefore
the company received ECRA’s worst rating for supply chain
policy. (ref: 50)
solar modules that are free of PVC (except accessories) and now
has 14 models of LED lightings that are BFR free.
Politics
Sharp gains a point as absolute emissions of greenhouse gases
were 103Kt (6 percent) lower in 2008 than 2007. On other energy
issues Sharp only ?contributes? to rather than explicitly ?supports?
a mandatory global initiative that requires industrialised countries
to reach their peak greenhouse gas emissions by 2015 and cut
their greenhouse gas emissions at least 30 percent by 2020. Sharp
discloses third-party verified greenhouse gas emissions from
its own operations and reports that 9 percent of the electricity
it used worldwide in financial year 2006 came from renewable
energy sources; however, as most of this is provided as part of
the Japanese grid, it scores no points.
Anti-Social Finance
Subsidiaries in tax havens (July 2010)
A search was made of the Schuco website (schueco.com, it is
the same company, the “u” has an umlaut) in July 2010. It was
found that the company has subsidiaries in the following countries
deemed by ECRA at the time of writing to be tax havens:
Bahrain
Luxembourg
Singapore
Philippines
Ireland (ref: 50)
Sharp solar panels
Owned by Sharp Corporation
Sharp Corporation, 22-22 Nagaike-cho, Abeno-ku Osaka, Japan,
545 8522
Environment
Environmental Reporting
Best ECRA rating for environment report (2008)
The Sharp Environmental and Social Report 2008 was downloaded
from the company’s website (www.sharp-world.com) on 2
March 2009. The report seemed to demonstrate a reasonable
understanding of the company’s main environmental impacts,
discussing hazardous substances, carbon emissions, freight, waste,
plastic recycling and energy consumption of devices. It listed a
number of dated, quantified future targets including increasing
the use of resysled plastic in new products, to construct a LCD
TV recycling line, to reduce the amopunt of waste discharged
each year by between 2% and 3% and to increase sales of Green
Devices (the doocument states that the seven Green Device
concepts are 1) energy saving, 2) recyclability, 3) resource saving,
4) green materials, 5) long life, 6) packaging, and 7) information
disclosure). The report included a Thrid Party Review by KPMG
AZSA Sustainability, so as a result, the company received ECRA’s
best rating for this category. The company received ECRA’s best
rating for environmental reporting. (ref: 51)
Pollution & Toxics
Greenpeace rating for chemicals and takeback (September
2009)
The latest version of Greenpeace’s Guide to Greener Electronics
(version 12) was released in July 2009. The guide ranks the 18 top
manufacturers of personal computers, mobile phones, TV’s and
games consoles according to their policies on toxic chemicals,
recycling and climate change.
On energy, Sharp loses points on the criterion examining energy
efficiency of products. Although it reports that all of its TVs meet
the latest Energy Star standard and at least half exceed it in standby
mode, it fails to report on the percentage of PCs and external power
supplies of mobile phones meeting and exceeding ES.
Sharp is weakest on the e-waste criteria, scoring points for its
voluntary take-back programme for TVs and consumer electronics
in the US, which is nationwide; providing information to consumers
in a few countries on what to do with their discarded Sharp branded
products and reporting on the use of small amounts of recycled
plastic. Sharp supports Individual Producer Responsibility (IPR)
but needs to clarify this support, as well as show evidence of
lobbying for it. (ref: 52)
Criticised for failing to accept responsibility for e-waste
(August 2008)
Acccording to an article on the Business & Human Rights Resource
Centre website dated 5 August 2008, Sharp and another leading
electronics manufacturer stood out from the crowd in failing
to accept responsibility for recycling their old products. These
accusations came from Greenpeace, who said they had discovered
“high tech toxic trash causing horrendous pollution in Ghana”.
According to the article, their analysis of samples taken from
two electronic waste (e-waste) scrap yards in Ghana revealed
severe contamination with hazardous chemicals... Greenpeace
stated that some companies were making progress towards taking
responsibility for the entire lifecycle of their products but others,
such as Sharp, were not. (ref: 53)
Low rating on take-back policy (2009)
In 2009 the Take Back My TV campaign (takebackmytv.com)
released its report card. Sharp scored a D, along with 3 other
companies. 4 other companies scored above Sharp, 9 scored
below. No companies scored A. The “take-back” of electronic
equipment was important due to the vast flows of e-waste to
“developing” countries, most of which was not recycled in a safe
way leading to pollution and impacts on human health.
The company picked up a mark in the habitats and resources
column, due to the impacts of waste on the habitats where it
is disposed of and the additional resources extracted to fulfil
demand that could have been satisfied by the recyclate. Waste
impacts on habitats not just through any toxics that the material
may contain, but also due to the effects of replacing habitats with
waste processing and storage sites. (ref: 37)
Habitats & Resources
Sharp stays in 7th place but with a reduced score of 5.1 points.
Sharp gains a point for its support for the precautionary principle
but loses a point for the lack of clarity on whether the commitment
to eliminate phthalates, relates to all phthalates, or three.
(See also ‘Low rating on take-back policy’ in Pollution &
Toxics above.)
Otherwise, Sharp scores well for its policy and practice on toxic
chemical issues, although it specifies the end of fiscal 2010, rather
than calendar year 2010, for its phase out of PVC and BFRs. It
provides a timeline of financial year 2010 for eliminating phthalates
and antimony. Sharp has launched many models of LCD TVs and
Human Rights
People
Mass rape and conflict in Democratic Rep. of Congo (July
2010)
In July 2010 a search was made of the Raise Hope for Congo
website (raisehopeforcongo.org). It was found that the campaign
11
group was urging the public to demand that a range of electronics
companies, including Sharp, take action on conflict minerals.
The group stated that the mining of minerals used in electronics
was fuelling conflict, including mass rape, in the Democratic
Republic of Congo. (ref: 54)
Unsustainable mining of coltan (2010)
A search was made of the Sharp Corporation website (sharp-world.
com) in 2010. It was found that the company did not have a policy
on conflict minerals. At the time of writing, in 2010, groups such
as Enough! were calling for action to be taken on conflict minerals
such as tantalum (cobalt), which the Sharp used. Sharp was itself
a target of Enough’s campaigning. (ref: 55)
According to the 2005 Computer Report Card, produced by
Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition (SVTC) and the Computer
TakeBack Campaign (CTBC), Sharp was one of a number of
companies that was part of a US trade coalition actively lobbying
in favour of a recycling system that would charge the consumer
a fee on purchase of electronic equipment to fund its recovery
and processing. According to SVTC/CTBC, unlike producer
responsibility recycling systems, this model, called an Advanced
Recycling Fee (ARF), provided no incentives for the companies
to design products which were less toxic or easier to recycle
properly. (ref: 45)
Anti-Social Finance
Operations in 7 oppressive regimes (2009)
According to the 2009 Annual Report for Sharp, downloaded
from sharp-world.com, the company had consolidated subsidiaries
in the following countries that ECRA deemed to be oppressive
regimes at the time of writing:
Subsidiaries in three tax havens (2009)
According to the 2009 Annual Report for Sharp, downloaded from
sharp-world.com, the company had consolidated subsidiaries in
the following countries that ECRA deemed to be tax havens at
the time of writing:
US
Philippines
Russia
Singapore (ref: 55)
Philippines
Fined for fixing prices on LCD panels (2008)
According to the Hoovers webiste (www.hoovers.com), in late
2008 Sharp pleaded guilty to fixing prices on LCD panels under
charges brought by the US Department of Justice and agreed to
pay a fine of $120 millon. (ref: 57)
Thailand
China
Indonesia
UAE (ref: 55)
Workers’ Rights
Workers’ rights abuses in Chinese electronics factories
(January 2007)
According to an article dated 10 January 2007 on the Business
& Human Rights resource centre website (www.businesshumanrights.org), an investigation by Students and Scholars
against Corporate Misbehaviour (SACOM) of 13 Shenzhen
electronics factories producing components for many well-known
brand names found widespread labour abuses including issues
such as: child labour, excessive overtime and overtime pay below
legal minimum, maximum working hours, marital and sick
leave, maternity leave, pregnancy, marital status and disability
discrimination, minimum wage and social insurance. According
to SACOM, the factories supplied 47 well-known brands, one
of whom was Sharp. (ref: 40)
Workers rights abuses strike in China (June 2010)
According to an article on the Epoch Times website (theepochtimes.
com), dated 8 June 2010, workers at the Sharp Electronics factory
in Shanghai had been on strike. This strike was part of a pattern
of strikes in China at the time. The article talked generally about
the reasons for the strikes, stating that lack of a right to freedom
of association and state suppression were contributory factors.
(ref: 56)
Supply Chain Policy
Worst ECRA rating for supply chain policy (July 2010)
In June 2010 ECRA contacted Sharp and asked for a copy of the
company’s supply chain policy. The company did not respond.
In July 2010 a search on sharp-world.com for the same document
showed that the nearest policy the company had was its “Basic
Purchasing Principles”. This document stated that the company
“requested” its suppliers not to use forced labour or practise
discrimination. Child labour was mentioned but no age limit was
stipulated. Freedom of association, wages, hours and independant
verification were not mentioned. For these reasons, the company
received ECRA’s worst rating for supply chain policy. (ref: 55)
Politics
Political Activities
Lobbying for consumers to pay for e-waste recycling (2005)
12
Solarcentury solar panels
Owned by Solarcentury
Solarcentury, CEO, 91-94 Lower Marsh, Waterloo, London,
SE1 7AB
Solarcentury is owned by Solar Century Holdings Ltd.
Solar Century Holdings Ltd.,
Environment
Environmental Reporting
Worst ECRA rating for environmental reporting (July
2010)
A search was made of the Solarcentury website (solarcentury.
co.uk) in July 2010. The environmental report was downloaded.
It was dated 2008-9. It was independantly verified under the
EMAS scheme, whereby participating companies had to have
their environmental reports verified by an approved verification
body. A list of some, possibly all, the approved bodies was
listed here:
http://www.ukas.com/about-accreditation/accredited-bodies/
certification-body-schedules-EMAS.asp
The report contained dated, quantified targets, for example by
the end of 2009 it pledged to reduce its overall CO2 footprint
by 10% and reduce overall energy use at head office and the
warehouse by 10%, however, because there were no targets beyond
the date at which ECRA viewed the report, the company could
not be deemed to have fulfilled the targets criteria of ECRA’s
environmental reporting rating system.
The report covered the following areas: products, energy, waste,
water, procurement, chemicals, transport. (ref: 58)
People
Supply Chain Policy
Worst ECRA rating for supply chain policy (16 July 2010)
In July a search of the Solarcentury website (solarcentury.com)
revealed no supply chain policy regarding workers’ rights. The
ECRA questionnaire that the company had filled in referred ECRA
to a company representative. A phone conversation took place
on 16 July 2010 between a Solarcentury company representative
and ECRA.
Human Rights
The representative gave details of the efforts that the company
went to to try and source ethically, including vetting potential
supplier companies, which sometimes led to potential suppliers
being rejected on ethical grounds.
Operations in 1 oppressive regime (2009)
According to the 2009 Solar World Group Report, the company
had operations in the US. At the time of writing, ECRA considered
the US to be an oppressive regime. (ref: 61)
Solarcentury was notable at the time of writing as one of only two
of the 12 leading (in terms of supply the UK domestic market)
solar PV companies to be actually making attempts to check
conditions in its supply chain*. Although the other company was
SA8000-certified, this scheme allowed verification by commercial
audit bodies without the input of NGOs/trade unions/not-forprofits and so was ineligible for ECRA?s best rating for supply
chain policy.
Supply Chain Policy
The lack of verification of the Solarcentury?s own monitoring
and the lack of a written, quality supply chain policy meant that
the company had to be given ECRA’s worst rating for supply
chain policy. It should also be noted that, as well as a producer
of solar PV products, Solarcentury was also a distributor of other
company’s solar PV panels, inverters and installation equipment.
Solarcentury visited some of these company’s factories to assess
working conditions.
However, ECRA policy at the time of writing was to rate a
company on its supply chain policy on own brand products only.
The company had stated that it intended to undertake a SMETA
audit in the near future.
*it should be noted that a third company was eligible for an
exemption in the supply chain category in the ECRA scoring
system. (ref: 59)
Politics
Company Ethos
All products are innovative environmental alternatives
(2010)
A search was made of the Solarcentury website (solarcentury.
co.uk) in July 2010. It was found that the company only traded
in solar power, and as such was deemed by ECRA to be selling
products that were all environmental alternatives. (ref: 58)
Solarworld solar panels
Worst rating for supply chain policy (June 2010)
SolarWorld was contact in June 2010 and asked for a copy of
its supply chain policy. The company sent ECRA a copy of its
policy. The policy did not fulfil the clauses that ECRA expects
to see on
wages
hours
freedom of association
independent verification
For these reasons, the company received ECRA’s worst rating
for supply chain policy.
The company also stated in its questionnaire response that the
policy was “currently in the process of implementation” and
that communication was planned for “H2 2010” so it seemed
highly unlikely that workers had had sight of the policy anyway.
(ref: 62)
Politics
Company Ethos
All products are innovative environmental alternatives
(July 2010)
A search was made of the Solarworld website (solarworld.de)
in July 2010. It stated that the company only provided products
that ECRA deemed to be innovative environmental alternatives
(solar power in this case). (ref: 63)
Suntech solar panels
Owned by Suntech Power Holdings Co Ltd
Suntech Power Holdings Co Ltd is owned by Wuxi Suntech
Power Co Ltd
owned by China Solar Power (Holdings) Ltd
Owned by SolarWorld AG
China Solar Power (Holdings) Ltd,
SolarWorld AG, SolarWorld AG , Martin-Luther-King-Str. 24,
D-53175 Bonn, Germany
Environment
SolarWorld AG is owned by Frank H. Asbeck (25%)
Environment
Environmental Reporting
Worst ECRA rating for environmental reporting. (July
2010)
In June 2010, Solarworld replied to an ECRA request for
information. Using the information provided, ECRA rated the
company on its environmental reporting. The reporting was
dated within the last 2 years from the time of writing and was
independently verified. The following subjects were covered:
waste, packaging, chemicals, pollution, energy, greenhouse
gases, water, biodiversity. The company was deemed by ECRA
to have a reasonable understanding of its main impacts. Many
targets were provided, but as the targets were unquantified,
ECRA did not deem them to be sufficient. Were it not for this
failing, the company would have received ECRA’s best rating
for environmental reporting. As it was, the company received
ECRA’s worst rating for environmental reporting. (ref: 60)
People
Environmental Reporting
Worst ECRA rating for environmental reporting (July
2010)
In June 2010, ECRA asked Suntech for a copy of the company’s
environmental report. The company did not respond.
In July 2010 a search was made of the company website (suntechpower.com). A short statement about the environment was made
which did not fulfill any of the criteria that ECRA expects to see
covered in an environmental report. Therefore it received ECRA’s
worst rating for environmental reporting.
It stated that the company was a member of PV Cycle, a system
for providing for the safer processing disposal of waste PV
equipment. (ref: 64)
Pollution & Toxics
Supplier dumps toxic waste in China (March 2008)
According to an article on the Washington Post website
(washingtonpost.com), dated March 2008, Suntech Power
Holdings was supplied by Luoyang Zhonggui High Technology.
It was said that Luoyang Zhonggui High Technology had been
dumping toxic waste outside its factory. The area had been tested,
tests showed high levels of chlorine and hydrochloric acid, a
Chinese university had stated that the substance dumped was
13
poisonous and that “human beings cannot touch it”. The article
also stated that untreated gases were released. Locals reported
symptoms consistent with the claims. The factory denied the
claims. (ref: 65)
People
Human Rights
Operations in 1 oppressive regime (July 2010)
According to the Suntech website (suntech-power.com), searched
in July 2010, the company had operations in the USA. ECRA
considered the USA to be an oppressive regime at the time of
writing. (ref: 64)
Supply Chain Policy
Worst ECRA rating for supply chain policy (July 2010)
In June 2010 ECRA contacted Suntech and requested a copy of
the company’s supply chain policy. The company did not respond.
In July 2010, a search of the website (suntech-power.com) was
made. No supply chain policy could be found.
Therefore the company received ECRA’s worst rating for supply
chain policy. (ref: 64)
Politics
Company Ethos
All products are innovative environmental products (July
2010)
A search was made of the Suntech website (suntech-power.com)
in July 2010. It stated that the company only provided products
that ECRA deemed to be innovative environmental alternatives
(solar power in this case). (ref: 64)
Yingli solar panels
Owned by Yingli Green Energy Holding Company Ltd
Yingli Green Energy Holding Company Ltd, Yingli Green Energy
Holding Company Ltd, No. 3055 Middle Fuxing Road, Baoding
071051, China
Environment
Environmental Reporting
Worst ECRA rating for environmental reporting (July
2010)
In June 2010, ECRA asked Yingli for a copy of the company’s
environmental report. The company did not respond.
In July 2010 a search was made of the company website
(yinglisolar.com). A short statement about the environment was
made which did not fulfill any of the criteria that ECRA expects
to see covered in an environmental report. Therefore it received
ECRA’s worst rating for environmental reporting.
It stated that the company was a member of PV Cycle, a system
for providing for the safer processing disposal of waste PV
equipment. (ref: 66)
People
Supply Chain Policy
Middle ECRA rating for supply chain policy (July 2010)
In June 2010, ECRA contacted Yingli requesting a copy of the
company’s supply chain policy. The company did not respond.
In July 2010 a search of the company website (yinglisolar.com)
was made. The site stated that the company had received SA8000
certification. The SA 8000 code of conduct fulfills almost all
the clauses that ECRA expects to see in a supply chain policy.
The clause it did not fulfill was about independant verification.
Due to the shortfalls of commercial auditing companies, ECRA
expects companies to use NGOs/trade unions/not for profits in the
14
independent verification of supply chain conditions. Under the SA
8000 certification system, commercial audit bodies are approved
to verify working conditions, but there is no requirement that
NGOs/trade unions/not for profits are also used in the verification
process (auditing). This was the only factor that prevented the
company from achieving ECRA’s highest rating, instead it received
ECRA’s middle rating for supply chain policy. (ref: 66)
Politics
Anti-Social Finance
Subsidiaries in 2 tax havens (2009)
According to the Yingli 2009 Annual Report, downloaded in July
2010, the company had subsidiaries in
British Virgin Islands
Hong Kong
ECRA considered these countries to be tax havens at the time
of writing. (ref: 67)
Company Ethos
All products are innovative environmental alternatives
(July 2010)
A search was made of the Yingli website (yinglisolar.com) in
July 2010. It stated that the company only provided products
that ECRA deemed to be innovative environmental alternatives
(solar power in this case). (ref: 66)
References
1 - BP plc Corporate Communications:bp.com (9 July 2010)
(544727)
2 - Times Newspaper/Times Online www.timesonline.co.uk:
Blowout: BP?s deadly oil rig disaster (25 April 2010)
(542566)
3 - BBC News Website www.bbc.co.uk:BP returns to Libya in
$900m deal (30 May 2007) (502791)
4 - BBC News Website www.bbc.co.uk:BP faces fines after
Texas blast (22 July 2007) (508663)
5 - BBC News Website www.bbc.co.uk:How much damage has
the BP oil spill done? (22 July 2010) (545456)
6 - BP plc Corporate Communications:www.bp.com (8 July
2009) (534617)
7 - http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/0/
70AFE4F098BEB51F85257562006C2581:BP Products
to Pay Nearly $180 Million to Settle (31 October 2009)
(537820)
8 - Profundo - economic research:Involvement of UBS in the
global mining and oil & gas sectors (June 2006) (307788)
9 - CORE (Corporate Responsibility) Coalition reports:The
reality of rights: Barriers to accessing remedies when
business operates across borders (May 200 (541178)
10 - Business & Human Rights Resource Centre:Permanent
Peoples? Tribunal, Colombia, July 2008 (24 July 2008)
(538889)
11 - Guardian Unlimited / Guardian website www.guardian.
co.uk:US safety authorities impose record £53m fine on BP
(30 October 2009) (537821)
12 - ENDS Report:410 (March 2009) (534833)
13 - International Defence Directory:International Defence
Directory (1 January 2007) (502724)
14 - www.dod.mil:DoD TOP 100 COMPANIES FY2007
(INTERIM) (1 June 2009) (534904)
15 - Corporate Watch newsletter:Issue 35 (June 2007) (507658)
16 - Centre for Responsive Politics:www.opensecrets.org (4 July
2009) (534486)
17 - BTC Pipeline - An IFI recipe for increasing poverty:BTC
Pipeline: An IFI Recipe for Increasing Poverty (October
2005) (283135)
18 - BP plc Corporate Communications:Annual review 2008 (14
July 2009) (534975)
19 - GB-Sol Corporate Communications:questionnaire responce
(June 2010) (544355)
20 - GB-Sol Corporate Communications 2:email from Bruce
Cross, GB-Sol (15 July 2010) (545023)
21 - GB-Sol Corporate Communications:6 July 2010 (544354)
22 - Kyocera Corporation Corporate Communications:global.
kyocera.com (9 July 2010) (544732)
23 - Hoovers Online www.hoovers.com:AVX factsheet (29
March 2005) (253937)
24 - Kyocera Corporation Corporate Communications:www.
americas.kyocera.com (29 March 2005) (253949)
25 - Mitsubishi Electric Corporate Communications:global.
mitsubishielectric.com (9 July 2010) (544739)
26 - Take Back My TV:10 July 2010 (544785)
27 - CSR Asia Weekly:Vol 2 week 50 (13 December 2006)
(303360)
28 - Mitsubishi Precision Co Corporate Communications:www.
mpcnet.co.jp (17 August 2005) (266749)
29 - Romag Corporate Communications:romag.co.uk (8 July
2010) (544690)
30 - PV Cycle:Our members (7 July 2010) (544476)
31 - Atorka Group hf Corporate Communications:www.atorka.
com (22 July 2010) (545503)
32 - Promens:promens.com (23 July 2010) (545522)
33 - SANYO Electric Co Ltd Corporate Communications:sanyo.
com (9 July 2010) (544744)
34 - Greenpeace’s Guide to Greener Electronics:Version 15
May 2010 (May 2010) (544877)
35 - ENDS Report:369 (October 2005) (October 2005) (277674)
36 - www.peri.umass.edu:Toxic 100 Index (30 April 2008)
(522423)
37 - Take Back My TV:www.takebackmytv.com (2010) (544786)
38 - Congo’s Conflict Minerals:12 June 2009 (533937)
39 - Human Rights Watch:China: Olympic Flame Turns Up Heat
on Sponsors (5 April 2008) (534228)
40 - Business & Human Rights Resource Centre:Clean
Computers Campaign: Report on Labour Rights in the
Computer Industry in China (2 March 2009) (531622)
41 - CSR Asia Weekly:Vol.4 Week 17 (23 April 2008) (524794)
42 - CSR Asia Weekly:Vol 3 week 6 (7 February 2007) (513202)
43 - CSR Asia Weekly:Vol 3 Week 9 (March 2007) (522561)
44 - www.wbcsd.org:Member companies list January 2007
(January 2007) (306663)
45 - Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition http://svtc.etoxics.org/site/
PageServer:Computer Report Card 2005 (2005) (507433)
46 - Panasonic Corporation Corporate Communications:www.
panasonic.net (21 February 2010) (540066)
47 - Schott Corporate Communications:schott.com (8 July 2010)
(544674)
48 - Carl-Zeiss-Stiftung Corporate Communications:www.zeiss.
de (23 July 2010) (545594)
49 - SCHUCO International KG Corporate Communications:
www.schueco.com (11 July 2010) (544810)
50 - SCHUCO International KG Corporate Communications:
schueco.com (13 July 2010) (544919)
51 - Sharp Corporation Corporate Communications:Sharp
Environmental and Social Report 2008 (2 March 2009)
(531604)
52 - Greenpeace’s Guide to Greener Electronics:Version 13 (30
September 2009) (537076)
53 - Business & Human Rights Resource Centre:Poisoning
the poor ? Electronic Waste in Ghana (5 August 2008)
(531615)
54 - raise hope for congo:Conflict minerals (10 July 2010)
(544789)
55 - Sharp Corporation Corporate Communications:sharp-world.
com (9 July 2010) (544722)
56 - The Epoch Times:Worker strikes sweep across China (8
June 2010) (544792)
57 - Hoovers 2009 www.hoovers.com:Sharp corporation
factsheet (2 March 2009) (531603)
58 - Solarcentury Corporate Communications:solarcentury.co.uk
(9 July 2010) (544874)
59 - Solarcentury Corporate Communications:phone
conversation: Dan Davies(company) Jo Southall (ECRA)
(19 July 2010) (545106)
60 - SolarWorld Corporate Communications:www.solarworld.de
(8 July 2010) (544547)
61 - SolarWorld Corporate Communications:Annual Group
Report 2009 (2009) (544501)
62 - SolarWorld Corporate Communications:Code of Conduct
essential principles for suppliers (8 July 2010) (544537)
63 - SolarWorld Corporate Communications:8 July 2010
(544500)
64 - Suntech Power Holdings Co Ltd Corporate
Communications:suntech-power.com (9 July 2010)
(544755)
65 - Washington Post Online:Solar energy firms leave waste
behind in China (March 2008) (544779)
66 - Yingli Corporate Communications:yinglisolar.com (9 July
2010) (544758)
67 - Yingli Corporate Communications:Annual Report 2009 (9
July 2010) (544693)
15
Ratings Information
General Information
Where our information comes from
Although the Ethical Consumer database holds information
going back to 1991, all ratings and Ethiscores are based only on
information published in the last five years. It’s also important
to remember that while most corporate responsibility rating
organisations ‘rate’ company groups as single organisations,
Ethical Consumer structured to map complex company
groups. The exception to this is under the policy categories:
“Environmental Reporting”, “Supply Chain Policy” and “Animal
Testing Policy”categories, where ratings can refer to the specific
subsidiary’s environmental report or Supply Chain Policy if this
is better. When one company buys another, the new company
is deemed to have inherited the past record of the other, unless
there is clear evidence that the take-over has seen a change in
policy and practice.
Significant effort is made by Ethical Consumer to maintain
the integrity and accuracy of information. Each company is
assigned to its UHC (Ultimate Holding Company) but frequent
global mergers, takeovers and acquisitions mean that company
group information can be of an advisory nature only. Therefore,
if a particular piece of information is to play a significant role in
a campaigning or investment decision, we recommend making
additional ownership checks or contacting us on 0161 226
2929 for a quote for a screening. Of course, accurate ownership
information is of the utmost importance to us at Ethical
Consumer, and we make every effort to monitor significant
changes. If you discover information which you believe is
incorrect, please contact us and we can make changes within 24
hours if necessary.
The Ethical Consumer database (available online as Corporate Critic) is
compiled primarily from information already in the public domain. Our
team of researchers regularly search through over 100 publications and
summarise information on corporate activity into easy-to-read abstracts
or ‘stories’. Information on companies is taken from:
■ Publications by environmental, animal rights and Third
World campaigning NGOs such as Greenpeace, Friends of
the Earth, Amnesty, WDM etc.
Ratings Key
■ Corporate communications such as Annual Reports and
company websites for environmental reports, codes of
conduct and animal testing policies.
■ Commercial defence and nuclear industry directories
■ Pollution and health & safety prosecution records
■ A wide range of other international sources
■ Daily news
Each abstract is fully referenced to a particular publication, permitting
users to explore and follow up stories in more detail. Our reseachers
in Manchester add new stories to the database on a daily basis. These
are uploaded onto Corporate Critic website and the Ethiscore website
and so ratings are recalculated nightly. Because of the ongoing nature
of this behaviour-monitoring process, we do not systematically check
each story or rating with companies prior to publication. We encourage
companies to contact us if they believe a story or rating is in error and
we will always address the issues raised.
Full Circle (our worst rating)
Clear Circle (our middle rating)
No Circle (our best rating)
The Categories /Environment
Environmental Reporting
Nuclear Power
The company or parent company:
i) did not respond to a request by ECRA for a copy of its environmental
policy or report and did not display such a policy or report on its website,
OR
ii) supplied to ECRA or displayed on its website an environmental policy or
report which contained neither specific targets nor discussion of impacts
specific to the company.
The company is involved in:
i) design, construction, decommissioning, ownership or
operation of nuclear power stations, AND/OR
ii) nuclear fuel and related equipment - the mining,
processing or reprocessing of uranium; nuclear fuel
fabrication; fuel rods etc, AND/OR
iii) nuclear reactor products and services - such as
nuclear reactors, reactor cores, neutron detectors,
control rods, steam generator, AND/OR
iv) the transport of waste from the nuclear industry,
AND/OR
v) membership of a nuclear power industry association
such as British Nuclear Industry Forum and World
Nuclear Association.
The company or parent company supplied to ECRA or displayed on its
website an environmental policy or report which contained at least two
quantified targets and/or discussion of impacts but:
i) was not dated within the last two years, OR
ii) failed to demonstrate a reasonable understanding of the company’s
main impacts, OR
iii) was not independently verified.
The company or parent company:
i) supplied to ECRA or displayed on its website an environmental policy or
report which;
(a) contained at least two specific time and performance targets, AND
(b) which demonstrated a reasonable understanding of
the company’s main impacts, AND
(c) was dated within the last two years, AND
(d) was independently verified by an organisation named in the report.
ii) is a small business (turnover of less than £5 million per year) specialising
in the supply of products with low environmental impacts or which are of
environmental benefit or which offer other social benefits.
Ethical Consumer
1
The company is involved in:
i) production of other nuclear related equipment for
example monitoring and testing equipment; electricity
and communications cabling, insulation, seals;
temperature and pressure measurement devices; gas
and water analysers; air coolers, compressors, pumps,
valves and IT products, AND/OR
ii) the supply of radioactive waste services such as
treatment, handling and storage.
We have found no evidence for involvement in nuclear
power for the company.
RATINGS INFORMATION
The Categories /Environment (Continued)
Climate Change
Negative ratings in this category indicate that the company has been
criticised for involvement in sectors considered by Ethical Consumer to
contribute significantly to climate change, such as fossil fuels, aviation,
cars or cement, or that it has been criticised for having high levels of
contribution to climate change emissions, by direct emissions, through
its products, or by making misleading claims about
climate change.
Involvement in areas deemed by us to be a higher contributor to
climate change (such as fossil fuels) OR involvement in more than
one areas deemed to be less significant (for example; cars, aviation,
lobbying)
Involvement in one of the above areas deemed as
less significant.
No criticisms have been found under this category for the company in
question.
Pollution & Toxics
Negative ratings in this category indicate that a company has been
prosecuted or criticised by government or campaign groups for
emissions of toxic or damaging substances into the environment,
AND/OR a company is involved in the manufacture or sale of chemicals
or products containing chemicals which are a cause of concern because
of their impacts on human and animal health and the environment
(eg toxic or bioaccumulative chemicals, ozone depleting chemicals or
pesticides and herbicides.)
The company has either received one major criticism
(such as a major pollution incident) or a number of
minor criticisms (ie involvement in nanotechnology,
unsustainable packaging, small fines for pollution).
The company has received one or two minor criticisms
in this area.
No criticisms have been found under this category for
the company in question.
Habitats and Resources
Negative ratings in this category indicate that a
company has been criticised for activities which:
destroy or damage the environment through
unsustainable resource extraction and mining, or
detrimental land use, OR destruction of specific
habitats, depleting biodiversity and reducing the
ability of ecosystems to renew themselves, including
unsustainable fishing and forestry or impacting
severely on the habitats and lives of endangered
species.
The company has either received one (or more) major
criticism OR more than two minor criticisms.
The company has received one or two minor criticisms
in this area.
No criticisms have been found under this category for
the company in question.
The Categories /ANIMALS
Animal Testing
The company has an investment relationship with a
company criticised in this category.
The company:
i) conducts or commissions tests on animals for non-medical products
or ingredients, OR
ii) conducts or commissions tests on animals for medical products or
ingredients, OR
ii) sells animal-tested cosmetics, toiletries or household products, OR
iii) operates in a sector where animal testing is common and has no
written animal testing policy statement, or did not reply to our request
for a copy of one, or sent us a policy with standards less stringent than
those required for a middle rating.
The company operates in a sector where animal testing is common
and has a policy of not testing products or ingredients on animals, and
of not commissioning such tests but does not have a fixed cut-off date
(i.e. a specific date set by the company after which it will not use any
new ingredients tested on animals).
The company EITHER does not operate in a sector where animal
testing is common OR operates in a sector where animal testing is
common and has a fixed cut-off date policy.
Animal Rights
The company is:
i) a farmer of non-intensive or free range meat,
poultry or fish
ii) sells or processes meat, poultry or fish
iii) involved in the production, supply or retail of fur
iv) a slaughterhouse owner or user of slaughterhouse
by-products such as leather and gelatine
The company is:
i) a supplier of animal feedstuffs, OR
ii) is a dairy farmer or egg producer, OR
iii) is involved other activities which lead to the
suffering of animals such as zoos and circuses and the
production of musk and civet. OR
iv) a company or employee has been accused of
cruelty to animals.
Factory Farming
The company:
i) is a factory farmer of meat, poultry (broilers and eggs), fish or fur, OR
ii) manufactures or supplies intensive farming equipment such as
battery cages, beak trimmers, pig crates, OR
iii) supplies breeding stock, OR
iv) sells or processes meat, poultry (broilers and eggs) or fur that is not
labelled as free range or organic.
Ethical Consumer
2
RATINGS INFORMATION
The Categories /PEOPLE
Human Rights
Supply Chain Policy
Involvement in one or more of the following:
i) operations in six or more oppressive regimes taken from the
list below.
ii) human rights abuses, through any of the following:
a) the use of its equipment, staff or facilities in perpetrating
human rights abuses
b) human rights abuses perpetrated by security forces
associated with a companys operations
c) involvement in projects that have proven links
with human rights abuses
d) collaboration with a government AND/OR military in
perpetrating human rights abuses
e) allegations of human rights abuses by company staff
iii) land rights abuses; specific instances where indigenous
peoples have been or may be removed from their land, or
whose livelihoods may be threatened, to facilitate corporate
operations (either extant or planned)
In industries where supply chains commonly stretch into low
wage economies we expect companies to have developed a
publicly available supply chain policy addressing workers’ rights
at supplier companies. We look for the following elements in
each policy:
1) no use of forced labour
2) freedom of association
3) payment of a living wage
4) working week limited to 48 hours and 12 hours overtime
5) eliminations of child labour (under 15 years old, or under 14
if country has ILO exemption)
6) no discrimination by race, sex etc
7) independent monitoring
Codes with all 7 clauses will receive the best rating. Companies
which manufacture products that are labelled and certified
as Fairtrade, or smaller companies (turnover of less than £5
million) which can show an effective, if not necessarily explicit,
policy addressing workers’ rights at supplier companies will also
receive a best rating. As will companies that operate in sectors
where ECRA considers supply chain policies unnecessary.
4-6 clauses get a middle rating (half circle).
0-3 clauses or no code at all receive a worst rating (whole
circle).
A company will receive our middle rating, a clear circle, if it
has operations in two or more of the following regimes on
our 2006 list of Oppressive Regimes: Belarus, Burma, Burundi,
Cameroon, Chad, China, Cote D’Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic
Republic of Congo, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea,
Guatemala, Haiti, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Kazakhstan, Kuwait,
Laos, Lebanon, Libya, North Korea, Pakistan, Philippines, Russia,
Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Swaziland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand,
Togo, UAE, USA, Uzbekistan, Vietnam, Zimbabwe.
A company will not receive a mark in this column if all its
products sourced from these regimes are marketed as fair
trade. Our Oppressive Regimes listing has been compiled from
different human rights and workers’ rights reports.
Our best rating indicates that we have not received any
criticisms under this category for the company in question.
Irresponsible Marketing
Marketing of products in a way that has been criticised for
causing severe physical harm. The manufacture or sale of
tobacco products automatically receives a worst rating in this
cateogry as does the infringement of the International Code of
Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes. Our lowest rating could
also indicate several minor criticisms in this area.
Marketing of products in a way that has been criticised as
being detrimental to health or likely to cause injury. This
includes the use of excessively thin or childlike models in
fashion advertising.
Workers’ Rights
A full circle or clear circle represents criticism of the company or
its suppliers for infringement of workers’ rights, which includes:
intimidation of workers by management; use of forced or slave
labour; payment of wages below a level which is adequate
to live on; a working week of over 48 hours; forced and/or
excessive overtime; exploitative use of child labour; denial
of the right to associate, form unions or bargain collectively;
discrimination on the grounds of race, sex, sexuality or creed;
the provision of inadequate or dangerous working conditions.
No criticisms have been found under this category for the
company in question.
No criticisms have been found under this category for the
company in question.
Arms & Military Supply
Involvement in the manufacture or supply of nuclear or
conventional weapons including: ships, tanks, armoured
vehicles and aircraft; weapons systems components; systems
aiding the launch, guidance, delivery or deployment of missiles;
fuel; computing; communications services.
A clear circle (middle rating) represents the manufacture or
supply of non-strategic parts for the military, not including food
and drink.
No criticisms have been found under this category for the
company in question.
The Categories /POLITICS
Political Activity
Membership of 2 or less lobby groups, or a donation of
less than £50,000 to political parties in the last 5 years, or
secondment of staff to political parties, governments or
supranational institutions.
The company has made a donation of £50,000 or more to
a political party, either direct or indirect or in ‘soft money,’
in the last five years, or has membership of 3 or more lobby
groups, or has directly lobbied governments or supranational
institutions on trade liberalisation issues.
Ethical Consumer
3
RATINGS INFORMATION
The Categories /POLITICS (Continued)
A lobby group is defined as a corporate lobby group which
lobbies for free trade at the expense of the environment,
animal welfare, human rights or health protection. A current
list of such groups includes:
■ American Chamber of Commerce/AMCHAM-EU
■ Bilderberg Group ■ Business Action for Sustainable
Development ■ Business Round Table ■ European Round Table
of Industrialists ■ European Services Forum ■ International
Chamber of Commerce ■ Transatlantic Business Dialogue ■
Trilateral Commission ■ US Coalition of Service Industries ■
World Business Council for Sustainable Development ■ World
Economic Forum
ii) the manufacture or sale of non-medical products likely to
contain GMOs and the lack of a clear company group-wide
GMO free policy, and/or
iii) public statements in favour of the use of GMOs in nonmedical products.
iv) the development or marketing of medical procedures or
products involving genetic modification, which have been
criticised on ethical grounds.
Anti-Social Finance
A boycott of the brand name featured in the report has been
called somewhere in the world or a boycott of the entire
company group has been called.
Ratings are based on criticisms for activities which are likely
to impact negatively on the economic well-being of the
societies that companies operate in. Such criticisms include:
tax evasion and use of tax havens; bribery and corruption,
insider share dealing, involvement in Third World debt, price
fixing, irresponsible marketing of financial products, excessive
directors’ remuneration.
A boycott of one of the parent company’s subsidiaries or
brands has been called somewhere in the world.
Company Ethos
Genetic Engineering
This category is intended to draw the attention of consumers
to company groups who, by structural innovation or
clear product policies, demonstrate an ethos committed
to sustainability. We understand sustainability to include
environmental, social justice and animal rights elements.
Boycott Call
Involvement in:
i) the non-medical genetic modification of plants or animals,
and/or
ii) gene patenting, and/or
iii) xenotransplantation.
Involvement in:
i) the manufacture or sale of non-medical products involving or
containing genetically modified organisms (GMOs), and/or
A full star may indicate a policy to only sell fairtrade products,
organic products, vegan products or BUAV approved products
or a combination of these. A large star may also indicate a
formalised not-for-profit trading structure.
A clear star indicates a policy to only sell innovative
environmental alternatives
The Categories /PRODUCT SUSTAINABILITY
Organic Product
better) EU Energy Label, the Blue Angel Label of the Nordic Swan label.
1 point indicates that the product is certified organic.
Other Sustainability Features
Fairly Traded Product
1 point indicates that the product is labelled with the Fairtrade Mark
(UK) or equivalent FLOI symbol.
Half a point indicates that the product is marketed as fair trade.
1 point indicates that the product embodies other significant
sustainability feature.
Half a point indicates that the product embodies other less significant
sustainability features.
Positive Environmental Features
Animal Welfare Features
1 point indicates that the product has been recommended by an
independent environmental organisation, or that the product has
received the TCO environmental label.
Half a point indicates that the product has received either an A+ (or
1 point indicates that the product is certified by the Vegan or
Vegetarian Society.
Half a point indicates that the product is marketed as vegan or
vegetarian.
The Categories /ETHISCORE
The Ethiscore is a numerical ethical rating designed to help users
quickly differentiate companies which have attracted significant levels
of criticism from those which have attracted less attention. Excellent
for benchmarking companies within product or market sectors,
the Ethiscore is also a superb tool for monitoring corporate ethical
improvements.
[14 (baseline) minus 2 categories = 12].
If the company had a lesser criticism under, say, Workers Rights (0.5
points) then its Ethiscore would be 14 minus 1.5 = 12.5
The fifteenth point is for ‘Company Sustainability’ - a positive
Corporate Responsibility category - which gives an additional point to
companies who, for example, only sell organic products.
The are two types of ethiscore
A company Ethiscore of 0 to 15 points.
15 is the best Ethiscore and 0 worst. The company Ethiscore is based
on the subtraction of all the corporate responsibility categories in which
the database holds current criticisms from a baseline number of 14.
Therefore if a company has received criticisms in the Animal Testing (1
point) and Workers Rights (1point) categories, its ethiscore will be 12.
Ethical Consumer
4
A product Ethiscore of 0 to 20 points.
20 is the best Ethiscore and 0 worst.
This Ethiscore is a score for products and is made up by combining a
company Ethiscore with a rating for product sustainability, and is based
on five positive attributes which a product may have. Therefore if a 12
point company is listed as selling an organic (1 point) and fairtrade (1
point) tea, then the tea would receive an ethiscore of 12+2 = 14.
RATINGS INFORMATION