THANK YOU FOR
DOWNLOADING THIS
ETHICAL CONSUMER
RESEARCH REPORT.
It contains a product guide complete with:
• a detailed article
• full 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
£4.25
EC121 November/December 2009
Unlimited, 24 hour access to our website
www.ethicalconsumer.org
- keeping you up to date with all the latest ethical news and analysis
• Unique product 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
Revealing the dark heart
of the chocolate industry
Toys & games consoles – play fair, not dirty
Razors & shavers – cutting the environmental costs
- helping you choose the most ethical brands
• Customise scores to reflect the issues you care most about
• Website is updated daily by our team of dedicated researchers
• The latest scores for the brands in all the Product Guide Research Reports
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. 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
Copyright notice: © Ethical Consumer Research Association Ltd. Not-for-profit organisations may normally reproduce without charge any of the material appearing in Ethical Consumer,
providing that all such material is credited and providing that written permission has been sought prior to publication. No
part of this publication may be produced by commercial organisations without written permission from Ethical Consumer
Research Association Ltd.
Tea
© Vyacheslav Bukhal | Dreamstime.com
JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2014 www.ethicalconsumer.org
The global tea industry has a history of poor wages and working
conditions, damaging biodiversity and overusing pesticides. Jane Turner
and Heather Webb ask how we can help to make a better cup of tea.
A
fter water, tea is the most popular
life on a Fairtrade tea estate and then
drink in the world, with 70,000
life on some Rainforest Alliance ones on
cups drunk every second. Tea is a
page 17.
British institution. We are second only to
On page 19 we examine the
Ireland in the global tea drinking league.
environmental impact of tea. Monoculture
plantations decrease biodiversity and
In this guide we look at tea from the
tea plant Camellia sinensis, an evergreen
increase the need for pesticides whilst
processing tea requires a lot of energy.
plant that grows mainly in tropical and
subtropical climates and which contains
And on page 20 we explain how the way
caffeine. This includes black teas; like
you make a cup of tea can affect its carbon
English Breakfast tea, Darjeeling and Earl
footprint.
Grey; and green, white, Oolong and
Pu-erh teas. We rate over 25 brands on
page 12.
Although global prices for tea are at
In addition, we look at non-caffeinated
historically high levels,4 in real terms
teas – rooibos and herbal and fruit
(accounting for inflation) the prices paid
infusions, like chamomile or peppermint.
to producers are barely level with, or are
We rate 26 brands on page 18.
even below, where they were 30 years ago.5
Poor wages and conditions for tea
Tea farmers and tea workers are the most
workers remain the
vulnerable in the
stand-out problem
tea supply chain,
A tea picker makes just
for tea. In response
having very little
to concerns about
1p for each £1.60 box of
bargaining power
declining living
tea bags sold in a British
in a market littered
standards, a range
with middlemen
supermarket.
of ethical initiatives
and dominated by a
are working to
few big companies.
make the tea industry more equitable.
According to UK charity War on Want,
But Oxfam reveals on page 10 that even
the
structure of the global supply chain
Fairtrade standards have not managed to
means that the lion’s share of profits is
fully address the problem of a living wage.
captured by these big companies.
Since we last looked at tea, a majority of
Tea is usually exported after primary
the bigger brands are buying their tea from
processing
(drying and bulk packaging).
Rainforest Alliance sources. On page 14,
This
means
that blending, final packaging
we look at how that certification compares
and marketing – which are the most
to Fairtrade. Plus, on page 16 we look at
The global tea industry
lucrative stages in the overall process – are
mainly carried out by the tea brands in the
buyer countries.2
The buying side of the tea supply chain
is very concentrated, which gives the
companies involved a high level of power
over the prices paid to producers. Just
four corporations dominate the global
tea trade: Unilever (which produces
Lipton and PG Tips), Tata Tea (which
produces Tetley), Van Rees (a tea trading
company) and James Finlay (a tea packing
company).2
History of tea
Tea probably originated in China as
a medicinal drink. Tea in mandarin is
called cha but in the Amoy dialect tea
is te (pronounced “tay”).
Catherine of Braganza, the Portuguese
queen of Charles II, brought teadrinking to the English royal court, and
set a trend for the beverage among
the aristocracy of England in the
seventeenth century. Only when the
tax on tea was slashed in 1785 did
it become a drink affordable by the
masses.
The British introduced tea to India, in
order to compete with the then Chinese
monopoly on the product. It was also
grown in other colonial outposts such
as Kenya and Malawi. Today, China
followed by India remain the top two
tea-producing countries.
Tea
JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2014 www.ethicalconsumer.org
photograph © Jon Spaull
Teapicking in Kenya.
Prices paid to
producers are barely
level with, or are even
below, where they
were 30 years ago.
In the UK, the retail market is similarly
concentrated, with the top four companies
controlling 74% of the retail market by
value: Tetley (Tata), PG Tips (Unilever),
Twinings (Associated British Foods) and
Yorkshire Tea (Taylors of Harrogate). PG
Tips and Tetley alone account for around
half of the tea sold.1
As tea passes through the tea brands
and retailers, (the final two stages of its
journey to the consumer), they capture a
massive 86% of the value added, compared
to 7% for the producing country.2
Very little of the profits included in
the retail price of a box of tea goes to the
tea-producing country. Instead, whilst
multinational corporations reap large
rewards, tea workers are condemned to
a life of penury. A tea picker makes just
1p for each £1.60 box of tea bags sold in a
British supermarket.2
Supermarkets
Supermarket own-brands account for only
20% of the market so we have not included
them in this guide. See our guide to the
seven major Supermarkets in Issue 141,
March/April 2013 for all their ratings.
In that guide, the Co-op was the best
with an ethiscore of 6.5 followed by Marks
& Spencer.6 The five other supermarkets
scored 4 or less.
All Co-op’s own brand tea has been
Fairtrade since 2008 and Marks &
Spencer’s from 2006. They both also sell
own-brand tea that is both Fairtrade and
organic.
Who makes money from your
cup?
Did you know?...
Friends of the Earth are campaigning for a Make It Better law which would ensure
that companies take responsibility for their impact on the natural world and the
rights of people in their supply chains. Go to the FoE website to sign the petition
to Vince Cable supporting the law. Here are their five facts about tea.
1. A nation of tea lovers
We drink 165 million cups of tea a day in the UK. That is over three cups for
every man, woman and child and more than twice as many as cups of coffee
drunk a day.
2. Luxury tea
The world’s most expensive tea bag is valued at £7,500. It was created to
celebrate 75 years of PG Tips and it’s studded with 280 diamonds.
Source: War on Want, ‘A Bitter Cup – The exploitation
of tea workers in India and Kenya supplying British
supermarkets’ July 2010
3. Health benefits of tea
Antioxidants, found in black and green tea, are said to be beneficial to health.
4. Milk?
In the UK we drink 98% of our tea with milk.
5. Tea for social change
Tea shops were socially acceptable places for Victorian women to meet without
men, giving the suffragettes a place to plan campaigns to win votes for women.
References: 1 Mintel Tea and Other Hot Drinks, June
2013 2 War on Want, ‘A Bitter Cup – The exploitation
of tea workers in India and Kenya supplying British
supermarkets’ July 2010 3 RealiTEA: The bitter
compromise in our cup of tea, Cafedirect, 18th
June 2013 4 UN FAO (2012) ‘Firm tea prices set to
continue’. Available from: www.fao.org/news/story/en/
item/124221/icode/ 5 Fairtrade International (2013)
‘Tea’. Available from: www.fairtrade.net/tea.html
Tea
JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2014 www.ethicalconsumer.org
Fairtrade and Rainforest
Alliance failing to deliver
a living wage?
A report this year from Oxfam found that tea pickers’
wages are often below the poverty line, whether they are
on certified or non-certified estates. Joanna Long explains.
I
t was out of concern over wages
in the tea industry that a group of
organisations, led by Oxfam and
the Ethical Tea Partnership (ETP),
commissioned an investigation into
workers’ pay and benefits on plantations in
Malawi, West Java in Indonesia and Assam
in India.1 These areas were chosen to be
representative of the tea export market and
included a mix of ethically certified and
non-certified estates.
The report found that the tea industry
currently pays poverty wages. These are
often blanket rates that hover around the
producing country’s legal minimum wage
or the World Bank’s poverty line. Basic
wages are often below the poverty line
which may be reached when productivity
payments and in-kind benefits are
included.
In Assam, India, tea pluckers earn 12p
an hour or 89 rupees (£1) a day. The legal
minimum daily wage for an unskilled
worker in Assam is 158.54 rupees. How
wages are set means that the situation is
the same across all Assam tea plantations
and across all tea brands and certifications.
Through interviews with workers,
management and stakeholders on the
estates, the research team uncovered
a complex web of issues around
wages. These included: poor corporate
understanding of local wage-setting
mechanisms; supplementing wages with
in-kind benefits (such as food, fuel,
accommodation, childcare) that may be
of questionable value to workers; and the
disempowerment of female workers (the
majority of the workforce).
The obvious implication of poverty
wages is that families cannot support
themselves on their tea plantation
wages2 and children, particularly girls,
10
become vulnerable to traffickers. They are
promised good jobs and exciting lives in
the city but end up in domestic slavery,
suffering physical and sexual abuse. Few
are paid and some never see their families
again.
Low tea plantation wages feed the
supply of traffickers as well as slaves. Why
work on the local tea plantation for 500
rupees per month when you could earn
4,000-10,000 rupees per girl from a Delhi
‘placement agency’?
Ethical certification also brings
workers a number of other financial
and non-financial benefits, which were
also not looked at in Oxfam’s research.
For example, Fairtrade means better
conditions in terms of overtime, maternity,
and written contracts. Also the Fairtrade
premium is paid on top of the Fairtrade
price and producers decide how to invest
it – usually in education, healthcare, farm
improvements or processing facilities – to
increase income.
Certified poverty?
What’s going to
happen?
Regardless of whether the tea is for
Tetley, Lipton or Twinings; or certified
as Fairtrade, Ethical Tea Partnership or
Rainforest Alliance, workers are paid the
same poverty rate.
This is because, for the wages element
of certification, standards only require
that wages should not fall below the legal
minimum. The report therefore concluded
that certification is no guarantee that
workers’ wages meet their households’
basic needs.
However, the report focused purely on
hired labour on plantations. Smallholders
were out of scope for this study. But,
Fairtrade International’s own research
concluded that the incomes of Malawi
tea smallholders increased threefold
with Fairtrade, a big contrast to Oxfam’s
findings on plantation wages.4 Cafédirect
reports that 22% of the value of a box
of Cafédirect tea goes directly to the
producer co-ops (who are all smallholder
tea growers with no estates involved).6 So
it seems that some Fairtrade products may
be more beneficial than others – Fairtrade
tea from smallholders rather than from
plantations.
After seeing the results of the research, the
organisations behind the report, which
include Unilever, IDH (the Sustainable
Trade Initiative), Fairtrade International,
UTZ and Rainforest Alliance now
recognise the urgency of the problem and
are committed to tackling the problem.
They are taking its findings very seriously
and have agreed a plan of action to address
the issues it uncovered, beginning with
expanding the investigation to include
other major tea-producing countries
and using these investigations to support
sustainable livelihoods in ways that
are relevant to local workers and their
economic and social contexts.
The organisations also plan to
improve understanding about wage
issues among workers and improve
trust and constructive dialogue. Most
of the discussions about wage issues in
supply chains currently take place at the
international level, but this would bring
it back to the national context and local
realities of the workers themselves.
The organisations have also agreed to
change the way that wages and benefits
Tea
JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2014 www.ethicalconsumer.org
are monitored and audited. The goal is
to develop one approach for assessing
wages that is applied consistently across
the tea sector and to create and maintain
a repository of information to be shared
between these organisations.
Consumers of certified products can also
be reassured that certification organisations
have committed to improve the certification
process for waged workers so that it
requires plantations to gradually increase
workers’ wages to the level of a living wage.
Fairtrade International has recently finished
a public consultation on the draft of a new
Standard for Hired Labour. That draft
includes attempts to strengthen the ‘teeth’
of Fairtrade certification when it comes to
getting beyond paying a minimum wage to
paying a ‘living wage’.5
“This isn’t a problem we are going to fix
overnight” said Rachel Wilshaw, Oxfam’s
Ethical Trade Manager, “but in 15 years of
working on these issues it is the best chance
we have had to make a real difference to
the lives of hundreds of thousands of tea
pickers. In two or three years from now, I
hope women working on tea plantations
around the globe will start to experience
real change.”3
Read the full Oxfam report at
www.oxfam.org.uk
Fairtrade International’s
response to the report
“Fairtrade alone has limited power to raise
sector wages, as they are often negotiated
at industry and country/regional level. We
therefore seek to work with tea industry
partners, other certifiers, NGOs, trade
unions, civil society and governments to
bridge the wage gap. Our participation in
recent industry initiatives such as the Tea
2030 project and the next phase of this, Tea
Wages study, will also facilitate discussion on
a new approach to setting tea industry wage
benchmarks and the promotion of wage
bargaining, so that better wages become
a commitment of everyone along the Tea
supply chain.
Fairtrade contributes directly to
alleviating poverty through payment of
Fairtrade premiums of over US$6 million
per annum to small farmer organizations
and plantation workers in the tea sector.
Recent impact studies have shown a range
of tangible benefits accruing to workers,
their families and communities, including in
Malawi.
Fairtrade will thus continue to work
toward a Living Wage while delivering
additional worker benefits through the
payment of Fairtrade premiums, linked to
sales volumes.”
Tea picking in Mulanje, Southern Malawi. This kind of casual labour, known as ganyu, is hand
to mouth work. Workers are paid a day rate according to the weight of tea they manage to
pick. For an 11 hour day they earn roughly £3. Many of the workers are elderly women from
female-headed households. They earn less because they are weaker and unable to work as
fast.
The Ethical Tea Partnership (ETP)
was formed in 1997 when a number
of large tea companies took the
decision to work together to monitor
and assure their own supply chains.
The ETP now has more than 20
international members from Europe,
North America and Australasia.
The ETP conducts monitoring and
certification, which consists of
audits of the tea producers who
supply the member companies.
This program is free of charge to
the producers, and encompasses
both issues of social concern, and
environmental issues. Some of the
social concerns include health and
safety, freely chosen employment,
wages and benefits, working hours,
and a variety of other issues such
as are typically handled by labour
organisations. The fundamental
principles of the ETP standard are
those of the Ethical Trading Initiative
(ETI) Base Code which is closely
based on International Labour
Organisation (ILO) Conventions.
Environmental issues assessed in
the monitoring include water and
energy use, soil and ecosystem
conservation, chemical use, and
waste management.
There are only three companies
in this product guide which are
members: Betty & Taylors of
Harrogate, Twinings and Tetley
Group.
Photo: Abbie Trayler-Smith/Oxfam
The ETP’s certification is usually
seen as less stringent and easier
to obtain than Fairtrade tea
certification. Unilever, the company
that owns PG Tips, was one of the
11 founding members of the ETP,
although it is no longer a member.
Unilever, like many companies,
undertook its own initiatives to
promote sustainability and address
ethical concerns, going above and
beyond the base involvement in ETP.
References: 1 Understanding Wage Issues in the Tea
Industry, Oxfam, May 2013 2 How poverty wages
for tea pickers fuel India’s trade in child slavery The
Observer, Saturday 20 July 201 3 A living wage for tea
pickers: are we there yet? Rachel Wilshaw, Ethical Trade
Manager, Oxfam, 2nd May 2013 4 Longitudinal impact
assessment study of Fairtrade certified tea producers and
workers in Malawi, Fairtrade Foundation, August 2009
5 Are wages the fly in the Fairtrade ointment?, Oxfam
blog, 9th September 2013 (www.oxfamblogs.org/fp2p/
?p=15625) 6 RealiTEA: The bitter compromise in our
cup of tea, Cafedirect, 18th June 2013
11
Tea
JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2014 www.ethicalconsumer.org
Company Ethos
Product Sustainability
Anti-Social Finance
Political Activity
Boycott Call
Genetic Engineering
2
e
e
H
H
e
H
Dragonfly loose leaf
14
Steenbergs [O]
14
Higher Living [O]
13
H
H
Punjana [F], Thompson’s green [O]
13
H
H
Yogi Tea green tea[O]
13
H
H
USING THE TABLES
• Company Ethos:
e
E
= full mark,
= half mark.
• Product Sustainability:
Maximum of five positive
marks.
COMPANY GROUP
Hampstead Tea & Coffee Ltd
2
Pukka Herbs
1
Clearspring Ltd
1
Hambleden Herbs
1
Cafédirect
1
Tea Times Holding Ltd
2
Steenbergs Organic
1
Traidcraft plc
Tea Times Holding Ltd
H
e
H
1
Steenbergs Organic
1
Only Natural Products Ltd
1
Punjana Ltd
1
Sikh Dharma International
Heath & Heather [O]
12.5 H
h
H
1
Apeejay Surrendra Group
Ridgways [F] or [O]
12.5 H
h
H
1
Apeejay Surrendra Group
h
H
2
Royal Wessanen NV
Clipper [F,O]
12
H
Punjana, Thompson’s
12
H
Typhoo [RA]
12
H
h
h
h
Punjana Ltd
H
11.5 H
Fresh Brew, Glengettie *
h
H
0.5
Apeejay Surrendra Group
Apeejay Surrendra Group
h
H
Clipper [F] or [O]
11
H
h
h
h
H
h
Clipper
10
H
h
h
h
H
h
Taylor’s of Harrogate breakfast [F]
10
H
h
h
H
h
H
h
1
Bettys & Taylors Group
Yorkshire Tea [RA]
9.5
H
h
h
H
h
H
h
0.5
Bettys & Taylors Group
1
Royal Wessanen NV
Royal Wessanen NV
9
H
h
H
h
Teapigs breakfast tea [RA]
6.5
H
h
h
h
h
h
H
H
H
H
h
0.5
Tata Group
Tetley Original [RA]
6.5
H
h
h
h
h
h
H
H
H
H
h
0.5
Tata Group
H
Taylor’s of Harrogate
h
H
Bettys & Taylors Group
h
6
H
h
h
h
h
h
H
H
H
Twinings breakfast tea [F,O]
4.5
H
h
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
h
h
H
2
Wittington Investments
Jacksons of Piccadilly [F]
3.5
H
h
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
h
h
H
1
Wittington Investments
Twinings [O]
3.5
H
h
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
h
h
H
1
Wittington Investments
Jacksons of Piccadilly white tea
2.5
H
h
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
h
h
H
PG Tips, Lyons [RA]
2.5
h
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
Twinings
2.5
h
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
h
h
H
Tetley, Teapigs
© Sergeev Dmitriy A. | Dreamstime.com
e
e
14.5 h
Traidcraft [F]
+ve
e
15
Steenbergs [F,O]
Arms & Military Supply
15
Politics
Positive ratings (+ve):
Irresponsible Marketing
Dragonfly [O]
Supply Chain Management
15
Workers’ Rights
16
Cafédirect [F]
Human Rights
Hambleden Herbs green tea [O]
People
Animal Rights
16
Animals
Animal Testing
17
Clearspring green teas [O]
Habitats & Resources
Pukka [F,O]
= middle rating,
empty = top rating
(no criticisms).
Pollution & Toxics
17
= bottom rating,
Climate Change
Hampstead Tea [F,O]
H
h
Environmental Reporting
BRAND
Ethiscore (out of 20)
Ethiscore: the higher
the score, the better the
company across the criticism
categories.
Nuclear Power
Environment
USING THE TABLES
Factory Farming
Black and green tea
H
h
Tata Group
h
Wittington Investments
0.5
Unilever
Wittington Investments
[F] = Fairtrade Foundation [RA] = Rainforest Alliance [O] = organic * also Typhoo QT and Lift instant teas, Melrose’s and Heath & Heather (non-organic)
See all the research behind these ratings together on www.ethicalconsumer.org. Free to subscribers.
12
Tea
www.ethicalconsumer.org JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2014
Buy loose-leaf tea rather than tea bags – the packaging of tea into tea bags,
besides using energy and resources that are discarded, also tends to concentrate
profit in wealthy countries. By buying loose-leaf tea, you not only reduce waste and
resource usage, but you make it more likely that a greater portion of the price you
are paying reaches the producers.
Caffeine in tea
Teas from the Camellia sinensis plant
contain caffeine. Caffeine protects the
tender young leaf buds of the tea plant
from being eaten by insects.
Heavy caffeine use is known to have
unpleasant effects and negative
impacts on health, including anxiety
and insomnia, and for this reason
some tea drinkers seek to moderate
their caffeine intake.
The caffeine content of tea varies
widely from one tea to the next, and
depends on how the tea is brewed,
but tends to be within the range of 1570mg per cup (a typical cup of coffee
contains 80-135 mg of caffeine).
Tea can be made from different parts
of the tea plant, and these parts
contain different quantities of caffeine.
Leaf buds (tips) and younger leaves are
higher in caffeine than older, mature
leaves.
The quantity of leaf used and the
length of time the leaves are steeped
both directly influence the caffeine
content of the final cup of tea. Using
more leaves and steeping for a longer
time both increase the caffeine in the
resulting cup.
It is a widespread myth that black tea
contains more caffeine than green
tea, and another myth that white tea
contains the least caffeine of all teas.
Caffeine levels generally vary more
among individual teas than across
broad categories of tea such as black,
white, green, oolong, or pu-erh.
One exception to this is matcha tea
which is known to contain very high
levels of caffeine. This is due in part
to higher caffeine levels in the leaf
used to produced matcha, but also
because matcha is a powdered tea,
and so the entire tea leaf is consumed
when brewing. So a cup of matcha tea
contains 100% of the caffeine in the
leaf.
Caffeine-free tea
Aside from decaffeinated tea, the
overwhelming majority of herbal and
fruit teas are also caffeine free. South
African rooibos and honeybush are
also caffeine free. The most notable
exception is Yerba Mate or Maté, a
herbal tea which is not caffeine free.
Best Buys are teas that
are both Fairtrade and
organic – Hampstead
Tea teas (Earl Grey,
BE S T B U
Darjeeling, Assam,
English Breakfast, Chai,
Oolong, white tea and green tea)
and Pukka teas (green tea, English
Breakfast and Earl Grey).
Y
et
Buy single origin tea, rather than blends – blending is a practice carried out
primarily in wealthy countries. Blended tea is a generic tea from two or more
geographic areas and marked only as ‘tea’, ‘green tea’ or ‘Everyday tea’. ‘Earl Grey’
and ‘English Breakfast’ tea may also be blended tea.
Single origin tea, like Assam or Darjeeling, is a tea that hails from a single
geographic region, estate, garden or small country. With single origin tea, it is
more likely that a greater portion of the price you pay will reach the original
producer.
s u m er .
g
Buy direct sourced tea – avoid buying from companies that do not identify
anything about the origin of their teas. Farmer-owned cooperatives with a retail
presence, which may or may not be Fairtrade certified, can also be a good source
of tea, like the Makaibari Estate in Darjeeling, India (see page 16).
Grow your own herbs for herbal tea or buy locally-grown ones.
on
or
Alex Zorach, Founder and Editor of blog site RateTea.com, explains that, in
addition to buying Fairtrade tea, there are other conscious decisions that tea
drinkers can do to influence where their money flows in the tea industry.
h i c al c
Buying better tea
17
Hampstead Tea and Pukka are mainly
available from wholefood shops or
from their websites:
www.hampsteadtea.com and
www.pukkaherbs.com. Pukka is also
on sale in some supermarkets.
15
Next best are the
Fairtrade and
organic loose
leaf varieties
from Steenbergs
– English Breakfast,
Earl Grey, Black
Chai, Green Chai. They are sold in
some Booths supermarkets and from
their website www.steenbergs.co.uk.
Fairtrade pioneers, Cafédirect and
Traidcraft, are also best buys but are
not organic.
Cafédirect is a Fairtrade blend and is
sold in selected supermarket stores
and Oxfam shops. Traidcraft sells
Tanzanian, English Breakfast, Earl
Grey, blended and green tea from its
website www.traidcraftshop.co.uk
Price comparison
Brand
Pence per
teabag
Tetley [RA]
3
PG Tips [RA]
3
Co-op [F,O]
3
Cafédirect [F]
3
Traidcraft English
Breakfast [F]
4
Hampstead Darjeeling
7
Pukka green chai [F,O]
10
[F,O]
13
Tea
JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2014 www.ethicalconsumer.org
Rainforest Alliance v Fairtrade tea
Ross Jones explores how the ethical tea labels measure up.
W
hen it comes to purchasing tea,
UK consumers have been given
more opportunities than ever
to shop in a more ethically responsible
way. At most supermarkets you can now
opt to go Fairtrade, Organic or Rainforest
Alliance, with another initiative, Utz
Certified, likely to be heading our way
sometime soon. The question this article
asks is whether there is any difference
between these ethical labels. Put plainly,
which initiative is most deserving of your
support?
Varieties of both Fairtrade and Organic
tea have been on the market since the
1990s. Globally, 14% of Fairtrade tea
volume sold to consumers is also certified
Organic,1 however in total only around 6%
of tea grown on certified Fairtrade farms
is actually sold at the Fairtrade price – this
is basically due to lack of demand in the
market.
The rise of Rainforest
Alliance
how products are traded, Rainforest
Alliance certification…focuses on how
farms are managed”.3 This approach stands
in stark contrast to Fairtrade’s emphasis
on minimum prices as a way to shift the
terms of trade towards producers. Beyond
differences in opinion on the use of price
mechanisms, however, can much be
distinguished between the different labels?
While Fairtrade and Organic remain
firmly within their niches, one initiative,
Rainforest Alliance, appears to be proving
that responsibly sourced tea is actually a
fast-growing industry. Since entering the
market in 2006, Rainforest Alliance farms
now account for 11.5% of the global tea
supply, with certified volumes increasing
by 24% in 2012 alone.1 This is largely down One of the main sources of confusion
for consumers is the broadly similar
to its deal with multinational consumer
claims being made by competing
goods giant Unilever, owner of PG Tips
ethical labels. Even when taking a more
(the UK’s most popular tea brand) and
detailed look at the codes of conduct
Lipton. In 2007, Unilever, which buys
close to 12% of the
world’s black tea
supply, “committed
Another downside of choosing Rainforest
to purchasing
Alliance is that as little as 30% of the product
all of its tea
from sustainable
you purchase from the supermarket is
sources”2 – with
guaranteed to be sourced from Rainforest
Rainforest Alliance
Alliance-certified farms or estates.
as their favoured
option.
The rapid rise
for Fairtrade, Rainforest Alliance and
of Rainforest Alliance in the tea sector
Organic, you notice far more similarities
represents a recent shift towards more
than differences. This is because the
mainstream, arguably ‘business-friendly’
overarching objectives – concerning
ethical labels: “Rather than emphasising
Muddying the waters?
14
environmental protection, labour rights
and good management – are widely
accepted and hence difficult to disagree
with in principle. Meanwhile, the
particular standards that emerge from
these objectives are often hard to measure
accurately, or just plain vague. The key
question that arises, therefore, is: which
labels are making the biggest strides
towards realising these commonly held
objectives?
All about the
implementation
A noticeable difference between the more
established labels such as Organic and
Fairtrade, and newer entrants such as
Rainforest Alliance and Utz Certified,
is the rate of growth and the speed with
which vast areas can become certified.
The rapid roll-out of Rainforest Alliance
across the tea sector is partly due to its
focus on scale over scope; increasingly
there is a sense of competition between
labels – a scramble to scale up as quickly
as possible. In reality, however, there is a
big difference between a tea-growing area
becoming certified and it comprehensively
matching up with the standards of a
particular code of conduct. A certified
Tea
JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2014 www.ethicalconsumer.org
area can be enormous in scale, involving
thousands of farmers and workers. An
annual audit spread over a few days simply
cannot verify hundreds of standards
comprehensively across such vast areas.
For Rainforest Alliance, gaps in
the implementation of their standards
dramatically came to the fore in a
2011 report by not-for-profit research
organisation SOMO, which uncovered
widespread cases of gender and ethnic
discrimination, sexual harassment
and poor housing conditions on farms
supplying to Unilever in Kenya and
India. See page 17 for more detail on the
SOMO report. In its response, Unilever
highlighted the challenge of ensuring
compliance with Rainforest Alliance
standards:
“Our tea plantation is more than
75km (50 miles) long and employs
16,000 people, so we do not pretend that
occasional issues never arise”.1
This matter-of-fact recognition of
the reality on many certified farms
and estates contrasts with Rainforest
Alliance’s response (no longer available
online), which essentially dismissed the
report’s claims, refusing to co-operate
with SOMO unless it revealed its sources
– which include vulnerable workers
who understandably prefer to remain
anonymous.
Which label is better,
and why?
The main concern being raised in this
article is that the recent entry of more
business-friendly initiatives such as
Rainforest Alliance and Utz Certified
into the tea sector is ‘muddying the
waters’; that is, masking real differences
between themselves and more established
labels such as Fairtrade and Organic by
superficially echoing common values
and objectives. This is not to claim
that Fairtrade and Organic are without
flaws; they have both received sustained
criticism from a number of angles. (See,
for example, the article on Living Wages
on page 10) However, from an ethical
point of view, there are arguably a greater
number of questions for Rainforest
At a glance: comparing the ‘big four’ ethical tea initiatives
Scheme
Key attributes and objectives
Fairtrade
Fairtrade is a strategy for poverty reduction and sustainable development,
with the aim of creating opportunities for farmers and workers
marginalised by the conventional trading system. Key Fairtrade
requirements include minimum prices, the payment of a premium
that must be invested in local development, access to partial advance
payment, as well as respect for the right to freedom of association,
collective bargaining and non-discrimination. Another key Fairtrade
objective is to promote the sustainable environmental management of tea
farms and estates.
Organic
Organic certification is best known for its strict criteria on wildlife and
the environment. Its standards focus on four key areas: Health – of the
soil, plants, animals and humans; Ecology – working with, emulating
and sustaining existing ecological systems; Fairness – equity, respect,
justice and stewardship of the shared world through fair relationships
between humans, animals and the environment; and Care – agricultural
management that is precautionary and sustainable.
Rainforest Alliance
Rainforest Alliance promotes better management of tea farms and
estates through a range of environmental, social and economic criteria.
The main environmental criteria relate to ecosystem conservation,
wildlife protection, water conservation, integrated crop management,
soil conservation and integrated waste management, while the core
socio-economic themes are concerned with working conditions and
community relations.
Utz Certified
Utz Certified, like Rainforest Alliance, has an overarching focus on better
management of farms and estates. This initiative focuses on three key
areas: Management – traceability of tea back to the source, efficient
administration and worker training; Social – complying with international
labour standards, occupational safety and health and local development;
and Environmental – soil and water quality, energy use and deforestation.
While Utz Certified coffee is available in the UK (for example, at all IKEA
stores), its foray into the tea market has yet to reach our shores.
Alliance. One downside of choosing
Rainforest Alliance is that as little as 30%
of the product you purchase from the
supermarket is guaranteed to be sourced
from Rainforest Alliance-certified farms
or estates. In addition, there are few
Rainforest Alliance standards that you can
easily grasp and objectively verify. Organic
has the most stringent and detailed
environmental criteria of any ethical label.
On the other hand, Fairtrade certification
guarantees a handful of core benefits that
anyone can understand – most notably
minimum prices, premiums, and access
to credit. Rainforest Alliance, in contrast,
is competing for the middle market,
with laudable yet vague standards across
the socio-economic and environmental
spectrum.
While some have correctly highlighted
the fact that few Fairtrade farmers can
sell all (or even half) of their tea at the
Fairtrade price,1 responsibility for this lack
of demand is also closely linked to the
rush to support more mainstream options
by the big multinationals dominating
the tea industry. Rainforest Alliance is
undoubtedly working to train farmers up
to improve the quality of their tea, as well
as taking real steps in collaboration with
the Forest Stewardship Council to make
tea production more sustainable. But in
order to foster real development, farmers
need a basic level of income stability and
security, and arguably only Fairtrade – or
even better, double-certified FairtradeOrganic – can bring this stability.
References: 1 Fairtrade International (2012) ‘Monitoring the scope and benefits of Fairtrade’. Available from: www.slideshare.net/fairtrade/2013-0726teafinal 2
Rainforest Alliance (2012) 2012 Highlights of the Rainforest Alliance’s Global Sustainability Efforts. Available from: www.rainforest-alliance.org/newsroom/news/2012highlights 3 Rainforest Alliance (2008) ‘It’s (Sustainable) Tea Time: First Steps in Transforming the Tea Industry’. Available from: www.rainforestalliance.org/sites/default/
files/publication/pdf/tea_factsheet_en_hz_apr08.pdf 4 Rainforest Alliance (2013) ‘ How Does Rainforest Alliance Certified Compare to Fair Trade Certified?’ Available
from: www.rainforest-alliance.org/agriculture/faq-fairtrade 5 Unilever (2011) ‘October 2011: Unilever Response to Report by SOMO Into Our Tea Plantation in Kericho,
Kenya’. Available from: www.unilever.com/sustainable-living/news/news/ResponseToReportBySOMO.aspx 6 Rainforest Alliance (2012) ‘Annual Report’. Available from:
www.rainforest-alliance.org/about/annual-report 7 www.ssireview.org/articles/entry/the_problem_with_fair_trade_coffee
15
Tea
JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2014 www.ethicalconsumer.org
A permaculture tea estate
The Fairtrade Foundation
profiles an Indian tea
producer supplying
Fairtrade-certified tea.
M
ore than 30 years ago, Rajah
Banerjee finished his studies
in London and returned
to the family tea estate in Darjeeling.
Located at 1,200 metres (5,000 feet) on
the Himalayan foothills of West Bengal,
Makaibari Tea Estate was one of dozens
producing Darjeeling tea, the prized
‘champagne of teas’.
Rajah Banerjee on the Makaibari permaculture tea estate where the tea bush is part of a multitier system of trees and plants typical of a sub-tropical rainforest, as opposed to a monoculture.
Makaibari retains 70% of its entire area under forest cover.
As Rajah Banerjee reacquainted
himself with the area, he had the sudden
realisation that the dense tea monoculture
was neither environmentally, economically
or socially sustainable. Today, his
prediction has been borne out. Tea
production in Darjeeling has declined
in the last decade as plantations have
closed or been abandoned because of low
auction prices. In the battle to cut costs,
the fertility of the naturally thin soil has
been reduced by overuse of chemicals
or the soil has been washed away by
landslides. Gaping scars have appeared on
the upper slopes, gradually denuded of
the native forests that absorbed the worst
effects of the monsoon rains, the trees cut
for firewood or logged, often illegally, for
short-term profit.
Banerjee. “All over this region, nature was
destroyed, trees were cut down, we had
a huge problem with erosion and many
animals died due to the insecticides. We
were forced to change something.”
Rajah Banerjee’s pioneering life’s
work has been to convert the estate to
permaculture. Tea bushes have been
integrated into the six tiers of plants
that form a biodynamic ecosystem that
enriches the health of the soil, checks
erosion and encourages a wealth of birds,
butterflies and insects. The different levels
of tree cover help shade delicate tea leaves
from the scorching sun as well as retaining
moisture; some of the grasses and herbs
also have medicinal or insect-repellent
properties; leguminous plants increase the
soil’s nitrogen content; and organic matter
from dead leaves and forest litter improves
its fertility. Tea is only grown on a quarter
of Makaibari’s 1,000 hectares. More than
half remains subtropical forest, home to
two Bengal tigers, leopards, barking deer
and hornbills.
A new vision for
Makaibari
Fairtrade supports
progressive philsophy
But Makaibari tells a different story
– living proof that sustainable agriculture
can succeed commercially and benefit the
environment and local communities. Gone
are the regimented lines of tea bushes,
instead the tea grows amid fruit and
bamboo, herbs and clover, the soil is dark
and soft, fed with the organic compost
prepared on the estate.
“Our decision for organic growth was
made out of desperation”, says Mr
This integrated philosophy encompasses
all aspects of estate life. Most of the office
staff are members of families who work
on the estate and seven of the 25 field
supervisors are female – unheard of in
this part of the world. Tea sold to the
Fairtrade market includes a premium
for social development projects that is
administered by the Joint Body. This
committee comprises management and
elected worker representatives of which
16
seven of the twelve are women. The estate
has initiated many social projects and
the Fairtrade premium is used to support
these or start new ones. Electricity has
been brought to the estate’s seven villages,
their 430 households and 1,560 residents.
Six women workers have been trained in
basic midwifery and health education.
Interest-free educational and medical loans
are available.
The Joint Body operates a lowinterest revolving loan fund for workers
to install flushing toilets, extend their
distinctive four-room houses or set up
small businesses. Some workers have
taken out loans to purchase chickens,
goats or cattle for eggs, meat and milk
- organic cow’s milk fetches high prices in
nearby Kurseong town. But the cattle also
provide other benefits. Many workers have
installed LPG cookers that are fuelled by
methane produced in biogas plants from
cow dung. Excess manure is added to the
compost heap which all families maintain
and which the estate purchases as organic
fertiliser for the tea bushes.
“Fairtrade affects many people here”,
says Rajah Banerjee. “Makaibari and
Fairtrade share a common vision.”
The future is positive
The tea workers are full of ambitious
ideas to improve their community – a
computer centre for their children, more
scholarships, eco-tourism, an expensive
pump that will ensure year-round piped
water. If Makaibari can increase the 15% of
production it sells to the Fairtrade market,
these dreams could become reality.
Tea
www.ethicalconsumer.org JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2014
Poor wages and conditions on
PG Tips tea estates
Joanna Long looks at
reports of labour rights
violations in Rainforest
Alliance certified tea
production for Unilever in
India and Kenya.
I
n the global tea industry, certification
is big business. Between 2004 and
2009 the share of world tea exports
certified by global standards systems grew
by 2000%. In 2011, the proportion of
worldwide tea exports that were certified
was estimated to be 15%.1
More than half of this share is certified
by Rainforest Alliance (RA) alone. The
rapid expansion of RA was enabled
largely by being selected by Unilever as its
preferred ethical tea label.
Given the commercial power of
certification and the high industry
standing of the Rainforest Alliance mark,
SOMO in collaboration with the India
Committee of the Netherlands (ICN), felt
it worth investigating the actual reliability
of RA certification.
Violations of labour
rights found
SOMO is an independent research
organisation that examines the activities of
multinational corporations. Its researchers
interviewed one hundred tea workers
on a total of eight tea plantations, all
supplying tea to Unilever. Seven of these
plantations are in India and the eighth,
which is directly owned by Unilever, is
in Kenya. All of the plantations have RA
certification.
The study, which was published in
October 2011, claimed to have uncovered
issues around the payment of wages,
discrimination against female workers
and health and safety. It also said that
workforces in both India and Kenya
were “permanently casual” and that
the workplace-related human rights of
freedom of association and the right to
bargain collectively were being hampered.
On Unilever’s own Kenya plantation,
the researchers also heard allegations of
sexual harassment, and gender and ethnic
discrimination.
These issues violate national labour
legislation and International Labour
Organisation standards, as well as
Unilever’s own code of business principles.
They also violate RA standards and should
have led to the removal of RA certification.
The fact that it didn’t, in SOMO’s view,
raises questions about the effectiveness
and credibility of the RA standard.
Are Rainforest Alliance
standards robust?
In particular, the report questioned the
robustness of the RA’s social auditing
systems, which it says were superficial and
open to manipulation and bias. They also
accused the RA of not enforcing their own
standards by failing to insist that issues of
health and safety, discrimination, wages
and casual worker status be corrected.
While the report acknowledged that
“no standard system could possibly
guarantee a complete absence of workplace
related problems” and that incidental
violations or accidents do happen, it also
pointed out that “most of the problematic
working conditions in this study are not
incidental but systemic in nature.”
“Based on this study’s findings we
cannot but conclude that the RA does
not seem capable of delivering any real
guarantees on decent working conditions
and that therefore they are not equipped to
make such claims [that products have been
produced ethically and with respect for the
environment]; at least not about the tea
plantations sampled for this research.”
Unilever responds
Following publication of the report,
Unilever denied knowledge of
“inappropriate behaviour” on their
Kenya plantation but promised to “take
immediate action if there is evidence
to prove that such behaviour has taken
place.”2 They also said that an independent
audit of their Kenyan plantation, carried
out in November 2010 by the Sustainable
Agriculture Network, “found no evidence”
to substantiate the claims made in the
SOMO report.
Regarding the Indian plantations,
Unilever reiterated that these are operated
through third party suppliers, which must
comply with Unilever’s Supplier Code
or face “serious action.” Unilever also
defended the RA certification, which it
described as “an important tool in working
towards sustainability” and asserted the
independence and freedom of RA auditors
during their visits.
Rainforest Alliance
responds
Following SOMO’s report, the RA carried
out their own research audit but says it was
“unable to confirm the non-conformance
with standards reported by SOMO.” A
spokesman for the RA said that they have
“continually learned from independent
assessments” and are “strengthening and
improving” their work to ensure that they
are “truly advancing human rights.”2
Read the full SOMO report at http://somo.
nl/publications-en/Publication_3711
References: 1 Certified Unilever Tea: Small cup, big
difference? SOMO, October 2011 2 Senior Manager
External Communications, Rainforest Alliance, 8
November 2013
17
Tea
JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2014 www.ethicalconsumer.org
Supply Chain Management
Politics
+ve
Company Ethos
Product Sustainability
Anti-Social Finance
Political Activity
Boycott Call
Genetic Engineering
Arms & Military Supply
e
E
2
Equal Exchange Trading Ltd
2
Hampstead Tea & Coffee Ltd
e
E
16.5
Essential [F,O]
• Company Ethos:
e
e
17
Pukka [F,O]
USING THE TABLES
Positive ratings (+ve):
Irresponsible Marketing
Workers’ Rights
Human Rights
People
Animal Rights
Animals
Animal Testing
Habitats & Resources
17
= middle rating,
empty = top rating
(no criticisms).
Pollution & Toxics
17
Hampstead Tea [F,O]
= bottom rating,
Climate Change
Equal Exchange rooibos [F,O]
H
h
Environmental Reporting
BRAND
Ethiscore (out of 20)
Ethiscore: the higher
the score, the better the
company across the criticism
categories.
Nuclear Power
Environment
USING THE TABLES
Factory Farming
Herbal, fruit & rooibos
= full mark,
= half mark.
• Product Sustainability:
Maximum of five positive
marks.
COMPANY GROUP
2
Pukka Herbs
2
Essential Trading Ltd
2
Tea Times Holding Ltd
1
Hambleden Herbs
1
Pukka Herbs
Dragonfly Organic Rooibos [F,O]
16
Hambleden Herbs [O]
16
Pukka [O]
16
Clearspring Mu tea
15
Dragonfly [O]
15
1
Tea Times Holding Ltd
Eleven O’Clock rooibos [O]
15
1
Tea Times Holding Ltd
Tick Tock rooibos [O]
15
1
Tea Times Holding Ltd
Dragonfly Rooibos Breakfast
14
Steenbergs [O]
14
Tick Tock rooibos
14
Higher Living [O]
13
Redbush rooibos
13
Thompson’s apple & mint [O]
13
H
13
H
Yogi Tea [O]
e
e
e
Tea Times Holding Ltd
1
H
Steenbergs Organic
Tea Times Holding Ltd
H
1
H
12.5 H
Heath & Heather [O]
12.5 H
Clipper mint/chamomile [F,O]
12
H
Dr Stuart’s
12
H
12
H
H
H
h
h
h
H
h
H
h
H
Only Natural Products Ltd
Redbush Tea Co
H
Floradix/Salus [O]
Thompson’s
Clearspring Ltd
e
H
1
Punjana Ltd
1
Sikh Dharma International
1
Salus-Haus GmbH
1
Apeejay Surrendra Group
2
h
Royal Wessanen NV
Only Natural Products
H
H
Punjana Ltd
Heath & Heather
11.5 H
h
H
Apeejay Surrendra Group
London Fruit & Herb
11.5 H
h
H
Apeejay Surrendra Group
Ridgways
11.5 H
h
H
h
H
h
1
Royal Wessanen NV
1
Bettys & Taylors Group
Apeejay Surrendra Group
Clipper [O]
11
H
h
h
Taylor’s of Harrogate [O]
10
H
h
h
H
h
H
h
Taylor’s of Harrogate
9
H
h
h
H
h
H
h
Tetley Redbush [RA]
6.5
H
h
h
h
h
h
H
H
H
H
h
6
H
h
h
h
h
h
H
H
H
H
h
Jacksons of Piccadilly [F]
3.5
H
h
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
Twinings
2.5
H
h
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
h
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
Tetley, Teapigs
Lipton
2
h
Bettys & Taylors Group
0.5
Tata Group
1
Wittington Investments
h
h
H
h
h
H
Wittington Investments
H
H
H
Unilever
[F] = Fairtrade Foundation [RA] = Rainforest Alliance [O] = Organic
See all the research behind these ratings together on www.ethicalconsumer.org. Free to subscribers.
18
Tata Group
Tea
on
Y
et
Best buys are
teas that are both
Fairtrade and organic.
BE S T B U
Best are Equal
Exchange rooibos,
Hampstead Tea herbal and
fruit teas and Pukka Morningtime
rooibos and vanilla Chai teas.
g
Friends of the Earth’s Make It Better campaign is calling
for a strong EU law to make sure companies come
clean about the true costs of production. This extract
from their Tea Briefing looks at how the tea industry is
damaging biodiversity and overusing pesticides.
s u m er .
or
The environmental
impact of a cup of tea
h i c al c
www.ethicalconsumer.org JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2014
17
Photo creidt macaque – N. A. Naseer / www.nilgirimarten.com
17
17
All Essential’s teas (except Fennel)
are also Fairtrade and organic as is
Dragonfly’s Organic Rooibos.
The Lion Tailed Macaque is an endangered species because of tea farming in India.
Loss of wildlife and
habitats
In order to meet the world’s demand for
tea, huge expanses of farmland and forest
are converted to growing only tea. For
example, in 2011 large swathes of East
African rainforest were sold to create
a tea estate, despite opposition from
the Ethiopian President and national
environmental authorities.
These monoculture plantations
drastically decrease biodiversity through
loss of plants and animals. Habitat loss
associated with tea farming has decreased
numbers of two officially endangered
species – the Lion Tailed Macaque in India
and the Horton Plains Slender Loris in Sri
Lanka.
And monocultures provide the perfect
environment for pests, resulting in an
increased use of toxic pesticides. Pesticides
have a lasting effect upon soil quality,
as well as devastating impacts on local
wildlife and the workers applying the
pesticides.
In 2011 four elephants died in
India’s Kaziranga National Park after
eating pesticide-coated grass from a tea
plantation, which prompted forestry
officials to call for a pesticide ban around
the park.1 ILO studies have revealed that
two categories of illnesses – respiratory
and water-borne diseases – account for 60
to 70 percent of the diseases affecting tea
plantation workers.3
In 2012, Greenpeace bought 18
tea products at random from nine tea
companies in China which exported to
Europe and, after sending the samples
to be tested, discovered that 12 of the 18
samples contained at least one pesticide
banned for use on tea.3
16.5
16
Price comparison
Brand
Pence per
teabag
Dragonfly rooibos
4
Equal Exchange rooibos
5
Twinings redbush (not
FT & O)
5
Essential
6
Hampstead Tea
7
Pukka vanilla chai
11
References: 1 Friends of the Earth, Tea Briefing,
30 September 2013 2 How bad are bananas? The
carbon footprint of everything, Mike Berners-Lee,
2010 3 19 factors driving the future of the tea
industry, Forum for the Future (2013)
19
Tea
JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2014 www.ethicalconsumer.org
12 of the 18 samples
of Chinese tea tested
by Greenpeace
contained at
least one banned
pesticide.
Photo: Forum or the Future
Solutions
Exhausted land
Intensive farming of tea also reduces the
productivity of the soil, as the land is
rarely given a chance to rest and replenish,
leading to nutrient-sparse soils that are
easily degraded and washed or blown
away. As well as reducing the productivity
of the tea sector and driving it to clear
forests for new plantations, soil washed
from fields into surrounding habitats like
wetlands and rivers can also cloud the
water and drive away wildlife.
Switching to
organic tea farming
would protect
habitats and
wildlife, safeguard
the productivity
of the land, and
reduce the need for
pesticides.
Some brands are already selling
tea certified rainforest-free, working
with suppliers to ensure they use
environmentally-friendly production
methods. Major tea buyers could use their
influence to support tea estates and smallscale farmers to help them improve their
processes.
A Make It Better law would see them
taking responsibility for what’s happening
at the far end of their supply chains
and help end problems like rainforest
destruction and elephant deaths.
The carbon footprint of a mug of tea
Growing tea
The process by which tea is dried and processed requires a lot of energy. UNEP
calculates that it takes 8 kW h of energy to process one kilogram of finished
tea, compared with 6.3 kW h for the same amount of processed steel. This high
energy use means that in India for example, the use of firewood in the drying
process – the most energy-intensive part – has led to severe deforestation. In parts
of East Africa, where power is expensive and unreliable, many tea factories have
had to install polluting standby diesel generators to meet their needs.1
The tea industry could support tea producers to switch to renewable energy. Tea
estates’ hilly locations – often in areas with high annual rainfall and all-season
river flows – can make them suitable sites for hydropower projects, if achieved
without negative impact on local ecosystems and water supplies.1
Drinking tea
When you’re making a cup of tea, tea without milk or ‘black’ tea’s footprint is
21g CO2 equivalent. Add cow’s milk and you more than double the footprint to
53g of CO2e. That’s because dairy milk itself is a high-carbon product with nearly
half of its carbon footprint coming from the methane emissions of cows.2
So if you drink four mugs of tea with milk a day, that’s the same as a 60 mile
drive in an average car.2
We don’t have any figures for tea with non-dairy milk such as soya but it will
of course be higher than black tea because of the extra carbon footprint from
agriculture.
So, for a lower impact cup of tea, drink it black.
If you boil twice as much water as you need, which is what most people do,
you’ll add 20g CO2e to your drink, so only boil the water that you need.2
20
Company
profiles
Clipper was founded 1984 in Beaminster,
Dorset and was the first tea to be awarded
Fairtrade status, in 1994. Dutch company
Wessanen bought Clipper in March 2012.
Wessanen also owns Kallo Foods and
Whole Earth. All Clipper teas, bar one,
are either organic or Fairtrade or both.
Clipper is now one of the biggest sellers
of tea in the UK.
Tata Global Beverages Limited (owner
of the UK’s Tetley Tea) is an Indian
multinational non-alcoholic beverages
company headquartered in Kolkata, India
and a subsidiary of the Tata Group. The
salt-to-steel conglomerate encompasses
seven business sectors: communications
and information technology, engineering,
materials, services, energy, consumer
products and chemicals.
In 2007 it brought Corus Steel which
was renamed Tata Steel in 2010. In 2013
Tata Chemicals UK was fined for three
separate injuries which occurred to
workers at its factory in Cheshire.
Jaguar and Land Rover are owned by Tata
Motors.
Tata Global Beverages is one of India’s
largest tea growers and marketers,
selling its coffee and tea in India, as
well as in more than 40 other countries.
The company is involved in many
partnerships including ones with
Starbucks, Tesco and Pepsi.
Tea
JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2014 www.ethicalconsumer.org
In 2013 a complaint was made about
Tata’s Tetley tea plantations in northeast
India – Amalgamated Plantations Private
Ltd (APPL) – which is 20% owned by the
World Bank. According to the complaint,
workers had called on the World Bank
to ensure the end of inhumane working
and living conditions and coercion on the
plantations.2
It was not the first time the tea plantation
had had complaints about its treatment
of workers. In 2009 management of APPL
imposed two lockouts on its workforce,
the second of which lasted three months.
Workers had been protesting about the
abusive treatment of a pregnant tea
worker, Ms Arti Oraon, by the plantation’s
doctor. According to the IUF (international
federation of trade unions) the goal of
the lockouts was to “starve the workers
into renouncing their elementary human
rights, including their right to protest
against extreme abuse and exploitation”.
A settlement was finally reached in 2011
for the repayment of wages of employees
during the lockouts and compensation to
the families.3
From soup to soap and shampoo,
Unilever has a vast portfolio of consumer
brands. Its best sellers worldwide are soap
and shampoo (Dove, Lux, Sunsilk, Alberto
Culver) followed by food brands such as
Hellmann’s Mayonnaise.
39% of all of its tea was sourced from
Rainforest Alliance Certified farms
including all its PG Tips tea. See page
17 for details of working conditions on
Unilever’s Rainforest Alliance certified tea
plantations in India and Kenya.
Unilever was named by the BUAV in June
2013 for experiments in which piglets
were given an extract of Lipton’s tea to see
if it could counter diarrhoea caused by the
E.coli stomach bug. Eight of the monthold animals died, with severe diarrhoea to
blame in at least seven of the cases.1
It had operations in 34 of the 38
oppressive regimes on our list including
Israel although it did withdraw its snack
and pretzel company from the Israeli
settlement Ariël in the occupied West
Bank.
The iconic British tea brand, Typhoo,
was bought by family-owned Indian
conglomerate Apeejay Surrendra Group
in 2005. The group has interests in tea,
hospitality, shipping, real estate and retail.
Family-owned company Bettys & Taylors
of Harrogate also serves up afternoon tea
at its Bettys Café Tea Rooms. The six-chain
teashop opened its first location in 1919.
Tea pickers on one of the Fairtrade estates which supply Cafédirect.
Associated British Foods (ABF)
introduced sliced bread to the UK during
the 1930s. Its grocery products, which
account for some one-third of sales,
include Kingsmill bread, Silver Spoon
sugar, and Twinings tea. Other divisions
churn out, pharmaceutical ingredients,
specialty oils, and animal feed. Beyond
food, ABF owns clothes shop Primark and
Fortnum & Mason which still sells foie
gras.
ABF was ranked last out of ten companies
in Oxfam’s Behind the Brands scorecard
scoring worst for its polices on land,
women and climate change. In October
2013 Oxfam released a report called
‘Sugar Rush’ which urged Associated
British Foods, along with Pepsico and
Coca-Cola, to adopt a zero-tolerance
policy on land grabs. It stated that sugar,
along with soy and palm oil, were driving
large-scale land acquisitions and land
conflicts at the expense of small-scale
food producers and their families. CocaCola has recently agreed to such a policy.
Earlier in the year, Action Aid criticised
ABF for avoiding paying millions of
pounds of tax in Zambia over five years.4
ABF was founded in 1935 by W. Garfield
Weston. His great-grandson, George
Weston, and the Weston family own
approximately 55% of ABF through
Wittington Investments.
Equal Exchange and Essential Trading are
both workers’ co-operatives.
Essential Trading is a wholefoods
wholesaler of over 5,000 vegetarian,
Fairtrade, sustainable, recycled, organic
and eco friendly products. Its history can
be traced back to 1971. On principle
they do not sell to supermarkets and
choose to trade with ethical producers
and co-operatives.
The origins of Equal Exchange stretch
back to1979 when three voluntary
workers returned to Edinburgh after
working on aid projects in various parts
of Africa. All their teas are Fairtrade and
organic.
Some of Equal
Exchange’s
Rooibos teas are
‘Grown by women’
which are sourced
exclusively from
women farmers.
Evidence shows
that, where women
control household
Equal Exchange’s
income, the
‘Grown by women’
tea, grown by Anna
family’s health,
Schalkwyk and
nutrition and
daughter in Wuppertal,
education improves South Africa.
at a faster rate
because less money is spent outside the
household.
Cafédirect was founded in 1991 by
Oxfam, Traidcraft, Equal Exchange,
and Twin Trading as a Fairtrade pioneer
in response to the collapse of the
International Coffee Agreement which
sent coffee prices plunging. The last three
companies have since sold their shares
in Cafedirect when the company was
floated in 2011. Cafedirect is now the
UK’s largest 100% Fairtrade hot drinks
company. It was the first coffee brand in
the UK to carry the Fairtrade mark.
Cafédirect doesn’t buy through traders.
It buys directly from growers to give
them the full price for their crop. It
currently works directly with 38 smallscale coffee, cocoa and tea producer
organisations across Latin America,
Africa and Asia, representing more than
280,000 smallholder farmers. It has two
growers on their board of directors and
75% of growers are also shareholders in
Cafédirect. In addition to a fair price, it
also gives growers a share of the profits:
21
Tea
JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2014 www.ethicalconsumer.org
over 50% to date. Cafedirect reports that
22% of the value of a box of its tea goes
directly to the producer co-ops (who are
all smallholder tea growers, no estates
involved).
© Jonny Abbas | Dreamstime.com
Pukka Herbs was set up in 2002 by a
herbalist and a qualified practitioner in
Ayurveda, the ancient Indian art of living
wisely. All their herbs and products are
certified organic by the Soil Association
and the USDA (United States Department
of Agriculture) and can all be traced back
to the field in which they were grown.
Axel and Sophie Steenberg started
Steenbergs Organic in 2003 to build
an organic spice and teas business with
green credentials which has grown from
an Internet shop into one of the leading
organic and Fairtrade spice businesses
in the UK. It is based in an eco-factory
in Ripon in North Yorkshire. 80% of its
tea is organic and some is Fairtrade. It
receives an Animal Rights mark because
it sells organic meat-based dog food on
its website.
Oxfordshire countryside. In 1985 its dried
herb range was launched and at the time
was the only certified organic range of
dried herbs in the UK. Organic herbal tea
was launched four years later. It only sells
Soil Association certified herbs, spices
and teas.
Hampstead Tea and Coffee only sell
teas that are Fairtrade and organic. It
came to life in Hampstead, London in
1995 when its director Kiran became
friends with Rajah Banerjee, owner of the
Makaibari tea estate in India’s Darjeeling
province (see profile on page 16). Much
of Hampstead Tea’s blends come from
this estate, and some of the herbal blends
come from small growers in Egypt. All
Kiran’s teas are grown according to fair
trade principles.
References: 1 BUAV – BUAV condemns cruel animal
experiments by major food companies to prove ‘health
benefits’, 21st June 2013 2 Accountability Counsel
– Tea Plantation Workers Call on Tata and Tetley to
Stop Human Rights Abuses, 5th July 2013 3 ‘Ethical?
Tetley’s Tata Tea Starving Indian Tea Workers into
Submission’, IUF, November 2009 4 ‘Sweet nothings
– the human cost of a British sugar giant avoiding
taxes in southern Africa, ActionAid, February 2013.
Life for Hambleden Herbs began back
in 1982 on an organic herb farm in
the small village of Hambleden in the
Yogi Tea’s dark side
T
he Yogi brand produces a range
of ayurvedic and organic teas
which are ultimately owned by
Sikh Dharma International (SDI). SDI is
a US non-profit religious organisation,
which owns a wide number of for-profit
and non-profit corporations, including
Akal Security.1 Akal Security is one of the
largest contract security companies in the
United States and specialises in providing
security for critical federal government
facilities, state and local government
agencies and military installations.
Yogi tea was initially founded by
Harbhajan Singh Khalsa Yogiji, commonly
known as Yogi Bhajan, who introduced
Americans to Kudalini yoga in the 1970s.
From initially teaching Kudalini Yoga
classes, he ended up recruiting thousands
of seekers into a new religious movement
– Sikh Dharma – which has now become
a multi million pound religious empire.
Although Yogi Bhajan’s followers identify
themselves as Sikh, Bhajan’s religion
apparently embraces tantric yoga and
astrology in addition to traditional Sikh
practices. It has consequently been called
a ‘cult’ by many Sikh forums and former
members. Accounts of Yogi Bhajan are
highly varied depending on what you
read. From being described as wise,
compassionate and a man of peace, he has
also been accused of running a corrupt
business empire by former members,
and his personal secretary accused him
of rape, torture and fraud and forcing
her into servitude.2 Cult expert, Steven
Hassan, stated that “over the past thirty
years he has helped former members who
allege sexual and psychological abuse by
and under Yogi Bhajan. Several former
students of Yogi Bhajan claim that when
attempting to leave the group, they were
threatened with violence. There is an
unsolved murder
of a member
that is still under
investigation, and
also haunting
suicides”.3,4
After Yogi
Bhajan’s death in
October 2004,
Sikh Dharma
International was put into the control
of a few men and women under the
authority of Bhajan’s adviser and lawyer
Roy Lambert, who stated that they were
the Yogi’s last wishes. This distribution
of wealth and power was claimed to be a
fraudulent by Yogi Bhajan’s widow, Inderjit
Kaur Puri, who was excluded from the
arrangement, along with her children. In
2011 Inderjit Kaur Puri won a court case
that made her the owner of the trademarks
‘Yogi’ and ‘Yogi Tea’.5
References: 1 Akal Security Settles $1.9 Million in Federal Penalty, Anju Kaur, The Sikh News Network, Oct 2012, www.sikhnn.com/headlines/2165/akal-securitysettles-19-million-federal-penalty 2 The Yogi Bhajan Cult : A Rapist Called Yogi Bhajan, July 2011, www.sikharchives.com/?p=10638 3 Women of Grace, The Troubling
Background of Yogi Tea, Sep 2013, www.womenofgrace.com/blog/?p=24310 4 The Disturbing Mainstream Connections of Yogi Bhajan, Steven Hassan, August 2010,
www.huffingtonpost.com/steven-hassan/the-disturbing-mainstream_b_667026.html 5 Death of a Yogi, The battle for a corporate empire, hundreds of millions of dollars
and the meaning of a faith, July 2011, www.wweek.com/portland/article-17701-death_of_a_yogi.html
22
Tea – The stories behind the company
ratings
Cafédirect tea [F]
Clearspring green teas [O]
Owned by Cafédirect
Owned by Clearspring Ltd
Cafédirect, City Cloisters, Suite B2, 196 Old Street, London,
EC1V 9FR, England
Clearspring Ltd, Unit 19A , Acton Park Industrial Estate, The
Vale, London, W3 7QE
Cafédirect is owned by Okiocredit (20%)
Environment
Cafédirect is also owned by Oxfam Activities Limited (11%)
owned by Oxfam (11%)
Oxfam, 2700 John Smith Drive, Oxford, Oxfordshire, OX4 2JY
Environment
Environmental Reporting
Worst ECRA rating for environmental reporting (2013)
According to Cafedirect’s Annual Review 2012, there was a
packaging target of of at least a 15% reduction in the overall
material used to package products by 2015. There had been a
3% reduction since 2009. However, this was the only dated and
quantified target that could be found.
It measured the carbon emissions from manufacturing tea and
coffee but there were no targets for reduction.
In addition, the policy was not subject to independent verification.
ECRA did not consider the document to show reasonable
understanding of the company’s main impacts and therefore
the company received ECRA’s worst rating for environmental
reporting. (ref: 1)
People
Supply Chain Management
Best ECRA rating for supply chain management
(November 2013)
In November 2013 Ethical Consumer viewed Cafedirect’s
website, www.cafedirect.co.uk, for the company’s supply chain
policy. The company’s website stated that it was a 100% Fairtrade
company. The Fairtrade mark ensured that an independently
verified code of conduct for workers existed, at the time of
writing. The company also went beyond Fairtrade commitments
by cultivating direct, long-term relationships with producer
groups that it brought from. Due to the fact the company only
sold Fairtrade products it received Ethical Consumer’s best rating
for supply chain management. (ref: 2)
Politics
Company Ethos (+ve)
All products carried Fairtrade mark (November 2013)
According to the website www.cafedirect.co.uk, viewed by
ECRA on 17th November 2013, all the company’s products were
certified Fairtrade by the Fairtrade Foundation. The Fairtrade
mark ensured that an independently verified code of conduct for
workers existed. (ref: 3)
Product sustainability (+ve)
Fairtrade Product (+ve)
Fairtrade (November 2013)
According to the Cafedirect website viewed in November 2013,
its tea is Fairtrade Foundation certified. (ref: 2)
Environmental Reporting
Best Ethical Consumer rating for environmental reporting
(November 2013)
In November 2013 a questionnaire was sent to Clearspring Ltd
asking for its environmental report. Ethical Consumer received
no reply. A search was made of Clearspring Ltd website, www.
clearspring.co.uk, for the company’s environmental report.
Under a section titled Food, Safety and Environmental Standards,
it said that all of its foods met vegan standards, as certified by
the Vegan Society. The company was also an affiliate member
of IFOAM, the International Federation of Organic Agriculture
Movements. The Clearspring goal was to get organic food back on
the dining table and it sold a number of products certified organic.
Due to the fact the company had a turnover of less than £8m and
was providing an environmental alternative it received Ethical
Consumer’s best rating for environmental reporting. (ref: 4)
People
Supply Chain Management
Best ECRA rating for supply chain management
(November 2013)
In November 2013 a questionnaire was sent to Clearspring Ltd
asking for its supply chain policy. Ethical Consumer received
no reply. A search was made of Clearspring Ltd website, www.
clearspring.co.uk, for the company’s supply chain policy. No
supply chain policy was found. Clearspring sold Japanese and
organic food products and was certified by the Soil Association.
The Soil Association’s organic certfication included some
provisions for workers. Given that Clearsping had a turnover of
less than £8 million and had an effective if not explicit policy
towards addressing workers rights issues within its supply chain
it received Ethical Consumer’s best rating for supply chain
management. (ref: 4)
Politics
Company Ethos (+ve)
Vegan company (November 2013)
In November 2013 Ethical Consumer viewed Clearspring’s
website, www.clearspring.co.uk, it stated that all of its products
vegan standards, as certified by the Vegan Society. (ref: 4)
Product sustainability (+ve)
Organic Product (+ve)
All products are certified organic (November 2013)
In November 2013 Ethical Consumer viewed Clearspring’s
website, www.clearspring.co.uk, which stated that its teas were
all certified organic. (ref: 4)
Clipper Fairtrade & organic tea
[F,O]
Owned by Clipper Teas Ltd
Clipper Teas Ltd, Beaminster Business Park, Broadwindsor Road,
Beaminster, Dorset, DT8 3PR, England
Ethical Consumer received no reply. A search was made of Royal
Wessanen website, www.wessanen.com, for the company’s policy
on genetically modified organisms. We found a Non-GMO Policy
dated April 2013 on www.wessanen.com/en/about-wessanen/
policies-on-nutrition-and-sustainability
It stated:
Clipper Teas Ltd is owned by Koninklijke Wessanen nv (AKA
Royal Wessanen)
“This policy applies to Wessanen EU own branded products,
organic and conventional.
Koninklijke Wessanen nv (AKA Royal Wessanen), Communications
Manager, Beneluxlaan 9, 3500 HS Utrecht, The Netherlands
Our products do not contain any GMOs, GMO ingredients or
ingredients derived from GMOs.”
Clipper Teas Ltd is also owned by Delta Partners (28%)
The company sold products in outside the European Union and
therefore it was assumed that they may contain GMOs. (ref: 6)
Koninklijke Wessanen nv (AKA Royal Wessanen) also owns
Clipper Fairtrade tea [F] and Clipper organic tea [O] and Clipper
tea
Environment
Environmental Reporting
Worst ECRA rating for environmental reporting
(November 2013)
A written request by ECRA for the company’s environmental
report in November 2013 received no response. A search was made
by ECRA on the website www.clipper-teas.com on November
2013 for a copy of the company’s environmental report. No such
document could be found. At the time of writing, the company
had a turnover of over £8 million, and therefore was not exempted
from being rated on this category. As a result, it received ECRA’s
worst rating for environmental reporting. (ref: 5)
Climate Change
Palm oil policy (November 2013)
According to the CSR section of the Wessanen website viewed
in November 2013, “We are committed to switching our palm
oil to RSPO certified sustainable palm oil (RSPO certified
segregated palm oil for organic and GREEN PALM certificates
for conventional) during 2012-14.”
However Ethical Consumer did not take into account future
commitments to source sustainable palm oil as a result of the
fact the negative effects of palm oil production had been apparent
since 2005. Royal Wessanen therefore lost half marks in Ethical
Consumer’s rating system in the categories of climate change,
habitats and resources and human rights. (ref: 6)
Habitats & Resources
(See also ‘Palm oil policy’ in Climate Change above.)
People
Human Rights
Product sustainability (+ve)
Organic Product (+ve)
Fairtrade & Organic (November 2013)
According to the company website www.clipper-teas.com,
viewed by ECRA in November 2013, Clipper produced Fairtrade
and organic teas which were certified by the Fairtrade Foundation
and the Soil Association. (ref: 7)
Fairtrade Product (+ve)
(See also ‘Fairtrade & Organic’ in Organic Product (+ve)
above.)
Dragonfly loose leaf teas
Owned by Tea Times Holding Ltd
Tea Times Holding Ltd, PO Box 5927, Newbury, Berkshire,
RG20 9FY, UK
Environment
Environmental Reporting
Best ECRA rating for environmental reporting (November
2013)
On 12 November 2013, Ethical Consumer made a search of Tea
Times Holding Ltd brands websites; www.dragonfly-teas.com
and www.ticktocktea.com, for information on the company’s
environmental reporting. No such document could be found.
Some products were organic and Dragonfly sold Fairtrade tea
through its brand.
Due to the fact the company was a small company providing social
and environmental alternatives, it received Ethical Consumer’s
best rating for environmental reporting. (ref: 8)
People
(See also ‘Palm oil policy’ in Climate Change above.)
Supply Chain Management
Supply Chain Management
Best ECRA rating for supply chain management
(November 2013)
On 12 November 2013, Ethical Consumer made a search of Tea
Times Holding Ltd brands websites: www.dragonfly-teas.com
and www.ticktocktea.com, for information on the company’s
supply chain management. No such document could be found.
Some products were organic and Dragonfly sold Fairtrade tea
through its brand.
Worst ECRA rating for supply chain management
(November 2013)
The Clipper Teas website (www.clipper-teas.com) viewed on
4 November 2013, had a number of tea products which carried
the Fairtrade Mark. However there were a number of products,
notably teas that did not have Fairtrade certification. Clipper did
not respond to a request by Ethical Consumer for a copy of its
supply chain policy, nor could any indication of a supply chain
policy in regard to these products be found on the company’s
website. As a result, Ethical Consumer gave the company a worst
rating for supply chain management. (ref: 7)
Politics
Genetic Engineering
Sold products containing GMOs (November 2013)
In November 2013 a questionnaire was sent to Royal Wessanen
asking for its policy on genetically modified organisms (GMO).
Due to the fact the company was a small company with an
effective if not explicit practice to ensure workers’ rights within
its supply chain, it received Ethical Consumer’s best rating in
this category. (ref: 9)
Fresh Brew
Owned by Typhoo Tea Ltd
Typhoo Tea Ltd is owned by Apeejay Tea Group
owned by Apeejay Surrendra Group
Apeejay Surrendra Group, Apeejay House, 15 Park St, Kolkata
700016, India
Apeejay Tea Group also owns Glengettie Tea and Heath & Heather
organic tea [O] and Heath & Heather teas and Lift Instant Tea
and Melrose’s Tea and Ridgways organic tea [O] and Ridgways
tea (F) and Typhoo QT instant and Typhoo tea [S]
Environment
Environmental Reporting
Worst ECRA rating for environmental reporting
(November 2013)
Ethical Consumer searched Apeejay Surrendra Group’s website,
www.apeejaygroup.com, for an environmental policy in November
2013. The ‘corporate citizen’ section of the group’s website
discussed recycling and waste across its supply chain, in addition
to its carbon emissions, which focused on shipping tea and IT.
The group reported changing its UK tea ports as an attempt to
reduce its carbon emissions, and it discussed how it was reducing
its carbon footprint in relation to IT and servers. According to
Typhoo’s website, Typhoo had achieved zero tea waste and nine
of the group’s tea estates were Rainforest Alliance Certified and
Sustainable Farm Certified.
However, in regard to discussing environmental issues relating
to Appejay Surrendra Group’s other businesses, no information
could be found. Further discussion about the company’s carbon
footprint, climate change, water use and issues associated with
sustainable agriculture would be expected. It was therefore felt that
the company did not fully understand its environmental impacts.
No future, quantified environmental reduction targets were found,
and no independently verified environmental report was provided.
The company therefore received Ethical Consumer’s worst rating
for environmental performance. (ref: 10)
People
Human Rights
certified by Rainforest Alliance as well as a few of its tea estates
being certified by Fairtrade Foundation. Typhoo Tea Limited (a
subsidairy of Apeejay) was also a member of the Ethical Tea
Partnership (ETP). There was no mention of an independent
complaints process for employees to feedback on working
conditions.
Auditing and Reporting (poor)
There was no information on Apeejay’s website about audits
of its supply chains.
Difficult issues (poor)
There was no information on Apeejay’s website about training
for buying agents, audit fraud, illegal freedom of association or
payment of living wage.
Overall the company received Ethical Consumer’s worst rating
for supply chain management. (ref: 11)
Hambleden Herbs green tea [O]
Owned by Hambleden Herbs
Hambleden Herbs, Unit 6, South Park Business Centre, Park
Street,, Cambs, PE16 6AE
Environment
Environmental Reporting
Best ECRA rating for environmental reporting (November
2013)
In November 2013 Ethical Consumer viewed Hambleden
Herb’s website, www.hambledenherbs.com, and found the
company’s environmental policy. It stated that the company did
not use aeroplanes to fly spices or teas around the world instead
prefering to use ships. It was also committed to recycling its
waste paper and cardboard, often using second hand boxes to
post its products in. The company also made efforts to reduce
its use of packaging.
Hambleden Herbs was also an organic company.
Operations in oppressive regimes (November 2013)
According to Apeejay Surrendra Group’s website, www.
apeejaygroup.com, which was viewed by Ethical Consumer
in November 2013, Apeejay Surrenda had operations in the
following countries:
Ethical Consumer considered Hambleden Herbs to be providing
an environmental alternative and it therefore received a best rating
in this category. (ref: 12)
India, Russia, Iran, Nigeria and Pakistan. Ethical Consumer
considered these countries to be oppressive regimes at the time
of writing. (ref: 10)
Supply Chain Management
Supply Chain Management
Worst ECRA rating for Supply Chain Management
(October 2013)
In October 2013 a questionnaire was sent to Apeejay Surrendra
Group asking for its supply chain policy. Ethical Consumer
received no reply. A search was made of Apeejay Surrendra
Group website, www.apeejaygroup.com, for the company’s
supply chain policy.
Supply chain policy (poor)
There was no supply chain policy which listed the International
Labour Organisation’s core conventions. Therefore Apeejay was
considered to have no supply chain policy.
Stakeholder engagement (rudimentary)
Apeejay’s website stated that 9 of its tea estates had been
People
Best ECRA rating for supply chain management (October
2013)
In October 2013 Ethical Consumer viewed Hambleden Herb’s
website, www.hambledenherbs.com, and found the company’s
environmental policy which stated:
“The social impacts of our business are also very important
to us, and along with the clear environmental benefits, are part
of the reason for buying and supplying organic materials. For
farmers to switch to organic farming methods they must grow
using organic methods for 3 years before they are allowed to sell
a crop as organic. This requires significant investment by them
and they need the assurance that they will have customers at the
end of that 3 year process. That is why we prefer to have long
term agreements with our suppliers, enabling farmers to securely
invest for the future and continue to provide jobs for their local
community”.
Hambleden Herbs had a turnover of less than £8 million and
was considered to have an effective if not explicit practice at
addressing workers rights within its supply chain and therefore
received Ethical Consumer’s best rating for supply chain
management. (ref: 12)
Politics
Company Ethos (+ve)
Fairtrade Product (+ve)
(See also ‘Fairtrade and Organic’ in Organic Product (+ve)
above.)
Higher Living Tea [O]
Organic company (October 2013)
In October 2013 Ethical Consumer viewed Hambleden Herbs
website, www.hambledenherbs.com, and found that the company
only sold 100% organic products. (ref: 12)
Owned by Only Natural Products Ltd
Product sustainability (+ve)
Environment
Fairtrade Product (+ve)
Organic Certified (November 2013)
In November 2013 Ethical Consumer viewed Hambleden Herbs
website, www.hambledenherbs.com and found that the company
sold green teas which were organic certified. (ref: 12)
Hampstead Tea [F,O]
Owned by Hampstead Tea & Coffee Co Ltd
Hampstead Tea & Coffee Co Ltd, PO Box 2448, London, NW11
7DR
Environment
Environmental Reporting
Best ECRA rating for environmental reporting (November
2013)
In a phone conversation with Ethical Consumer on 12 November
2013, a representative of Hampstead Tea & Coffee confirmed
that the company’s turnover was less than £8 million. This, along
with the fact that the company only sold organic and Fairtrade
products, meant that it received Ethical Consumer’s best rating
for environmental reporting. (ref: 13)
People
Supply Chain Management
Best ECRA rating for supply chain management
(November 2013)
During a phone conversation with Ethical Consumer on 12
November 2013, a representative of Hampstead Tea & Coffee
confirmed that all the company’s products were certified Fairtrade.
The Fairtrade mark guarantees that an externally regulated code
of conduct for workers exists.
As the company’s turnover was less than £8 million and it
was offering environmental and social alternatives, Hampstead
was awarded Ethical Consumer’s best rating for supply chain
management. (ref: 13)
Politics
Company Ethos (+ve)
All company products were certified organic & Fairtrade
(November 2013)
During a phone conversation with Ethical Consumer on 12
November 2013, a representative of Hampstead Tea & Coffee
Co confirmed that all its products were certified Fairtrade by
the Fairtrade Labelling Organisation and approved to carry the
Demeter biodynamic agriculture logo. (ref: 13)
Product sustainability (+ve)
Organic Product (+ve)
Fairtrade and Organic (November 2013)
A conversation with a representative from Hampstead Tea on 12
November 2013 stated that all its teas were organic and Faritrade
certified. (ref: 13)
Only Natural Products Ltd, Kithurst Barns, Storrington, West
Sussex, RH20 4HT, UK
Environmental Reporting
Worst ECRA rating for environmental reporting
(November 2013)
A search was made of Only Natural Products brands websites,
Higher Living Tea website, www.higherlivingherbs.com, and Dr
Stuarts website, www.drstuarts.co.uk, in November 2013, for
the company’s environmental report. No information could be
found on either website regarding any policy on the environment.
Some of Higher Living Teas were ceritifed organic. Although
Only Natural Products had a turnover of less than £8m it was not
considered to be providing a social or environmental alternatives
and therefore Only Natural Products received Ethical Consumer’s
worst rating for environmental reporting. (ref: 14)
People
Supply Chain Management
Worst ECRA rating for supply chain management
(November 2013)
A search was made of Only Natural Products brands websites,
Higher Living Tea website, www.higherlivingherbs.com, and Dr
Stuarts website, www.drstuarts.co.uk, in November 2013 for the
companies supply chain management policies. No information
could be found on either website regarding any policy on supply
chain management. Due to the fact the company did not have an
effective if not explicit policy regarding workers’ rights Only
Natural Products received Ethical Consumer’s worst rating for
suplly chain management. (ref: 14)
Product sustainability (+ve)
Organic Product (+ve)
Organic certified (November 2013)
In November 2013 Ethical Consumer viewe Higher Living Tea
website, www.higherlivingherbs.com, it stated that some of its
teas were certified organic (ref: 14)
Taylors of Harrogate breakfast tea
[F]
Owned by Bettys & Taylors Group Ltd
Bettys & Taylors Group Ltd, 1, Parliament St, Harrogate, North
Yorkshire, HG2 7NX, England
Environment
Environmental Reporting
Worst ECRA rating for environmental reporting
(November 2013)
Bettys and Taylors Group’s website, www.bettysandtaylors.
co.uk, was searched for an environmental policy in November
2013, and the group’s environmental policy was downloaded.
The policy discussed packaging, waste, emissions, noise
pollution, resource use, reforestation efforts, recycling and the
company said that they audited all suppliers to ensure that they
were environmentally aware and complied with environmental
legislation.
The company was a signatory to the Food and Drink Federation’s
Five-Fold Environmental Ambition, and consequently measured
and targeted reductions in energy, water, waste, packing and food
miles, and reported on the company’s progress annually. In the
2011 report the company said it recorded a 17% reduction in
energy used per tonne of production at its tea and coffee factory, a
saving of 100,000 road miles per year, by importing commodities
through Teesport in the North East, and a decrease in food waste
due to partnerships with charities and local farms.
However, this report could not be found.
Although the company seemed to understand it key environmental
impacts, it did not present environmental performance data and
did not provide future dated and quantified environmental targets.
Bettys and Taylors Group therefore received Ethical Consumer’s
worst rating for environmental reporting. (ref: 1)
Climate Change
No palm oil policy found (November 2013)
Bettys and Taylors Group’s website, www.bettysandtaylors.
co.uk, was searched for a palm oil policy in Novermber 2013.
No information could be found. Due to the fact the company sold
biscuits and chocolates under the Betty brand the company lost
half marks in Ethical Consumer’s rating system in the categories of
climate change, habitats & resources and human rights. (ref: 2)
Habitats & Resources
(See also ‘No palm oil policy found’ in Climate Change
above.)
Animals
Animal Rights
Sells meat in Cafes (November 2013)
A search of Bettys and Taylors website, www.bettysandtaylors.
co.uk, by Ethical Consumer in November 2013, found that the
company sold meat and fish in its cafe which were labelled as
being free-range. (ref: 2)
People
Human Rights
(See also ‘No palm oil policy found’ in Climate Change
above.)
Supply Chain Management
Worst ECRA rating for supply chain management
(October 2013)
In October 2013 a questionnaire was sent to Bettys & Taylors
Group Ltd asking for its supply chain policy. Ethical Consumer
received no reply. A search was made of Bettys & Taylors Group Ltd
website, www.bettysandtaylors.co.uk, for the company’s supply
chain policy and downloaded the “Taylors of Harrogate Ethical
Trading Policy for Tea & Coffee” dated September 2011.
Supply chain policy (inadequate)
The company’s Trading Policy stated that it adhered to the
following principles, which included right to freedom of
association, employment free from discrimination and payment
of living wages. There was also clauses on hours and child labour
however these were not defined and therefore were not considered
adequate. There was no provision on the use of forced labour and
no statement which stated it applied to the entire breadth of the
supply chain. Therefore Battys and Taylors was considered to
have an inadequate supply chain policy.
monitored social and environmental conditions on tea estates in
all major tea producing regions. It also said it brought tea from
Faritrade, Rainforest Alliance and Utz Certified. There was no
mention of a process whereby workers could feedback to the
company about workplace conditions therefore Bettys and Taylors
received a rudimentary stakeholder engagement rating.
Auditing and reporting (poor)
Taylors of Harrogate stated that suppliers not covered by an
international certification scheme would be required to have
a diagnostic visit from a certifying body of their choice. For
first time diagnostic visits costs could be covered by Taylors
of Harrogate. However producers would be expected to cover
the costs of certification. The company’s ultimate aim was to
have 100% suppliers covered by certification schemes by 2013.
However there was no disclosure of results from audits, there was
no schedule for continued audits until producers were certified
and it was unclear what the company did in instances of noncompliance. Taylor of Harrogates received a poor auditing and
reporting rating.
Difficult issues (poor)
No discussions about purchasing training, audit fraud, illegal
freedom of association and living wage could be found on the
company’s website.
Overall the company received a worst Ethical Consumer rating
for supply chain management. (ref: 3)
Politics
Genetic Engineering
Products potentially contain GMOs (November 2013)
Bettys and Taylors Group’s website, www.bettysandtaylors.
co.uk, was searched for a GMO policy in November 2013. The
group’s environmental policy was downloaded. The environmental
policy had a small GMO section which stated ‘wherever possible
we try to work with the very best suppliers. We do not actively
source any genetically modified ingredients for our food
and beverage products. However, we acknowledge that the
increasingly widespread use of GM soya and corn – particularly
in animal feed– means that we can no longer expect our extended
supply chain to be GM free. No further information could be
found. The company sold meat through its cafés.
As the company did not commit to business-wide GMO free
products, Bettys and Taylor received a negative mark for potentially
supplying products containing GMOs. (ref: 1)
Product sustainability (+ve)
Fairtrade Product (+ve)
Fairtrade product (November 2013)
The Taylors of Harrogate website was viewed in November
2013 and listed the company’s Fairtrade breakfast tea as being
certified by the Fairtrade Foundation. (ref: 4)
Stakeholder engagement (rudimentary)
Taylors of Harrogate stated that it worked with the Ethical
Trading Intiative which was a multi-stakeholder process as well
as the Ethical Tea Partnership - a not-for-profit organisation that
Tetley Original tea [S]
Owned by The Tetley Group
The Tetley Group is owned by Tata Global Beverages
owned by Tata Group (35%)
Tata Group, Bombay House, 24 Homi Mody St, Fort,, Mumbai,
400 001, India
Environment
Environmental Reporting
Worst ECRA rating for environmental reporting
(November 2013)
In November 2013 a questionnaire was sent to Tata Global
Beverages (TGB) asking for its environmental report. Ethical
Consumer received a reply. Which included a link to TGB’s
sustainability report dated 2008-09 which included a chapter
on environmental performance. The chapter included details
about how much the company had used in materials, green
house gas emissions, water use, biodiversity and environmental
expenditure.
In the questionnaire response from TGB it stated that its global
Green House Gas (GHG) emissions had been independently
verified by British Standards Institution (BSI) as per ISO 14064
and that it had been rated as Climate Disclosure Leadership Index
in India covering over 65 sites, globally, including factories and
plantations. Its climate change strategy included, sustainable
agricultural practices towards climate change adaptation;
sustainable forestry, afforest ration and sequestration towards
climate change mitigation; use of renewable sources - wind energy,
bio gas, Tata Solar, etc. and energy efficiency programs & ISO
50001 in all the production units. TGB was considered to have
demonstrated a good understanding of its main environmental
impacts however it did have two quantified dated targets nor was its
data or information independently verified. TGB received a worst
Ethical Consumer rating for environmental reporting. (ref: 5)
Climate Change
Oil and gas exploration (November 2013)
In November 2013 Ethical Consumer viewed Tata Petrodyne
website, www.tatapetrodyne.in. It stated that the company was
involved in the exploration and production of crude oil and
natural gas. (ref: 6)
Climate change impact sector (November 2013)
In November 2013 Financial Times website, www.financialtimes.
com reported that the competition comission was looking into the
proposed joint venture between Tata Sons and Singapore Airlines
which will run Tata-SIA Airlines. The new airline was due to
launch in June-July 2014 according to the report. (ref: 7)
High climate impact sector (November 2013)
In November 2013 Ethical Consumer viewed Tata Motors 68th
Annual Report 2012-2013 which stated “Tata Motors Limited is
India’s largest automobile company. It is the leader in commercial
vehicles and among the leaders in passenger vehicles in India with
winning products in the compact, midsize car and utility vehicle
segments. It is also the world’s fourth largest bus and fifth largest
truck manufacturer”. (ref: 8)
Pollution & Toxics
Death of worker and protestors (2010)
According to the 2011 Ecologist report ‘Whats really in your
cuppa’ in 2010, on an estate owned by Tata Group, a worker who
collapsed while spraying pesticides was reportedly refused medical
treatment and later died. Protests in response to the death were
quelled by local police, resulting in the deaths of two protesters
and a further 15 injuries.
The report also stated: “Grown in monoculture, tea plants
provide ideal conditions for a number of pests, resulting in the
widespread use of toxic pesticides. Recently four elephants were
found dead in Kaziranga National Park, India, after they wandered
into a tea plantation and ate grass which had been sprayed with
pesticides.” (ref: 9)
Shares in Vedanta (2009)
The Ecologist published an article on its website (www.ecologist.
org) on 19 June 2009 in which it listed several UK companies who
owned shares in Vedanta Resources plc. Vedanta was behind the
controversial mine in India’s Orissa state which was situated on a
mountain sacred to local people. The company was given the goahead to begin mining for bauxite in May 2009. Campaign groups
had warned that the 600-hectare mine would result in ecological
degradation that would threaten the livelihoods of tribal people.
They said that several villages had been razed to make way for
the construction of a refinery, with up to 100 indigenous families
evicted from their land and relocated to ‘rehabilitation colonies’
where locals claimed they felt as though they were living ‘in a jail’
with little access to land for farming. A nearby bauxite refinery
which was already in existence had been blamed for causing
health problems, damaging crops and killing livestock.
Jaguar Cars Pension Plan (a subsidairy of Tata Motors) was
listed in the Ecologist as having shares in Vedanta.
Land Rover Pension Trustees Ltd (a subsidairy of Tata Motors)
was listed in the Ecologist as having shares in Vedanta. (ref:
10)
Habitats & Resources
(See also ‘Shares in Vedanta’ in Pollution & Toxics above.)
(See also ‘Oil and gas exploration’ in Climate Change
above.)
Animals
Animal Testing
Involved in animal testing (November 2013)
In November 2013 Ethical Consumer viewed Advinus
Therapeutics website, www.advinus.com, a subsidairy of Tata
Group and found that it had been “only one of the 5 labs worldwide to successfully complete a Transgenic mice carcinogenicity
studies”. The company also offered in vivo services. (ref: 11)
Animal Rights
Manufactures and markets leather (November 2013)
In November 2013 Ethical Consumer viewed Tata Internationals
website, www.tatainternational.com and found that the company
was involved in the manufacturing and selling of leather
products. Leather was considered by Ethical Consumer to be a
slaughterhouse by product. (ref: 12)
People
Human Rights
Supplier to Israeli military (June 2013)
In June 2013 it was reported on the Who Profits? website that
Land Rover (a subsidariy of Tata Motors) supplied armoured
vehicles to the Israeli ministry of defence through its sole Israeli
distributor, Eastern Automobile Marketing, which also supplied
maintenance services for the vehicles. The Israeli army was also
said to have developed the ‘David’ armoured vehicle, which was
built on top of a Land Rover Defender chassis. According to the
article, “David Vehicles are used by the Israeli army to protect
illegal settlements and military bases along the West Bank, to
prevent Palestinian shepherds from herding on their lands and
to oppress Palestinian demonstrators. David Vehicles carrying
tear Gas launchers on their roofs were used during non violence
demonstrations in the village of Nabi Saleh.” (ref: 13)
Operations in oppressive regimes (November 2013)
In November 2013 Ethical Consumer viewed Tata Global
Beverages website, www.tataglobalbeverages.com, and found
that it had operations in Russia and China. It also had offices
in Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. The company was
headquartered in India. At the time of writing Ethical Consumer
considered each of these countries to be governed by oppressive
regimes. (ref: 5)
(See also ‘Shares in Vedanta’ in Pollution & Toxics above.)
Workers’ Rights
(See also ‘Death of worker and protestors’ in Pollution &
Toxics above.)
Labour abuses on Indian tea plantations (July 2013)
A press release from the Accountability Counsel on July 5th 2013
alleged that workers on Tata’s Tetley tea plantations in northeast
India, who made less than $2 a day, demanded the company
respect their human rights on World Bank-financed plantations.
A workers’ complaint to the World Bank calls on the Bank to
ensure the end of inhumane working and living conditions, and
coercion and pressure of workers on the plantations.
On Wednesday 3rd July 2013, in the presence of the World
Bank’s accountability office, Tata met with worker representatives
to discuss intimidation and retaliation by plantation management
against workers participating in the complaint process.
“While Tata and Tetley market themselves globally as socially
responsible leaders, they are fooling their customers and
making large profits from the mistreatment and exploitation
of marginalized indigenous communities,” said Stephen Ekka,
Director of PAJHRA, one of three community organisations that
filed the complaint to the World Bank’s accountability office.
Workers had been interrogated, intimidated, and in some cases,
retaliated against by plantation management for voicing their
complaints. One worker, who did not wish to be named for fear
of losing her job said, “I worked a heavy workload even when
nine months pregnant. I live in a broken home without clean
water. Tata refuses to respect us as human beings.”
“The World Bank Group must ensure that workers receive
the basic protections that it claims to value and is responsible
for upholding,” says Komala Ramachandra of Accountability
Counsel, a non-profit organization supporting workers in their
complaint. Jayshree Satpute of Nazdeek, a legal empowerment
organisation working closely with workers, said, “Tata is not
only in violation of its contract with the World Bank, but is also
denying the basic human rights guaranteed to the workers under
the Indian Constitution and domestic laws.”
Wilfred Topno, Secretary of People’s Action for Development,
stated, “A colonial attitude and feudal structure persist in the
plantations, with the same subhuman living and working conditions
for the last 150 years. Our community demands change.”
Tata Global Beverages, and their brand Tetley Tea, is the second
largest player in global tea industry. The World Bank Group,
through an investment in Tata, owns a nearly 20 percent stake in
the tea plantations involved in the complaint to the World Bank’s
accountability office. (ref: 14)
Health and Safety Executive fines (2013)
In April 2013 it was reported on the Health & Safety Executive
(HSE) website, www.hse.gov.uk, that Tata Chemicals Europe
Ltd, which is part of the global Tata group, had been fined more
than £100,000 after workers were put in danger in three separate
incidents at its Cheshire factory. Tata Chemicals was prosecuted
by the HSE following an investigation into the incidents at the
Winnington Lane site, all of which occurred during 2010.
Chester Crown Court was told on the 10th of April 2013 that
the first incident happened on 29 January 2010 when a worker
was trying to reach a pump to restart it when his right foot went
through a missing part of the grating. He was exposed to a toxic
liquid at a temperature of approximately 95 degrees Celsius
when his foot entered the sump below, which was used to collect
overflowing chemicals.
The second incident occurred six months later, on 25 July 2010,
when a dangerous gas was released, resulting in high levels of
carbon monoxide being present in the area of the plant where
employees were working. An investigation into the incident
found employees had not been given sufficient practical training
for the work activity that caused the gas leak, and the emergency
procedures at the plant were inadequate.
The final incident took place on 21 November 2010 when part
of the gantry a worker was walking along gave way as the metal
grating under his feet had become badly corroded. He escaped
with minor injuries after landing on a scaffolding board on the
walkway below.
When a HSE inspector visited the factory, she discovered the
company had failed to report another part of the grating on the
same walkway collapsing two days before the incident on 21
November.
Tata Chemicals Europe Ltd pleaded guilty to four breaches
of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 due to failing to
ensure the safety of workers.
The company also admitted two breaches of the Reporting
of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations
1995 after it failed to report the two walkway collapses in
November 2010 as soon as possible, despite this being a legal
requirement.
Tata Chemicals was fined a total of £100,750 for all six offences
and ordered to pay £71,082 in prosecution costs. (ref: 15)
Supply Chain Management
Worst ECRA rating for supply chain management
(October 2013)
In January 2013 a questionnaire was sent to Tata Global
Beverages (TGB) asking for its supply chain policy. Ethical
Consumer received a reply which stated that all of its tea was
covered under the Ethical Tea Partnership (ETP) and that it had
a target to source 100% of Tetley tea from Rainforest Alliance
certified farms by 2016. Overall TGB received Ethical Consumer’s
worst rating for supply chain management.
Supply chain policy (inadequate)
TGB stated that the company was a signatory of the UN Global
Compact and adhered to the principles contained within the code
which included freedom of association, forced labour, child labour
and employment free from discrimination. Ethical Consumer
searched the UN Global Compact website for the company’s
Communication of Progress - a document which was sent to update
the initiative on the company’s progress - however TGB could
not be located on the website. The only workers right provision
that could be located was in the company’s Code of Conduct
policy 2008 which included a provision for employment free
from discrimination. No commitment could be found to ensure
workers rights provisions were adhered to throughout its supply
chain. TGB received a inadequate rating in this category.
Stakeholder engagement (rudimentary)
TGB stated that its tea brand Tetly was a member of ETP, a
business led initiative bringing together tea companies which
worked towards (among other things) improving workers
and farmers livelihood. The company was also involved with
another buisness led initiative trustea. While it was clear TGB
was engaging with other tea companies to try and improve
workers and farmers livelihood within the tea sector, they were
not considered by Ethical Consumer to be a multi-stake holder
initiative which were led by non-governmental organisations. In
Sri Lanka, TGB stated that it worked with local staff from CARE
on the Plantation Community Empowerment Project that focused
on labour standards and wider empowerment issues, particularly
for women. TGB also stated that it worked with local staff from
WUSC and the Sri Lankan Centre for Poverty Analysis. TGB
stated in the questionnaire that it worked with indirectly or
directly a range of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) such
as Christian Aid, SOMO and Solidaridad.
TGB stated that under the Rainforest Alliance and ETP standards
there were grievance procedures which allowed employees to
feedback anonymously about working conditions. There was
no mention of TGB’s own grievance procedure for workers
not covered under these schemes. Due to its involvement in
trade unions and NGOs, TGB received a rudimentary rating for
stakeholder engagement
Auditing and Reporting (poor)
TGB stated in the questionnaire returned that its audits were
always performed by independent, third party audit firms. The
company only stated Tetley’s current situation with regards to
auditing which it said 50% had been certified by Rainforest
Alliance (RA), 14% were working towards RA certification,
another 20% were audited by ETP and 16% had not been audited.
TGB received a poor rating for auditing and reporting because
there was no commitment to audit its whole supply chain which
included other drinks brands, there was no remediation strategy
from those suppliers covered under ETP or RA, and no schedule
for auditing suppliers. Of the 16% that had not been audited
TGB stated they were “low priority” sites in Sri Lanka and
India which the company may exit in the future. There was no
mention of costs.
Difficult issues
TGB stated in its questionnaire that in November 2013 some
of its senior managers of the buying team underwent University
of Cambridge Sustainability Leadership Programme, it also said
that internal training occurred on sustainability issues. With its
Tetley brand the group had long term purchasing agreements
with former companies such as Kanan Devan Hill Plantation
and APPL. TGB stated that it had recently entered into a joint
partnership in China and stated that it had the support of ETP
whose standard required Chinese suppliers to have “parallel
means” in place and recommends that factories establish worker
committees. TGB was considered to be addressing one difficult
issue within its supply chain. It therefore received a rudimentary
rating for this category. (ref: 5)
Arms & Military Supply
Manufactures products for defence industry (November
2013)
In November 2013 Ethical Consumer viewed Tata Advanced
Systems (TASL) website, www.tataadvancedsystems.com, which
stated it was addressing the business areas of Defence, Aerospace,
Aero-Structures and Homeland Security.
The company was establishing critical manufacturing capabilities
through strategic alliances and collaborations with Global
Technology Majors in the following areas:
RF Systems and ICT Networks (SDRs, Ruggedized Switches
& Interoperability Gateways)
Maritime Systems – Maritime Command & Control (IPMS
& IBS), Sonars & Simulators
Mini and Micro UAVs
NVDs (Monoculars, Binoculars, Weapon Sights)
Aerospace & Aero-Structures
Homeland Security
TASL was also involved in developing a family of Mini
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) for various defence and civil
applications. These Mini UAVs would be fully equipped with a
wide variety of mission-specific payload, appreciated operational
capabilities and a user-friendly man-machine interface. (ref:
16)
Listed as military contractor (2011)
In the International Defence Directory 2011, Tata International
Singapore Pte. Ltd was listed as a military supplier involved in
the manufacture and distribution of steel and aluminium products
for the Air Force. The company was also provided supply chain
management services. (ref: 17)
Listed as military contractor (2011)
In the International Defence Directory 2011, Tata Consultancy
Services Ltd was listed as a military supplier involved in the
provision of consultancy service for information technology and
business process outsourcing. (ref: 17)
Politics
Anti-Social Finance
Worst ECRA rating for likely use of tax avoidance
strategies (November 2013)
In November 2013 Ethical Consumer viewed the Tata Sons
family tree on the corporate website Hoovers.com. This listed
a number of subsidiaries Ethical Consumer to be considered at
high risk of being used for tax avoidance purposes due to the
company type and the fact that they were located in jurisdictions
considered by Ethical Consumer to be tax havens.
These included holding companies based in Switzerland,
Hong Kong and Singapore and an investment company based
in Switzerland.
Given that the company had two or more subsidaries which were
considered to be likely to be used for tax avoidance strategies and
were based in tax havens it received Ethical Consumer’s worst
rating in this category. (ref: 18)
Worst ECRA rating for likely use of tax avoidance
strategies (November 2013)
In November 2013 Ethical Consumer viewed the Tata Steel
family tree on the corporate website Hoovers.com. This listed
a number of subsidiaries Ethical Consumer to be considered at
high risk of being used for tax avoidance purposes due to the
company type and the fact that they were located in jurisdictions
considered by Ethical Consumer to be tax havens.
These included several holding companies based in Singapore.
Tata Steel receieved Ethical Consumer’s worst rating for likely
use of tax avoidance strategies due to the fact it had two or more
high risk subsidaries based in tax havens. (ref: 18)
Human rights abuses in India (May 2010)
On 10th May 2010 the website www.forbes.com published
an article that reported conflict between local Indian people
and mining companies. Tata Steel was named as a company
acquiring thousands of acres of land, and was reported to have
met with resistance from local people. The following instances
were reported: police breaking up gatherings of as few as five
people; people who refused to sell their land being repeatedly
arrested; police violence during arrests; suspected Tata officials
trying to persuade arrestees whilst they were detained; forgery of
records that stated people had sold their land when they hadn’t,
and prisoners being released when their families agreed to sell.
The company was said to have denied the allegations. (ref: 19)
Product sustainability (+ve)
worst rating for environmental reporting. (ref: 22)
Other Sustainability Features (+ve)
Climate Change
Rainforest Alliance (November 2013)
According to the website www.tetley.co.uk viewed on 15th
November 2013, Tetley tea sold Rainforest Alliance certified
tea but not all its tea was yet. Only its Original brand (except for
Decaf) and its Redbush.
Use of unsustainable palm oil (November 2013)
In November 2013, Ethical Consumer searched Associated
British Food’s website, www.abf.co.uk, for a palm oil policy.
The company’s 2013 CSR report was downloaded. The report
contained a CSR overview table which discussed the use of palm
oil. It stated that Associated British Foods was committed to
all businesses using Certified Sustainable or Identity Preserved
palm oil by 2015.
“All of Tetley’s branded black, green and red tea, including
our flavoured and decaffeinated varieties, will be part of the
Rainforest Alliance certification programme, which is scheduled
for completion by 2016.” (ref: 20)
Twinings Fairtrade Breakfast tea
[O,F]
Owned by R Twining & Co Ltd
R Twining & Co Ltd is owned by Associated British Foods Plc
owned by Wittington Investments Ltd (55%)
Wittington Investments Ltd, Weston Centre, Bowater House, 68
Knightsbridge, London, SW1X 7QT
R Twining & Co Ltd is also owned by Garfield Weston Foundation
(43%)
Environment
Environmental Reporting
Worst ECRA rating for environmental report (November
2013)
In November 2013, Ethical Consumer searched Associated
British Food’s (ABF) website, www.abf.co.uk, for an
environmental policy. The company’s 2013 CSR report was
downloaded. The report contained a CSR overview table which
discussed environment management, climate change, water
use and availability, disposal of waste and effluent, use of palm
oil, cocoa, soya and GMOs. The report went on to identify the
company’s key environmental impacts: energy use and green
house gas emissions, abstraction of water and discharge and the
generation and disposal of waste. Some performance data was
provided, the majority of which related to sugar production.
Some of the company’s businesses, for example AB Agri,
engaged with the Round table for Sustainable Palm Oil to source
palm oil sustainably by purchasing Green Palm Certificates.
As a business wide commitment to sourcing sustainable palm
oil was not yet implemented, and considering the fact that the
negative effects of palm oil have been known since 2005, ABF
lost half marks in Ethical Consumer’s rating system in the
categories of climate change, habitats & resources and human
rights. (ref: 21)
Rated “poor” by Oxfams behind the brand scorecard
(September 2013)
In September 2013 Ethical Consumer viewed the most recent
“Behind the brand” scorecard produced by Oxfam part of its
GROW campaign which sought to evaluate the world’s top 10
most powerful food and beverage companies. The campaign
aimed to challenge the companies to begin a “race to the top” to
improve their social and environmental performance.
Associated British Foods (ABF) was ranked last out of ten
companies in the scorecard. The company was rated in seven
areas based on information publically available and marked out
of ten for each area.
According to the report Associated British Foods was bad for
assessing the impact it has on producers, communities and the
planet. The company scored even worse on supporting women
and land rights and came bottom of the pile for climate change.
The company scored
1/10 for its land policies:
1/10 for policies on women:
2/10 for policies on farmers:
Although the company had a recent environment policy and
showed reasonable understanding of its key environmental
impacts, the company did not provide any company wide dated
environmental targets nor was the report independently verified.
ABF therefore received Ethical Consumer’s worst rating for
environmental reporting. (ref: 21)
Worst ECRA rating for environmental reporting
(November 2013)
In November 2013, Ethical Consumer searched Twining’s
website for an environmental policy or report. The ‘our
environmental commitments’ section of the website stated that
the company was
‘committed to protecting its environment and wherever possible
reducing its impact on the planet. It stated that the company
assessed the environmental risks of its operations and put in
place improvement programmes so it could reduce its impacts.
It also stated that ‘every year all of its sites set tough targets for
reducing environmental impacts’. No further information could
be found.
As the company did not not discuss in detail any of its
environmental impacts, did not present environmental performance
data, and did not provide future, quantified environment reduction
targets, R Twinning and Co Ltd received Ethical Consumer’s
2/10 for policies regarding workers:
1/10 for policies on climate change:
3/10 for transparency:
2/10 on water:
Due to the fact Associated British Foods had not received best in
any of the categories it lost marks in Ethical Consumer’s climate
change, human rights and workers rights categories.
In October 2013 Oxfam released a report called ‘Sugar Rush’
which urged Associated British Foods along with two other food
and beverages giants to adopt a zero-tolerance policy on land grabs.
It stated that sugar, along with soy and palm oil, were driving
large-scale land acquisitions and land conflicts at the expense of
small-scale food producers and their families. Oxfam’s report
exposed the lack of transparency by food and beverage giants,
making it difficult for the public to hold companies accountable.
(ref: 23)
Pollution & Toxics
Pollution fine (2010)
The EIRIS Corporate Ethics Overview published in Autumn 2010
stated that Associated British Foods subsidiary George Weston
Foods had been fined Aus 67,000 (USD 63,000; EUR 49,000;
GBP 67,000) by the Australian Land and Environment Court for
polluting a the Peel River in September 2008. The prosecution was
brought by the Australian Department of Environment, Climate
Change and Water in response to a leak of animal fat and oil into the
Peel River. The leak left more than 2 kilometre slick that persisted
for 9 days. The presiding judge ordered George Weston Foods to
pay a penalty of AUD 67,000 to Tamworth Regional Council to
use for an environmental project. He also ordered the company
to pay prosecution costs of AUD 30,000 and publish notices in
the press outlining details of the offence. George Weston Foods
had already paid out AUD 38,217 in clean up costs.
The story had originated from the NSW Environment, Climate
Change and Water Dept press release 09/07/10 (ref: 24)
No cotton sourcing policy (2011)
Primark (which was a subsidairy of Associated British Foods)
stated that it was unable to respond to Ethical Consumer’s written
request in June 2011 for its cotton sourcing policy. Ethical
Consumer searched the company’s websites, www.primark.
co.uk and www.ethicalprimark.co.uk, in July 2011 for this
information, but none could be found, nor any mention of the
issues surrounding cotton.
According to the Environmental Justice Foundation (EJF)
website, www.ejfoundation.org, viewed by Ethical Consumer
in February 2011, Uzbekistan was the third largest exporter of
cotton in the world, and Europe was its major buyer (EJF quoted
UN data which stated that Europe received almost a third of all
cotton sold by Uzbekistan). The website stated that forced child
labour, human rights violations and excessive pesticide use were
“rife” in Uzbek cotton production. It was also said to have caused
an “environmental catastrophe of astonishing proportions” as a
result of its impact on the Aral Sea, reported to be 15% of its
former volume.
Due to the high proportion of cotton on the British market likely
to have come from Uzbekistan and the prevalence of child labour
in its production, Primark lost half a mark in the workers’ rights
category. Due to the impacts of the widespread use of pesticides
in cotton production worldwide it also lost half a mark in the
pollution and toxics category.
According to the International Service for the Acquisition of
Agri-Biotech Applications (ISAAA), a non-profit pro biotech
organisation, genetically modified cotton accounted for almost
half of the 33 million hectares of global cotton planted in 2009.
Due to the prevalence of GM cotton in cotton supply chains and
the lack of any evidence that the company avoided it, it was
assumed that the company’s cotton products contained some
GM material. (ref: 25)
No cotton sourcing policy (March 2011)
In February 2011 Ethical Consumer emailed Heal & Son Ltd (a
subsidairy of Wittington Investments) and attached a questionnaire
that included a question regarding the company’s cotton sourcing
policy. The company did not respond. Its website, www.heals.
co.uk, displayed a number of products made from cotton and
no mention was made of whether the company had any policies
relating to its cotton sourcing.
According to the Environmental Justice Foundation website,
www.ejfoundation.org, viewed by Ethical Consumer in February
2011, Uzbekistan was the third largest exporter of cotton in the
world, and Europe was its major buyer. The website stated
that forced child labour, human rights violations and excessive
pesticide use were “rife” in Uzbek cotton production. It was also
said to have caused an “environmental catastrophe of astonishing
proportions” as a result of its impact on the Aral Sea, reported to
be 15% of its former volume.
Due to the high proportion of cotton on the British market
likely to have come from Uzbekistan and the prevalence of child
labour in its production, Heal & Son Ltd lost half a mark in the
workers rights category. Due to the impacts of the widespread
10
use of pesticides in cotton production worldwide it also lost half
a mark in the and pollution and toxics category.
According to the International Service for the Acquisition of
Agri-Biotech Applications (ISAAA), a non-profit pro biotech
organisation, genetically modified cotton accounted for almost
half of the 33 million hectares of global cotton planted in 2009.
Due to the prevalence of GM cotton in cotton supply chains and
the lack of any evidence that the company avoided it, it was
assumed that the company’s cotton products contained some
GM material. (ref: 26)
Habitats & Resources
Retail of non-FSC products (March 2011)
In February 2011 Ethical Consumer emailed Heal & Son Ltd (a
subsidairy of Wittington Investments) and attached a questionnaire
that included questions regarding the company’s wood sourcing
policy. The company did not respond. Its website, www.heals.
co.uk, displayed some products made from wood marketed as
being from sustainable sources, but also sold many that were
not. Purchasing Forest Stewardship Council certified wood was
not mentioned. According the the Environmental Investigation
Agency report “Putting the Brakes on Drivers of Forest
Destruction”, published in December 2009, timber, pulp and paper
were one of four top commodity markets associated with tropical
deforestation and degradation. Heal & Son Ltd consequently lost
a mark in the habitats and resources category. (ref: 26)
(See also ‘Use of unsustainable palm oil’ in Climate Change
above.)
Sale of reindeer meat - impact on wild predators and stress
to reindeer through herding methods (January 2013)
According to the Viva! website, www.viva.org.uk, viewed
January 15th 2013, ‘The shocking secrets behind the trade in
‘novelty’ reindeer meat’ Fortnum & Mason (a subsidairy of
Wittington Investments) was selling the ‘Edible’ brand of reindeer
pate from Sweden. Viva! had uncovered concerns that the growing
popularity of reindeer meat in Britain was causing the destruction
of large wild predators including wolves, wolverines, lynxes,
foxes and bears with cubs.
It also reported that reindeer suffer from modern herding methods.
In Nordic countries, they are often herded with snowmobiles,
motorcycles and even helicopters, causing a huge amount of
stress.
Fortnum & Mason, said Viva!, was selling reindeer meat as a
‘novelty’, in itself popularising the consumption of meat from
wild animals, and in-turn exerting potentially disastrous pressure
on populations already suffering from the threats of climate
change, urban encroachment, pollution and poaching - as well
as their natural predators.
Viva! was calling on its supporters to contact the company
telling them to stop stocking the product. (ref: 27)
Animals
Animal Testing
Uses animals for research (November 2013)
In November 2013, Ethical Consumer searched Associated
British Food’s website for an animal testing policy. The ‘ethical
statement’ section of the website stated that ‘ABF avoided the
use of animal testing wherever possible. In each of the markets
where it was active, it complied with all relevant laws and only
used animals for research where it was a legal requirement.
The company therefore received negative marks for conducting
or commissioning testing on animals. (ref: 28)
No animal testing policy (January 2009)
British Sugar did not respond to a request by Ethical Consumer
in December 2009 for a copy of its animal testing policy, neither
was one apparent on the company’s website, www.britishsugar.
co.uk, when viewed by Ethical Consumer in January 2009. As a
large player in the UK sugar market, without a policy to confirm
otherwise, Ethical Consumer assumed that the company was
involved with funding research into sugar some of which was
likely to involve testing on animals. The company also retailed
artificial sweeteners, which were routinely tested on animals.
(ref: 29)
Worst ECRA rating for animal testing policy (2011)
A search of the Primark website, www.primark.co.uk, in July
2011 revealed that the company had received awards in Ireland
for its own brand sun lotion and a concealer. No animal testing
policy could be found on the company’s website. The company
responded to this rating in August 2011 with the following
statement: ‘Primark is against animal testing. Primark and our
own label manufacturers do not commission animal testing on
any Primark own brand products or ingredients. Our own brand
cosmetics and toiletry product range have not been tested on
animals by us, or by our own brand manufacturers.” However, in
the absence of a fixed cut-off date for the testing of ingredients,
the company received Ethical Consumer’s worst rating in this
category. (ref: 25)
Factory farming
Sale of non-organic, non free range meat (August 2011)
According to the George Weston Foods company (a subsidairy of
Associated British Foods) website, www.georgewestonfoods.com.
au, it sold meat under the brand KR Castlemaine®. No mention
was made of whether any of the meat it sold was organic or free
range, therefore it was assumed that the company was involved
in selling factory farmed meat. (ref: 30)
Sale of foie gras (2013)
According to the PETA UK website viewed in September 2013,
Fortnum & Mason was continuing to sell goose foie gras in its
store and its restaurants, despite stating in 2008 that it would no
longer sell duck foie gras. PETA was urging supporters to email
the company to protest. All major supermarkets in the UK have
refused to stock foie gras.
Peta was calling for the company to be stripped of its Royal
Warrant.
Deprived of everything that is natural to them, ducks and geese
who are used in foie gras production suffer from frustration and
stress. They are crammed into tiny pens or individual cages fouled
with faeces and blood and often develop skeletal disorders and
respiratory problems as a result of forcefeeding. Pipes are shoved
down their throats several times a day to force approximately
two kilograms of grain, maize and fat into their stomachs. In
human terms, that is the equivalent of roughly 20 kilograms of
pasta per day.
The pipes sometimes puncture the birds’ throats, causing them
unbearable pain and making it impossible to drink. Pumps used
to force food into the birds’ stomachs can cause severe tissue
damage and internal bleeding. This painful overfeeding process
can even cause the birds’ internal organs to rupture. Those who
survive the forced-feedings suffer intensely as their livers swell
to up to 10 times their normal size. After several weeks of this
torture, the birds are hung upside down and slaughtered, and their
livers are sold as foie gras. (ref: 31)
Animal Rights
(See also ‘Sale of non-organic, non free range meat’ in
Factory farming above.)
(See also ‘Sale of reindeer meat - impact on wild predators
and stress to reindeer through herding methods’ in
Habitats & Resources above.)
(See also ‘Sale of foie gras’ in Factory farming above.)
People
Human Rights
(See also ‘Rated “poor” by Oxfams behind the brand
scorecard’ in Climate Change above.)
(See also ‘Use of unsustainable palm oil’ in Climate Change
above.)
Operations in oppressive regimes (November 2013)
According to Associated British Food’s 2013 Annual Report,
the company has subsidiaries in the following five countries
which Ethical Consumer considered to be oppressive regimes
at the time of writing: Philippines, Thailand, China. India, and
Vietnam. (ref: 32)
Workers’ Rights
Factory collapse (April 2013)
In April 2013 a building in Bangladesh that housed several
garment factories used by multinational corporations collapsed
killing at least 300 people and injuring over 800.
The eight-story Rana Plaza building in Savar, on the outskirts
of the capital Dhaka contained three factories and a shopping
mall.
A press release from the Clean Clothes Campaign stated that
workers’ rights activists had managed to enter the ruins of ‘Rana
Plaza’ and found labels and documentation linking the factories
with major retailers including Primark which in the same week
had announced record profits.
“It’s unbelievable that brands still refuse to sign a binding
agreement with unions and labour groups to stop these unsafe
working conditions from existing. Tragedy after tragedy shows
that corporate-controlled monitoring is completely inadequate,”
said Tessel Pauli from Clean Clothes Campaign.
Workers had complained about cracks appearing in the walls
days before the accident but managers ordered them back to
work. The Clean Clothes Campaign have alleged that the floors
where “illegally built.”
Campaigners were now calling on brands sourcing from
Bangladesh to sign up to the Bangladesh Fire and Building
Safety Agreement. The CCC, together with local and global
unions and labour rights organisations had developed a sectorwide programme for action that includes independent building
inspections, worker rights training, public disclosure and a
long-overdue review of safety standards. It is transparent as well
as practical, and unique in being supported by all key labour
stakeholders in Bangladesh and internationally.
The labour signatories were calling on all major brands sourcing
in the industry to sign on to the initiative in order to ensure its
rapid implementation. The programme has the potential to save
the lives of hundreds of thousands of workers currently at risk
in unsafe and illegally built factories. (ref: 33)
(See also ‘No cotton sourcing policy’ in Pollution & Toxics
above.)
Criticised for use of ‘workfare’ labour (August 2011)
According to an article on the Corporate Watch website, www.
corporatewatch.org, ‘Unemployed people ‘bullied’ into unpaid
work at Tesco, Primark and other multinationals’, dated August
12th 2011, unemployed people were being sent to work without
pay in multinational corporations, one of which was Primark, by
Job centres and companies administering the government’s welfare
reforms. Some were working for up to six months while receiving
unemployment benefit of £67.50 a week or less. The article said
that people were sent to Primark by contracted employment
companies through the previous government’s Flexible New
Deal for up to six months and that this would be continued in the
recently started Work Programme. Primark did not comment. In
an interview a woman who was given a placement in Primark for
six months, under the previous government’s welfare programme,
11
says her work was the same as that of other paid staff and that she
was not given a job at the end of it. She also says she was told
her benefits would be stopped if she did not attend. Campaigners
argue that such work placements provide companies with free
labour, undercut existing jobs and that people are “bullied” into
them. A spokesperson for the Boycott workfare campaign said:
“These placements are not designed to help people into full-time
paid work but they serve to increase organisations’ profits. They
provide a constant stream of free labour and suppress wages by
replacing paid workers with unpaid workers. People are coerced,
bullied and sanctioned into taking the placements. Placements
in the public sector and charities are no better and are making
volunteering compulsory. This is taking away the right of a person
to sell their own labour and their free will to choose who they
volunteer their time for.” (ref: 34)
Supply Chain Management
Worst ECRA rating for supply chain management
(January 2013)
In January 2013 a questionnaire was sent to Associated British
Foods (ABF) asking for its supply chain policy. Ethical Consumer
received no reply. A search was made of ABF website, www.abf.
co.uk, for the company’s supply chain policy.
Supply chain policy (poor)
ABF website included a section on responsibility on people
and suppliers. However there was no information relating to the
International Labour Organisation (ILO) core conventions apart
from a statement which said that managers must take account
of the core ILO labour conventions and strive to observe the
UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, by respecting
the dignity and human rights of its employees. There was no
statement which stated this applied to the entire supply chain.
A search was made for ABF’s supplier code of conduct but no
document could be found.
Stakeholder engagement (poor)
ABF website included a section on suppliers, which included
improving supply chains. However the information related soley to
Primark and Twinnings which both had stakeholder engagement.
There was no information on stakeholder engagement for ABF
subsidaries, other than Primark who was involved with the Ethical
Trading Initiative (ETI) and Twinning who was involved with
Ethical Tea Partnership (ETP).
Auditing and reporting (poor)
The website contained no information on auditing and reporting
of the company’s supply chains.
Difficult issues (poor)
ABF website contained no information on audit fraud, illegal
freedom of association, outworkers or payment of a living wage.
However the company was a signatory to the Prompt Payment
Code which commited the company to paying its bills on time,
but stated that group companies were responsible for negotiating
payment terms with their own suppliers.
Ethical Consumer would expect a company of the size of ABF
and range of industries it is involved in to at least have a supply
chain policy which covered its entire business. Due to the lack of
policies the company received Ethical Consumer’s worst rating
for supply chain management. (ref: 35)
12
Middle ECRA rating for supply chain management
(October 2013)
In October 2013 a questionnaire was sent to Twinings asking
for its supply chain policy. Ethical Consumer received no reply.
A search was made of Twining website, www.twining.co.uk,
for the company’s supply chain policy. The company’s code of
conduct was downloaded.
Supply chain policy (reasonable)
Twinings Ovaltine code of conduct was downloaded from the
company’s website. It listed adeqaute provisions for freedom
of association, child labour, forced labour, working hours and
employment free from discrimination. However there was no
clause to pay living wage. The code of conduct did not include a
provision that it applied to the entire breadth of the supply chain.
It stated that it set out to be the core principles that suppliers and
production sites should be prepared to meet to ensure products
were made in good working conditions. Overall Twinings was
considered to have a reasonable supply chain policy.
Stakeholder engagement (rudimentary)
Twinings was a member of the Ethical Tea Partnership (ETP) - a
not-for-profit organisation that monitors social and environmental
conditions on tea estates in all major tea producing regions.
The company brought teas which were certified by either the
Fairtrade Foundation or Rainforest Alliance. There was no
mention of an independent compliants process for employees to
feedback on working conditions. Twinnings was considered to
have rudimentary stakeholder engagement.
Auditing and reporting (poor)
A search of the Twinnings website found no commitment from
the company to audit its whole supply chain, nor was there any
schedule of audits. There was no informaiton on audits already
carried out. Twinings stated that its monitoring and improvement
programme was designed to monitor conformance with its Code
of Conduct and to address any issues that may be identified. Its
website did state that where issues within its supply chains were
found, it continued to engage with suppliers as long as they were
committed to make the required corrective action within an agreed
period and that it would provide support to suppliers to facilitate
improvement. There was no mention of who paid for the cost of
audits. The company was also a member of the Supplier Ethical
Data Exchange (Sedex), a labour standards sharing database
which helps brands to track and analyse ethical audit data from
suppliers. Twinings was considered to have a poor auditing and
reporting.
Difficult issues (rudimentary)
Twinings stated on its website that it ran a global internal
Ethical Sourcing Training on ethical trade issues and responsible
purchasing. This training was compulsory for everyone involved
in the procurements of goods and ingredients. There was no
mention of payment of living wage, audit fraud or illegal freedom
of association. Twinings was considered to have a rudimentary
approach to difficult issues. (ref: 36)
Politics
Genetic Engineering
GM policy (November 2013)
Ethical Consumer searched Associated British Food’s website
for a policy on genetically modified organisms. An undated Policy
on Genetically Modified (GM) Ingredients was downloaded. The
company recognised the differing views on GMOs within different
countries and stated it strove to meet consumer expectations as
they varied, country by country, as well as complying with local
regulations on the use and labelling of GM ingredients.
It stated that the majority of the food products sold to consumers
in Europe, Australia and New
Zealand did not contain GM ingredients. In a handful of the
thousands of products it sold, GM oils were present in the wider
supply chain, but the company had not been able to establish
for
certain that the oils it sourced were non-GM.
In regard to GM crops for animal feed, ABF stated that as GM
crops had been cleared by UK and EU regulatory bodies as safe
for both animal and human consumption, these formed part of
the company’s offerings. It also sourced assured non-GM crops
where demanded by consumers.
The company’s enzymes business used GM microorganisms in
the manufacturing process, but no GM material was said to be
present in the final product.
The company therefore received negative marks for for use
of GM ingredients in animal feed and in human grade food
prdoucts. It also received a mark in animal rights for supplying
animal feed. (ref: 37)
(See also ‘No cotton sourcing policy’ in Pollution & Toxics
above.)
Political Activities
Member of “independent” food information charity (22
March 2010)
An article on the Spin Watch website, spinwatch.org.uk, dated
22 March 2010 and credited to the British Medical Journal,
outlined criticisms made against the British Nutrition Foundation,
of which British Sugar (a subsidairy of Associated British Foods)
was said to be a member. In the article a representative of the
International Association for the Study of Obesity was quoted
as saying that the Foundation “did a big piece of work for the
Food Standards Agency reviewing ‘influences on consumer food
choices’ which conveniently left out any review of the influence
of marketing and advertising techniques”. A representative of
the Campaign Against Trans Fats in Food commented on two
documents published by the Foundation on his area of expertise
“The first is a briefing sheet and is very balanced...The other is a
submission to the Scottish parliament on a bill to limit trans fats,
and essentially it says to do nothing”, which coincides with the
industry view, according to the representative.
The Foundation was said to be open about its involvment
in lobbying, stating that it aimed to “help shape and support
policy”.
The article stated that “many of the Foundation’s staff move
between the organisation and the food industry” and that food
companies often direct people to the Foundations work, claiming
that it is an independent source of information.
The article detailed the involvement with the Foundation of
several other large, named, food companies. (ref: 38)
Charity Commission ruling for political donations (April
2010)
According to an article on the website Civil Society, www.
civilsociety.co.uk, published in April 2010, the Charity
Commission had ruled against trustees of the Garfield Weston
Foundation (GWF) following an investigation regarding political
donations by Wittington Investments Limited (WIL), a company
79.2% owned by the Foundation. It was said to have made
donations to the Conservative Party totalling £800,000 between
1993 and 1999 and another of £100,000 in 2004. Between 2001
and 2007 it was said to have also made five and six-figure donations
to the European Foundation, the Centre for Policy Studies and the
Labour Euro-Safeguards Campaign, all of which were claimed
to have political links.
The Commission was said to have found that shareholders of
the GWF, and thus the charity, had not been consulted on the
donations “due to an oversight”. According to the article, the
Commission found that “prior to 2006 the trustees of the charity
who were also directors of WIL had breached their duties by
failing to raise the issue with their fellow trustees”. In 2006 the
trustees were said to have passed a resolution allowing WIL to
make political donations without the charity’s consideration.
The Commission was said to have found this to be in breach of
their duties. (ref: 39)
Anti-Social Finance
Tax avoidance in Zambia (February 2013)
It was reported in February 2013 that Associated British Foods,
one of Britain’s biggest multinationals, was avoiding paying
millions of pounds of tax in Zambia.
New research from campaign group ActionAid released showed
that a subsidiary of ABF contributed virtually no corporation tax
to the state’s exchequer between 2007 and 2012, and none at all
for two of those years.
The firm, Zambia Sugar, posted record pre-tax profits and its
huge plantation was increasing its capacity to produce more
sugar for markets in Europe and Africa. Yet it paid less than
0.5% of its $123m pre-tax profits in corporation tax between
2007 and 2012.
According to an article in the Guardian newspaper the company
benefited from generous capital allowance and tax-relief schemes
in Zambia, but the investigation also found that it funneled around
a third of its pre-tax profits to sister companies in tax havens,
including Ireland, Mauritius and the Netherlands. Tax treaties
between Zambia and some of those countries meant the state’s
revenue authorities were unable to charge their normal tax on
money leaving their shores.
ActionAid estimated that the tax haven transactions of this one
British headquartered multinational deprived Zambia of a sum 14
times larger than the UK aid provided to the country to combat
hunger and food insecurity.
Chris Jordan, a tax specialist at ActionAid and co-author of the
report, said: “This is a really shocking case where the Associated
British Foods group has gone to great lengths to ensure it pays
virtually no corporation tax in a very poor country. Tax avoidance
is not victimless financial engineering. In Zambia 45% of children
are malnourished and two-thirds of the population live on less
than $2 a day.” (ref: 40)
Worst ECRA rating for likely use of tax avoidance
strategies (November 2013)
In November 2013 Ethical Consumer viewed the Wittington
Investments Ltd family tree on the corporate website Hoovers.
com. This listed a number of subsidiaries Ethical Consumer
to be considered at high risk of being used for tax avoidance
purposes due to the company type and the fact that they were
located in jurisdictions considered by Ethical Consumer to be
tax havens..
These included three holding companies in Luxembourg,
investment companies in Luxembourg and Jersey and several
business service subsidairies in Jersey and Guernsey. Wittington
Investments receieved Ethical Consumer’s worst rating for likely
use of tax avoidance strategies due to the fact it had two or more
high risk subsidaries based in tax havens. (ref: 18)
Excessive directors’ pay (November 2013)
Associated British Food’s 2013 Annual Report was downloaded
from the company’s website, www.abf.co.uk. The reported
stated that executive director George Weston received a total of
£2,181,000 in remuneration in 2013, and John Bason £1,441,000
13
in 2013. Ethical Consumer considered remuneration above one
million pounds to be excessive. (ref: 32)
Product sustainability (+ve)
Organic Product (+ve)
Fairtrade and Organic certified (November 2013)
According to Twining’s website, www.shop.twinings.co.uk,
viewed by Ethical Consumer in November 2013, Twinings
produced a Fairtrade and Organic certified tea, - Fairtrade
Breakfast Tea. (ref: 41)
Fairtrade Product (+ve)
(See also ‘Fairtrade and Organic certified’ in Organic
Product (+ve) above.)
Lyons tea [S]
Owned by Unilever
Unilever, Unilever House, 100 Victoria Embankment, London,
EC4Y 0DY, United Kingdom
Unilever is owned by Unilever PLC (50%)
Unilever PLC, Unilever House, 100 Victoria Embankment,
London, EC4Y 0DY, UK
Unilever is also owned by Unilever N.V. (50%)
owned by Stichting Administratiekantoor Unilever
N.V. (50%)
Stichting Administratiekantoor Unilever N.V., Claude Debussylaan
24, Amsterdam, 1082 MD, The Netherlands
Unilever PLC also owns PG Tips tea [S]
Environment
Environmental Reporting
Best ECRA rating for environmental report (2013)
The Unilever Sustainable Living Plan 2012 was downloaded from
the company’s website www.unilever.com in November 2013. The
report discussed the following of the company’s environmental
impacts: greenhouse gases, water, waste, sustainable sourcing of
raw materials. The company had set targets to train small holder
farmers in sustainable practices and had set targets for each raw
material it sourced such as sugar or tea.
The report contained several quantified targets for 2020 including
to source 100% of agricultural raw materials sustainably by
2020.
Selected performance data was independently assured by
PricewaterhouseCoopers.
Unilever received Ethical Consumer’s best rating for
environmental reporting. (ref: 34)
Climate Change
Rated “fair” by Oxfams Behind the Brands scorecard
(September 2013)
In September 2013 Ethical Consumer viewed the most recent
“Behind the brand” scorecard produced by Oxfam as part of its
GROW campaign which sought to evaluate the world’s top 10
most powerful food and beverage companies. The campaign
aimed to challenge the companies to begin a “race to the top” to
improve their social and environmental performance.
Unilever was ranked 2nd out of 10 companies in the scorecard.
The company was rated in seven areas and marked out of ten
for each area.
According to the report Unilever scored:
3/10 for its land policies - Unilever needed to explicitly commit
to addressing land disputes within its supply chain.
4/10 for policies on women - Unilever needed to understand
14
where women were most vulnerable within its supply chain.
7/10 for policies on farmers: Unilever needed to treat farmers
more fairly.
7/10 for policies regarding workers: Unilever needed to ensure
suppliers were implementing key labour rights.
6/10 for policies on climate change: Unilver needed to help
farmers respond to climate change.
6/10 for transparency: Unilever needed to be more transparent
about its suppliers.
6/10 on water: Unilever needed to set a target for reduction of
water use through its supply chain.
Due to the fact Unilever had not received best in any of the
categories it lost marks in Ethical Consumer’s climate change,
human rights and workers rights categories. (ref: 17)
Pollution & Toxics
Fined for Polluting California Air With Deodorant Spray
(February 2010)
According to an article posted on the Environmental News
Service website, www.ens.newswire.com, a fragrant personal care
spray, sold by Conopco (a subsidairy of Unilever) and designed
to make men appear to be free of unpleasant body odour, polluted
California air to the degree that the state fined the company
more than $1 million. The California Air Resources Board
penalised the company $1.3 million for illegal consumer sales of
AXE Deodorant Bodyspray for Men. An Air Resources Board
spokesman said that the deodorant spray contaminated California
air with the volatile organic compounds used as a propellant and
went on to say deodorant sprays sold in California had a very
small specific level of volatile organic compounds (VOCS) that
they were permitted to emit and this product exceeded that level.
Between 2006 and 2008, Conopco, sold, supplied and offered for
sale in California more than 2.8 million units of deodorant body
spray that failed to meet the state’s clean air standards for aerosol
deodorants. According to the Air Resources Board Enforcement
Chief James Ryden, “Consumer products, because of their
pervasive use, contribute a growing portion of VOC emissions
throughout California. Therefore, it’s important that every can
and bottle of product be compliant with ARB’s standards.” The
violations resulted in what the Board called “significant excess
emissions” from volatile organic compounds which contribute to
ground-level ozone, or smog. Exposure to ozone can cause lung
inflammation, impaired breathing, coughing, chest tightness,
shortness of breath and worsening of asthma symptoms. Over
90 percent of Californians were said to still breathe unhealthy
air at some time during the year. (ref: 35)
Shares in Vedanta (2009)
The Ecologist published an article on its website, www.ecologist.
org, on 19 June 2009 in which it listed several UK companies which
owned shares in Vedanta Resources plc. Vedanta was behind the
controversial mine in India’s Orissa state which was situated on a
mountain sacred to local people. The company was given the goahead to begin mining for bauxite in May 2009. Campaign groups
had warned that the 600-hectare mine would result in ecological
degradation that would threaten the livelihoods of tribal people.
They said that several villages had been razed to make way for
the construction of a refinery, with up to 100 indigenous families
evicted from their land and relocated to ‘rehabilitation colonies’
where locals claimed they felt as though they were living ‘in a jail’
with little access to land for farming. A nearby bauxite refinery
which was already in existence had been blamed for causing
health problems, damaging crops and killing livestock.
Unilever Pension Fund was listed in the Ecologist as having
shares in Vedanta. (ref: 36)
Products contain triclosan (July 2012)
According to the ‘What’s in our products’ section of the www.
unilever.com website viewed in July 2012, Mentadent P and
Mentadent Sensitive toothpastes both contained triclosan.
Several studies have shown that triclosan disrupts the thyroid
hormone in frogs and rats, while others have shown that triclosan
alters the sex hormones of laboratory animals. Others studies have
shown that triclosan can cause some bacteria to become resistant
to antibiotics. (ref: 37)
Habitats & Resources
(See also ‘Shares in Vedanta’ in Pollution & Toxics above.)
Animals
Animal Testing
Worst ECRA rating for animal testing policy (November
2013)
Unilever’s website, www.unilever.com, was viewed in November
2013 by Ethical Consumer for its animal testing policy.
We found a statement from Unilever:
“Unilever is committed to the elimination of animal testing.
We are equally committed to consumer health and safety, and to
the safety of our workforce and the environment. We do not test
finished products on animals unless demanded by the regulatory
authorities in the few countries where this is the law. In such
cases, we try to convince the local authorities to change the law.
Where some testing of ingredients is required by law or currently
unavoidable, we aim to minimise the number of animals used.”
Due to its use of animal testing and the lack of clarity about
when it was used, for example for medical or cosmetic purposes,
the company received Ethical Consumer’s worst rating in this
category. (ref: 37)
Involved in animal testing not required by law (November
2013)
According to the PETA website viewed in November 2013,
Unilever was listed in a pdf called ‘Companies that test on
animals’ produced by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals
and updated 11/11/13. The companies were on the list because
they have not eliminated tests on animals for their entire line of
cosmetics and household products. (ref: 38)
Animal testing of food for health benefits (June 2013)
The BUAV released findings in June 2013 of research showing
cruel and unnecessary animal tests carried out by some of
the world’s leading food giants, Yakult, Danone, Nestlé and
Unilever.
Animal experiments have been carried out in an attempt to
identify the ‘health benefits’ of certain foods to feed the growing
infatuation with ‘super foods’. The animals subjected to the
experiments uncovered included mice, rats, rabbits and pigs. The
research is recent, having been published in the past two years.
Unilever was named by the BUAV for experiments involving
Hoodia gordonii, a spiny African shrub (which is already used as
a weight management supplement for the treatment of obesity),
rabbits and mice were subjected to a reproductive toxicity test.
Pregnant rabbits and mice were force fed extracts of the plant
throughout their pregnancy for 25 days. The day before the
animals were due to give birth, they and their unborn foetuses
were killed and examined.
Unilever was also named in an experiment in which piglets
were given an extract of Lipton’s tea to see if it could counter
diarrhoea caused by the Ecoli stomach bug. Eight of the monthold animals died, with severe diarrhoea to blame in at least seven
of the cases. (ref: 39)
Factory farming
Sale of intensively farmed meat (2013)
The US website of Unilever brand Bertolli, www.bertolli.com,
listed several frozen meals on sale when viewed in November
2013. Some of these contained meat, and this was not stated to
be free range.
Unilever UK also owns Peperoni, a spicy pork salami and Bovril
beef and chicken extracts plus Knorr stocks. None of these were
listed as containing free range or organic meat. (ref: 40)
Use of non free range eggs (2012)
According to its Sustainable Living Plan 2012, Unilever stated
“We aim to move to 100% cage-free eggs for all our products, where
allowed by local legislation. In Western Europe our Hellmann’s,
Amora and Calvé brands have been 100% cage-free since 2009
and by the end of 2011, 99% of all eggs used in Ben & Jerry’s
ice cream mix worldwide were cage-free. Around one-third of
our mayonnaise portfolio in North America becoming cage-free
by end 2012.”
This suggested that not all its brands were cage free in Western
Europe, not to mention all its products outside of Western Europe
including non-mayonnaise products in North America. (ref: 34)
Use of battery farmed eggs (2011)
According to a press release by the Humane Society of the
United States, dated 23rd August 2006, a campaign had been
launched to ask Ben & Jerry’s to stop using eggs sourced from
battery chicken farms in its ice-cream. The company was said
to have given assurances over the space of a year that it would
switch to free range eggs, but had failed to do so.
In September 2011 the parent company’s website, www.unilever.
com, was searched and the following information on their eggs
sourcing policy was found:
“All Ben & Jerry’s ice cream sold in Europe has used only
cage-free eggs since 2004, and globally, 88.3% of all eggs used
in Ben & Jerry’s production in 2009 were cage-free. In the US
in 2010, all Ben & Jerry’s ice cream sold in pint containers was
made with certified cage-free eggs.”
However, this left some areas of the company’s business which
still used eggs from caged hens. (ref: 41)
Animal Rights
Product containing slaughterhouse by-products (2013)
An Ethical Consumer shop survey, conducted on the 11th
November 2013, found that the product Flora Lighter than Light,
contained pork gelatine, a slaughterhouse by-product. (ref: 42)
(See also ‘Sale of intensively farmed meat’ in Factory
farming above.)
People
Human Rights
Human rights abuses by palm oil supplier (23 August 2011)
On 23rd August 2011 it was reported on the Rainforest Rescue
website, www.rainforest-rescue.org, that the small village of
Sungai Beruang on the Indonesian island of Sumatra had been
stormed by 700 armed soldiers from the notorious special forces
unit Brimob, and the Wilmar Group’s security forces. Wilmar
International was reported to be one of the world’s biggest palm
oil companies and one of the major suppliers to Unilever, one of
the world’s biggest palm oil processors, which used palm oil it
in almost all of it’s products. The raid on Sungai Beruang was
reported to result in hundreds of people fleeing “to escape the
guns and bulldozers” and much of the village being destroyed. 40
people from the ethnic group of the Suku Anak Dalam, which had
lived in the area for generations, were reported to be missing.
Rainforest Rescue was calling on supporters to contact Unilever
and request that they reconsider their collaboration with Wilmar
15
and replace the palm oil in its products with native fats. (ref:
43)
(See also ‘Rated “fair” by Oxfams Behind the Brands
scorecard’ in Climate Change above.)
(See also ‘Shares in Vedanta’ in Pollution & Toxics above.)
Workers’ Rights
Workers rights issues at factory in Vietnam (January 2013)
A report by Oxfam in January 2013 revealed evidence of poor
labour practices in Unilever’s operations in Vietnam between
2011 and 2012.
The in-depth review by Oxfam of one of Unilever’s Vietnam
Factories showed that:
• Wages were insufficient to make savings or support dependants,
with instances of workers unable to eat adequate diets or afford
to keep children in school.
• Suppliers and managers unclear about Unilever’s codes of
conduct, in some cases only accessible in English.
• Workers were too scared to voice grievances or engage in
freedom of association.
• Factory workers employed by a third party were on much
poorer terms and conditions.
• Suppliers with employees working illegal overtime hours.
Oxfam researchers were given access to the factory at Cu Chi,
near Ho Chi Minh city, where 700 workers were directly employed
by Unilever and 800 more were employed by Thang Loi, a third
party labour provider. Managers and workers were interviewed
on site and off site; 48 suppliers were also interviewed, with
three selected for in-depth research. The results, published with
the approval of Unilever, showed the company fell short of the
standards it set for itself.
Although the study found that wages paid by Unilever were in
excess of the national minimum wage (approximately £45 per
month in 2011) and the international poverty line of $2 (£1.20)
per day, wages still did not meet the basic needs of employees
and their families.
The minimum wage itself, said the report, “lags behind a
rapidly-rising cost of living ... meeting only 40% to 46% of
workers’ minimum expenses per month.” Of workers in the Cu
Chi factory, 80% said they needed another source of income to
feed their families. One worker recounted having to take two
of her three children out of school to work as a consequence of
inadequate pay.
Any such labour issues could be dealt with by a grievance
hotline or the trade union. However, neither were used nor trusted.
There was only one state-run trade union in Vietnam, and it was
dominated by senior managers. Similarly, the workers feared that
the grievance hotline would simply go straight to the management
and put their job at risk. “We dare not raise our voice through the
union leaders because they are paid by the company, they are the
company’s people,” said one worker.
Conditions for those employed temporarily, by a third party, or
by suppliers, were even worse. Globally, the number of people
directly employed by Unilever decreased by nearly a half (45%)
from 295,000 employees to 164,000 between 2000 and 2009.
However, the report states: “The work of 131,000 people did not
disappear. According to Unilever, in 2009 this work was being
done instead by 86,000 people that were outsourced and/or under
temporary contracts.”
In the Cu Chi factory, 748 of the 1,539 workers (53%) were
employed by a third party, Thang Loi – mostly migrants living
in rented accommodation, paid just above minimum wage (only
with cash benefits and overtime did this rise above the local
average urban income).
16
Among suppliers outside the factory, 20 of the 48 interviewed
said Unilever’s supplier code (which required at a bare minimum
an adherence to local laws) had never been mentioned. At one
supplier, employees worked four hours’ overtime a day, six days
a week, for 10 months: well in excess of a legal national limit of
200 hours a year. Another said that offering excessive overtime
gave it a competitive advantage.
Unilever said it was disappointed by the outcome of the Oxfam
report and the problems stemmed from the assumption that
regional operations would follow its global CSR standards. It
stated that it would work with its factory in Vietnam to change
the way it works.
However, it was pointed out that Vietnam was just one case
study and that the company had a presence in over 100 countries,
directly employing 171,000 employees. Nearly 55% of its business
was in emerging markets.
Unilever stated that it would welcome Oxfam back to the factory
in two years time to assess improvements made. (ref: 44)
Child labour likely in vanilla supply chain (May 2011)
In May 2011 Dutch sustainable development NGO SOMO
published an overview of Unilever’s controversial business
practices that occurred in 2010. It focussed on Unilever’s use of
vanilla from Madagascar in its ice cream. Vanilla production is
plagued by child labour and unsustainable farm gate prices. Two
thirds of EU vanilla imports come from Madagascar.
There were 80,000 smallholder, family-run vanilla farms in
Madagascar. In 2008, growers were getting 6.6% of the export
price. In 2010 it was reported that growers were earning a dollar
a day. 97,000 children aged 5-17 were economically active in
Sava, a region of Madagascar responsible for the vast majority
of vanilla production.
On the subject of child labour, Unilever responded by saying
that it was satisfied that its suppliers were not sourcing from
producers that resort to child labour. It made no comment on low
farm income despite the fact that it sourced 8% of Madagascar’s
vanilla. Low farm income was related to child labour because
vanilla prices had plummeted, so growers were forced to rely on
their children for unpaid work in the fields.
However, the report stated that the ethical standards of Unilever’s
(first tier) suppliers were not effective because they could monitor
the work of farmers further down the chain. 6,000 individual
farmers might be indirectly supplying Unilever.
SOMO concludes that Unilever was not taking enough
responsibility for addressing both these issues, despite Unilever’s
awareness of the problems in its vanilla supply chain and its
influence as a major client. It was noted that it had committed too
sourcing Fairtrade vanilla for the minority share of its ice cream
(Ben & Jerry’s) by 2013 whilst failing to address responsible
sourcing for the majority of its ice cream. (ref: 45)
Sexual Harassment at Kericho tea plantation (August
2012)
In February 2012 the School of International and Public Affairs,
Columbia University, published a report entitled “Allegations of
sexual harassment and abuse in Unilever’s Kericho plantation,
Kenya: A case study of due diligence and certification processes”.
Unilever was criticized for not showing due diligence in its
response to allegations of sexual harassment and abuse of female
workers by their male supervisors at its Kericho tea plantation in
Kenya. The report claimed that “sexual harassment and coercive
sex [are] absolutely standard for all women under forty”. The
paper concludes that “on many dimensions the company took a
defensive rather than proactive approach to the allegations, thereby
falling short of its own commitments to due diligence.”
The report also criticized Unilever for forcing female employees
to take pregnancy tests, which Ethical Consumer considered to
be a discriminatory practice.
Difficult issues (poor)
Unilever published a response to the study, dated 17 April 2012,
written by Rachel Cowburn-Walden. This response argued that
the claims of sexual harassment had not been proven. However,
it also highlighted that Unilever had rolled out a human rights
training programme and appointed a welfare manager at the
Kericho plantation. (ref: 46)
No discussion was found on Unilevers website about working
towards payment of a living wage, homeworkers, and freedom
of association or problems with audit fraud or training for buying
agents on labour standards therefore the company received a poor
rating in this category.
Supply Chain Management
Overall Unilever received Ethical Consumer’s worst rating for
supply chain management. (ref: 47)
Worst ECRA rating for supply chain management
(October 2013)
Unilever was sent a questionnaire in October 2013 requesting
information on its supply chain management. No response was
received. Ethical Consumer searched Unilever’s website, www.
unilever.com, and found Unilever’s Supplier Code and set of
guidelines.
Supply chain policy (poor)
The Supplier Code had adequate provisions for child and
forced labour. It stated that freedom of association, hours and
wages should in be accordance with local laws, it did not state
an upper limit on hours work. Ethical Consumer considered
these provisions inadequate. There was no statement defining
the width and depth the code applied to within its supply chain
and there was no provisions relating to employment being free
from discrimination. Therefore Unilever was considered to have
a poor supply chain policy.
Stakeholder engagement (poor)
A search of Unilever’s website found no evidence of its
involvement in multi-stakeholder initiatives or NGOs / NFPs
in working to improve workers rights within its supply chain.
The company appeared to be members of several business-led
initiatives working on improving workers rights within supply
chains including the Global Social Compliance Programme
(GSCP) and AIM-PROGRESS.
There was a confidential ethics hotline but this appeared to be
for reporting non-compliance with Business Code Principles.
Due to the lack of stakeholder engagement the company received
a poor rating.
Auditing and reporting (poor)
A search of Unilever’s website found there was no evidence of
a schedule of audits for its whole supply chain or disclosure of
results of any audits completed. There was no commitment to
audit its whole supply chain.
Its website stated “Based on our assessment of supplier risk,
we may request further verification from suppliers in the form
of self-assessments and audits to verify that their operational
practices meet our Supplier Code requirements”. It continued
by stating that if practices did not meet its requirements then
suppliers would need to take action to achieve compliance.
Unilever said it was a continuous process but said in cases of
non-cooperation or final non-compliance, it would cease doing
business with that supplier.
It said that it engaged with other industry peers to “deploy a
common approach to supplier assessments that is recognised
across our industry...This facilitates a process where suppliers
can confidentially share their audit reports on the principle that
‘an audit for one is an audit for all’. This reduces unnecessary
duplication and complexity and accelerates the process of assessing
suppliers”. There was no mention of costs. Unilever was considered
to have a poor rating for auditing and reporting.
Politics
Genetic Engineering
Pro GM policy statement (November 2013)
In November 2013 Ethical Consumer searched the Unilever
website for the company’s policy on the use of GM ingredients.
The following position statement was found on its website; “We
support the responsible use of biotechnology within the framework
of effective regulatory control and provision of information about
its use. The use of this technology to improve food crops can
bring important benefits to mankind and individual applications
should be judged on their merits.
“We acknowledge that the public’s view of biotechnology, such
as the use of GM ingredients in foods, is still evolving and that
the debate and public acceptance is at different stages in different
regions of the world.
“Our companies are free to use ingredients derived from modified
crops, which have been approved by the regulatory authorities and
which meet our own standards for quality and acceptability.
“The decision whether or not such ingredients will be used is made
at local or regional level, taking into account public perception,
national legislation, availability and costs of alternatives and
attitudes of our customers, including the retail trade.” (ref: 40)
Political Activities
Member of WEF (July 2013)
Unilever was listed as a strategic partner of the World Economic
Forum, on its website www.weforum.org viewed by Ethical
Consumer in July 2013. The World Economic Forum was a lobby
group which campaigned for greater economic liberalisation
and deregulation. ECRA defined the World Economic Forum
as a corporate lobby group which lobbied for free trade at the
expense of the environment, animal welfare, human rights or
health protection. (ref: 48)
Member of four lobby groups (2011)
According to the Unilever website, www.unilever.com, viewed
in 2011, the company was a member of the follwing lobby groups;
the European Round Table of Industrialists (ERT), the International
Chamber of Commerce (ICC), TransAtlantic Business Dialogue
(TABD), the World Business Council for Sustainable Development
(WBCSD) and the World Economic Forum (WEF). (ref: 40)
Anti-Social Finance
Worst ECRA rating for likely use of tax avoidance
strategies (November 2013)
In November 2013 Ethical Consumer viewed the Unilever family
tree on the corporate website Hoovers.com. This listed a number
of subsidiaries Ethical Consumer to be considered at high risk of
being used for tax avoidance purposes due to the company type
and the fact that they were located in jurisdictions considered by
Ethical Consumer to be tax havens.
These included a management, a holding and security brokers
and dealers subsidiaries based in Switzerland plus an advertising
company based in the Channel Islands.
Based on this evidence Unilever was considered likely to be
using tax avoidance strategies and received Ethical Consumer’s
worst rating in this category. (ref: 33)
17
Excessive directors’ pay (2012)
According to Unilever’s 2012 Annual Report, in 2012 the CEO
was paid £6,030,000 and the CFO was paid £3,878,000.
Ethical Consumer regarded payments of over £1 million as
excessive. (ref: 49)
Criticised by ActionAid for having subsidiaries in tax
havens (October 2011)
ActionAid published a FTSE 100 Tax Haven Tracker in October
2011 which tracked how many of the subsidiaries of the FTSE
100 companies were in tax havens. It uncovered that Unilever
had 696 subsidiaries, 34% of which were in developing countries
and 26% of which were in tax havens.
According to ActionAid corporate tax avoidance, one of the
main reasons companies use tax havens, was having a massive
impact on rich and poor countries alike. Developing countries,
it said currently lose three times more to tax havens than they
receive in aid each year. Chris Jordan, ActionAid’s tax justice
expert said: “ActionAid’s research showing the use of tax havens
by Britain’s biggest companies raises serious questions they
need to answer. Tax havens have a damaging impact on the UK
exchequer, the stability of the international financial system,
and vitally on the ability of developing countries to raise tax
revenues which would lift them out of poverty and make them
less dependent on aid.”
The use of tax havens facilitates tax avoidance and evasion,
which undermines the revenue bases of both developing and
developed countries. Additional revenues are urgently needed
both to invest in the fight against poverty and to tackle the deficits
incurred during the financial crisis in rich countries. Chris Jordan
continued: “When multinationals use tax havens to avoid paying
their fair share, ordinary people in both poor and rich countries
are left to pick up the bill. Spending on doctors, nurses and other
essential services gets cut for those who need it most. Tax havens
might provide the lure of financial secrecy and low tax rates for
big companies, but at a time when all countries are desperate for
revenues, the UK government can’t afford to turn a blind eye.”
ActionAid was calling on the government to urgently rethink its
current proposals to relax UK anti tax haven rules. The Treasury
itself estimated these changes would result in an £840 million
tax break for multinational companies that used tax havens. With
both developing and developed countries bearing the brunt of
debilitating losses, ActionAid said the UK must ensure the G20
takes the decisive action it promised on tax havens at the London
summit in 2009. (ref: 50)
certified organic by the Soil Association and the USDA. As the
company had a turnover of less than £8m and was providing an
environmental alternative it received Ethical Consumer’s best
rating for environmental reporting. (ref: 51)
People
Supply Chain Management
Best ECRA rating for supply chain management
(November 2013)
In November 2013 a questionnaire was sent to Pukka Herbs
asking for its supply chain policy. Ethical Consumer received
no reply. A search was made of Pukka Herbs website, www.
pukkaherbs.com, for the company’s supply chain policy. No
supply chain policy was found. The company sold products
ranging from skincare creams to tea. Most of the products had
been certified organic by the Soil Association, it also sold some
Fairtrade certified teas. The Soil Association certification scheme
included some provisions for workers rights.
Pukka Herbs received Ethical Consumer’s best rating for supply
chain policy due to the fact it had an effective if not explicit
practice and a turnover of less than £8m. (ref: 51)
Politics
Company Ethos (+ve)
All organic products (November 2013)
In November 2013, Ethical Consumer viewed Pukka Herbs
website, www.pukkaherbs.co.uk, which stated that “all our herbs
and products are certified organic by the Soil Association and the
USDA”. (ref: 51)
Product sustainability (+ve)
Organic Product (+ve)
Organic and Fairtrade (November 2013)
Ethical Consumer viewed Pukka herbs website in November
2013 and found that it sold teas certified by the Soil Association
and Fairtrade Foundation - black teas, green teas, chai and
Morning Time. (ref: 51)
Fairtrade Product (+ve)
(See also ‘Organic and Fairtrade’ in Organic Product (+ve)
above.)
Punjana tea (including loose)
Owned by Punjana Ltd
Product sustainability (+ve)
Environment
Other Sustainability Features (+ve)
Environmental Reporting
Rainforest Alliance (November 2013)
According to the Unilever website viewed in November 2013,
its Lyons tea was all to be Rainforest certified by the end of
2012. (ref: 47)
Worst ECRA rating for environmental reporting
(November 2013)
In November 2013 a questionnaire was sent to Punjana Ltd
asking for its environmental report. Ethical Consumer received no
reply. A search was made of Punjana Ltd website, www.punjana.
com, for the company’s environmental report. No environmental
report was found. Punjana Ltd received Ethical Consumer’s
worst rating for environmental reporting due to the fact it had a
turnover of over £8 million and had no environmental report or
information available on its website. (ref: 52)
Pukka Herbs teas [O,F]
Owned by Pukka Herbs
Environment
Environmental Reporting
Best ECRA rating for environmental reporting (November
2013)
In November 2013 a questionnaire was sent to Pukka Herbs
asking for its environmental report. Ethical Consumer received
no reply. A search was made of Pukka Herbs website, www.
pukkaherbs.com, for the company’s environmental report. The
company’s website stated that all of its herbs and porducts were
18
People
Supply Chain Management
Worst ECRA rating for supply chain management
(November 2013)
In November 2013 a questionnaire was sent to Punjana Ltd
asking for its supply chain policy. Ethical Consumer received no
reply. A search was made of Punjana’s website, www.punjana.
com, for the company’s supply chain policy.
A statement was found which stated “As always, great care is
taken to source these teas and herbs from the finest producers
in the world, and from growers who share our ideals in treating
workers fairly, and giving regard to proper wages, healthcare and
education”. There was also a paged called “Ethical Sourcing”
which explained that health care, education and housing was
provided on its estates. It also stated that its tea pickers were “paid
more for their tea leaves than most other leading tea brands”.
As a company with a turnover of more than £8million Ethical
Consumer expected Punjana Ltd to have a more rigorous supply
chain policy and there received a worst rating in this category.
(ref: 52)
Steenbergs organic and FT tea
[F,O]
Owned by Steenbergs Organic
Steenbergs Organic, Steenbergs Limited, 6 Hallikeld Close, Barker
Business Park, Melmerby, Ripon, HG4 5GZ, United Kingdom
Environment
Environmental Reporting
Best ECRA rating for Environmental Reporting
(November 2013)
In November 2013 a questionnaire was sent to Steenbergs
Organic asking for its environmental report. Ethical Consumer
received no reply. A search was made of Steenbergs Organic
website, www.steenbergsorganic.net, for the company’s
environmental report. An environmental policy was found which
included four aims:
1. To strive for zero environmental impact from our business
now
2. To be organic in all we do
3. To think about the environmental impact of the ways in
which we work, then to strive for the best practical environmental
option
4. Good packaging
The company also had information on sourcing, transport &
travel, packaging & waste, energy & IT, building, and carbon
costs. Steenbergs demonstrated excellent understanding of its
main environmental impacts.
It stated: “Our environmental principles are deeply held, so
the factory incorporates many eco-features, including low water
usage toilets, 100% green energy, solar tubes, natural linoleum,
carbon neutral carpet tiles and phone services from an ethical
phone co-operative.
Steenbergs offsets its excess carbon footprint, including all
transport in, staff travel (to and from work) and transport outwards
through Climatecare. We believe that we are one of the only UK
food businesses that already has a zero carbon footprint, and we
have been so since 2006. There’s still more to be done, but we’re
working on this - more recycling, better packaging and solar
heating are all being addressed.”
Due to the fact the company had a turnover of less than £8 million
and was providing an environmental alternative it received Ethical
Consumer’s best rating for environmental reporting. (ref: 53)
Animals
Animal Rights
Sells pet food (November 2013)
In November 2013 Ethical Consumer viewed Steenbergs website,
www.steenbergs.co.uk, and found that the company sold organic
pet food. While organic pet food addressed factory farming issues,
it was still a product containing animal which Ethical Consumer
considered to be an animal rights issues. The company therefore
lost a whole mark in this category. (ref: 54)
People
Supply Chain Management
Best ECRA rating for Supply Chain Management
(November 2013)
In November 2013 a questionnaire was sent to Steenbergs
Organic asking for its supply chain policy. Ethical Consumer
received no reply. A search was made of Steenbergs Organic
two websites, www.steenbergsorganic.net and www.steenbergs.
co.uk, for the company’s supply chain policy. An ethical policy
was located which included adequate clauses on prohibiting
forced labour, freedom of association, and employment free
from discrimination. The clause on child labour was considered
inadequate due to the fact “child” was not defined in accordance
with International Labour Organisation’s (ILO) definition. The
clauses on working hours and living wages were also considered
inadequate due to the fact they were only required to meet local
or national laws. However since its establishment in 2003 the
company was registered with FLO-Cert GmbH and The Fairtrade
Foundation to trade in and sell Fairtrade tea products, it was also
one of the few businesses to be registered to trade in and sell
Fairtrade spices and herbs. According to its website over 80% of
its raw material purchased were organic and much of it Fairtrade
as well. Due to the fact the company was considered to be a
small company with a turnover of less than £8million and had
an effective if not explicit policy it received Ethical Consumer’s
best rating for supply chain management. (ref: 53)
Product sustainability (+ve)
Organic Product (+ve)
Sustainability features (November 2013)
In November 2013 Ethical Consumer viewed Steenbergs
website, www.steenbergs.co.uk, and found that the company sold
Fairtrade and Organic tea - green tea, Darjeeling, Assam, Earl
Grey, Peace Tea. (ref: 54)
Fairtrade Product (+ve)
(See also ‘Sustainability features’ in Organic Product (+ve)
above.)
Traidcraft tea [F]
Owned by Traidcraft plc
Traidcraft plc, Media Officer, Kingsway, Gateshead, Tyne and
Wear, NE11 0NE, UK
Traidcraft plc is owned by Traidcraft Foundation (51%)
Environment
Environmental Reporting
Middle ECRA rating for environmental reporting
(November 2013)
In November 2013 Ethical Consumer viewed Traidcraft Plc’s
Annual Impact and Performance Report 2013 which included a
segment on environmental performance. It stated that Traidcraft’s
“respects all people and the environment”, and promoting
environmental responsibility had long been a dimension of its work.
It stated that it recognised the challenges faced with development
work and environmental impacts of its activites.
The report included dated and quantified targets on carbon,
airfrieght, gas / electricity usage, packaging, waste, sales materials,
office paper, staff travel and climate change. The report also
19
included some discussions around each of the targets and stated
how targets were being met.
This was all seen as very positive by Ethical Consumer. However
the report did not appear to have been independently verified
which Ethical Consumer would expect for a company to receive
a best rating.
Traidcraft had a turnover of £13m which was above the
level for which an exemption is applied in the environmental
reporting category for companies engaged in providing social
and environmental alternatives as Traidcraft is.
Traidcraft was awarded Ethical Consumer’s middle rating for
its environmental reporting. (ref: 73)
Animals
Animal Rights
Sale of leather (November 2013)
In November 2013 Ethical Consumer viewed Traidcrafts shop
online and found that it sold some products made from leather.
Ethical Consumer downloaded the company’s Purchasing Policy
2012 which stated:
“Traidcraft believes in the desirability of good welfare practices
in the production of raw materials of animal origin (e.g. leather,
bone, hair, silk, honey). In partnership with suppliers, Traidcraft
will seek to use materials from sources that achieve good practice
in animal welfare. “
Whilst the desirability for good welfare practices was seen as
positive, the fact that the company was engaged in the sale of
slaughterhouse by-products such as leather was seen as an animal
rights issue. (ref: 74)
People
Human Rights
Fairtrade company operating in oppressive regimes
(November 2013)
In November 2013 Ethical Consumer viewed Traidcrafts
Development Reveiw 2013. It stated that the company worked in
Sri Lanka, Vietnam, India, Thailand and Bangladesh. Each country
was on Ethical Consumer’s oppressive regimes list at the time of
writing. However as the company only produced fair trade products
it was considered to have a positive impact on communities and
did not receive any marks against it. (ref: 74)
Palm oil policy (February 2013)
Traidcraft responded to an information request from Ethical
Consumer for its palm oil policy in February 2013 with the
following information:
“Traidcraft understand and share the concerns regarding the use
of palm oil in food products both from a health perspective and
also from a wider environmental perspective .
From the perspective of health - Historically, palm oil
was introduced into many food products as an alternative to
hydrogenated fats when this became a big health issue several years
ago. It is a functional ingredient and it is not always possible to
find an alternative. We are replacing or reducing palm oil in our
products as far as we can. An example of this is the 2012 re-launch
of Geobar where palm oil was replaced by sunflower oil.
From the perspective of environmental concerns - We use
certified sustainable palm oil in our products acknowledging that
for small quantities and derivative palm oil products the purchase
of Green Palm certificates is often the only option, being bound
by the policies and constraints of our manufacturers. We also
acknowledge that often the reputation of palm oil is unfairly
tarnished by the actions of large multi nationals in the far east
20
and largely the reason why we are asked to explain our policy.
Small holders in West Africa, for example, often grow, process
and supply palm oil in a sustainable manner and we would prefer
to focus on these supply chains, actively seeking to develop and
switch to Fair Trade supply chains over time.”
Ethical Consumer considered this a positive and well thought
out position on palm oil and Traidcraft did not lose marks for the
climate change, habitats and resources and human rights impacts
associated with palm oil production as a result. (ref: 75)
Supply Chain Management
Best ECRA rating for supply chain management
(November 2013)
A search was made of the Traidcraft website, traidcraft.co.uk,
in November 2013. As all the company’s products were Fairtrade
certified, the company received Ethical Consumer’s best rating
for supply chain management. (ref: 76)
Politics
Company Ethos (+ve)
Fairtrade company (November 2013)
A search was made of the Traidcraft website, traidcraft.co.uk, in
November 2013. As all the company’s products were Fairtrade,
the company received a positive mark in Ethical Consumer’s
Company Ethos category. (ref: 76)
Product sustainability (+ve)
Fairtrade Product (+ve)
Fairtrade certification (November 2013)
In November 2013, Ethical Consumer viewed Traidcraft’s
website which sold tea that was certified by the Fairtrade
Foundation. (ref: 76)
Yogi Tea green tea [O]
Owned by Yogi Tea GmbH
Yogi Tea GmbH, Burchardstraße 24, D-20059 Hamburg,
Germany
Yogi Tea GmbH is owned by Kit Holding BV
owned by Siri Singh Sahib Corp
owned by Sikh Dharma International
Sikh Dharma International, 2545 Praire Road, Eugene, Oregon,
97402-970, USA
Environment
Environmental Reporting
Worst ECRA rating for environmental reporting
(November 2013)
Yogi Tea’s website, www.yogiproducts.com, was searched
by ECRA for an environmental policy in November 2013. The
website stated that “YOGI TEA® was committed to providing
the highest quality ingredients while also protecting the earth’s
natural resources. The herbs and spices used in their teas were
grown in controlled organic environments wherever possible. The
website discussed the broader environmental benefits of organic
farming. Yogi tea was packaged in 100% recycled paperboard
and was shipped in cases made of 100% recycled cardboard. Yogi
Tea printed all of its packaging with environmentally-friendly,
vegetable-based inks.
However, no further information regarding an environmental
policy, the organisation’s key environmental impacts and future
reduction targets could be found. Yogi Tea therefore received
Ethical Consumer’s worst rating for environmental reporting.
(ref: 77)
People
Jacksons of Piccadilly teas [F]
Supply Chain Management
See Jacksons of Piccadilly Limited above
Worst ECRA rating for supply chain management
(November 2013)
Yogi Tea’s website, www.yogiproducts.com, was searched
by ECRA for a supply chain management policy in November
2013. No information could be found. Yogi Tea therefore
received Ethical Consumer’s worst rating for its supply chain
management. (ref: 77)
See Typhoo Tea Ltd above
Arms & Military Supply
See Typhoo Tea Ltd above
Own US contract security firm (November 2013)
According to an article on the www.sikhnn.org website, viewed
by ECRA in November 2013, Akal Security was owned by Sikh
Dharma International. According to Akal Security’s website,
www.akalsecurity.com, Akal Security was one of the largest
contract security companies in the United States and specialised
in providing security for critical federal government facilities,
state and local government agencies and military installations.
Akal’s capabilities included the design, installation, and integration
of electronic security, surveillance and access control systems.
(ref: 78)
Politics
Company Ethos (+ve)
All products are organic (November 2013)
Yogi Tea’s website, www.yogiproducts.com, was viewed by
ECRA in November 2013. It stated that all 70 of the company’s
herbs and spices were 100% organically grown. (ref: 77)
Product sustainability (+ve)
Organic Product (+ve)
Lift Instant Tea
Melrose’s Tea
PG Tips tea [S]
See Unilever above
Punjana tea [FT]
See Punjana Ltd above
Ridgways organic tea [O]
See Typhoo Tea Ltd above
Ridgways tea (F)
See Typhoo Tea Ltd above
Steenbergs organic tea [O]
See Steenbergs Organic above
Taylors of Harrogate Teas
Organic (2013)
According to the company website www.yogitea.eu, viewed
by ECRA in November 2013, Yogi Teas were certified organic.
(ref: 79)
See Bettys & Taylors Group Ltd above
Clipper Fairtrade tea [F]
See Teapigs Ltd above
Clipper organic tea [O]
See Teapigs Ltd above
Clipper tea
See Teapigs Ltd above
Dragonfly organic teas [O]
See Punjana Ltd above
Glengettie Tea
See Punjana Ltd above
Teapigs tea
See Clipper Teas Ltd above
Tetley Original tea [S]
See Clipper Teas Ltd above
Tetley tea
See Clipper Teas Ltd above
Thompson’s organic green tea [O]
See Tea Times Holding Ltd above
Thompson’s Tea
See Typhoo Tea Ltd above
Heath & Heather organic tea [O]
See Typhoo Tea Ltd above
Heath & Heather teas
See Typhoo Tea Ltd above
Twinings Fairtrade Breakfast tea
[O,F]
See Jacksons of Piccadilly Limited above
Twinings organic tea [O]
See Jacksons of Piccadilly Limited above
21
Twinings tea
See Jacksons of Piccadilly Limited above
Typhoo QT instant
See Typhoo Tea Ltd above
Typhoo tea [S]
See Typhoo Tea Ltd above
Yorkshire Tea
See Bettys & Taylors Group Ltd above
References
1 - Cafédirect Corporate Communications:Annual Report (2012)
(1335096)
2 - Cafédirect Corporate Communications:http://www.cafedirect.
co.uk (5 November 2013) (1335196)
3 - Cafédirect Corporate Communications:www.cafedirect.co.uk
(8 January 2008) (518993)
4 - Clearspring Ltd Corporate Communications:www.clearspring.
co.uk (5 November 2013) (1335225)
5 - Clipper Teas Ltd Corporate Communications:www.clipperteas.com (7 January 2008) (518897)
6 - Koninklijke Wessanen nv (AKA Royal Wessanen) Corporate
Communications:www.wessanen.com (25 January 2013)
(1328069)
7 - Clipper Teas Ltd Corporate Communications:http://www.
clipper-teas.com (5 November 2013) (1335195)
8 - Tea Times Holding Ltd Corporate Communications:http://
www.dragonfly-teas.com (12 November 2013) (1335507)
9 - Hampstead Tea & Coffee Co Ltd Corporate Communications:
http://www.hampsteadtea.com (12 November 2013)
(1335496)
10 - Apeejay Surrendra Group Corporate Communications:www.
apeejaygroup.com (13 November 2013) (1335610)
11 - Apeejay Surrendra Group Corporate Communications:http://
www.apeejaygroup.com (23 October 2013) (1335071)
12 - Hambleden Herbs Corporate Communications:www.
hambledenherbs.com (30 October 2013) (1335179)
13 - Hampstead Tea & Coffee Co Ltd Corporate
Communications:Hampstead representative (12 November
2013) (1335485)
14 - Higher Living Tea Corporate Communications:http://
higherlivingherbs.com (5 November 2013) (1335237)
15 - Jacksons of Piccadilly Limited Corporate Communications:
http://www.jacksonsofpiccadilly.co.uk/ (13 November 2013)
(1335593)
16 - Associated British Foods Plc Corporate
Communications:2013 CSR Report (11 November 2013)
(1335367)
17 - Oxfam International:Behind the Brands (September 2013)
(1334775)
18 - EIRIS News Release:Corporate Ethics Overview
(September 2010) (1327420)
19 - Primark Corporate Communications:www.primark.co.uk (16
July 2011) (558979)
20 - Heal & Son Ltd Corporate Communications:www.heals.
co.uk (7 March 2011) (552411)
21 - Viva! Web Site - www.viva.org.uk:The shocking secrets
behind the trade in ‘novelty’ reindeer meat (15 January
2013) (1327508)
22 - Associated British Foods Plc Corporate Communications:
Ethical Standards for Products (11 November 2013)
(1335396)
23 - British Sugar plc Corporate Communications:www.
britishsugar.co.uk (8 January 2009) (529995)
24 - George Weston Foods Corporate Communications:www.
georgewestonfoods.com.au (24 August 2011) (561132)
22
25 - PETA websites www.peta.org www.stopanimaltests.
com www.iamscruelty.com www.askcarla.com:
StopFortnumAndMasonFoieGrasCruelty.com (7 September
2011) (561553)
26 - Associated British Foods Plc Corporate
Communications:2013 Annual Report (11 November 2013)
(1335385)
27 - Clean Clothes Campaign press release:building collapse
(29 April 2013) (1330252)
28 - Labour Behind the Label:Killer Jeans: A Report on
Sandblasted Demin (April 2011) (555902)
29 - Associated British Foods Plc Corporate Communications:
Policy on Genetically Modified (GM) Ingredients (11
November 2013) (1335394)
30 - Spinwatch:Independence of nutritional information? The
British Nutrition Foundation (22 March 2010) (557049)
31 - www.civilsociety.co.uk:Garfield Weston Foundation
censured for links to political donations (1 April 2010)
(552920)
32 - Guardian Unlimited / Guardian website www.guardian.
co.uk:http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/feb/09/zambiasugar-empire-tax (11 February 2013) (1328468)
33 - Hoovers 2013:online commerce page (26 June 2013)
(1331764)
34 - Unilever Corporate Communications:Sustainable Living
Plan 2012 (2012) (1335299)
35 - Environmental News Service www.ens-newswire.com:
Unilever Fined for Polluting California Air With Deodorant
Spray (12 February 2010) (539931)
36 - Ecologist, The (online):UK companies linked to devastating
Indian mine (19 June 2009) (553085)
37 - Unilever Corporate Communications:www.unilever.com (3
July 2012) (1321527)
38 - PETA - Companies that test on animals:CompaniesDoTest.
pdf (22 November 2007) (517163)
39 - BUAV :BUAV condemns cruel animal experiments by
major food companies to prove ‘health benefits’ (21 June 2
(1335304)
40 - Unilever Corporate Communications:www.unilever.com (15
September 2011) (562071)
41 - Humane Society of the United States:Tell Ben & Jerry’s to
help animals (23 August 2006) (301321)
42 - ECRA shop survey:ECRA shop survey (25 November 2008)
(529583)
43 - Rettet den Regenwald eV:The bloody products from the
house of Unilever (23 August 2011) (922979)
44 - Oxfam:Labour Rights in Unilever’s Supply Chain: From
compliance to good practice. An Oxfam study of labour
(1328453)
45 - SOMO Reports:Unilever - overview of controversial
business practices 2010 (May 2011) (564222)
46 - Allegations of sexual harassment and abuse in Unilever’s
Kericho plantation, Kenya:A case study of d:2 August 2012
(1322945)
47 - Unilever Corporate Communications:www.unilever.com (30
October 2013) (1335164)
48 - World Economic Forum website www.weforum.org:July
2013 members list (8 July 2013) (1332303)
49 - Unilever Corporate Communications:Annual Report 2012
(2012) (1335425)
50 - Actionaid:FTSE 100 tax haven tracker (October 2011)
(563594)
51 - Pukka Herbs Corporate Communications:http://www.
pukkaherbs.com (5 November 2013) (1335229)
52 - Punjana Ltd Corporate Communications:www.punjana.com
(5 November 2013) (1335240)
53 - Steenbergs Organic Corporate Communications:http://www.
steenbergsorganic.net/ (5 November 2013) (1335232)
54 - Steenbergs Organic Corporate Communications:http://www.
steenbergs.co.uk (11 November 2013) (1335350)
55 - Bettys & Taylors Group Ltd Corporate Communications:
Environmental Policy (11 November 2013) (1335421)
56 - Bettys & Taylors Group Ltd Corporate Communications:
www.bettysandtaylors.co.uk, (11 November 2013)
(1335427)
57 - Bettys & Taylors Group Ltd Corporate Communications:
Bettys and Taylors Ethical Trading Policy (September 2011)
(1335171)
58 - Taylors of Harrogate Corporate Communications:www.
taylorsofharrogate.co.uk (14 April 2011) (554279)
59 - Tata Global Beverages Corporate Communications:
http://www.tataglobalbeverages.com/ (30 October 2013)
(1335167)
60 - Tata Petrodyne Corporate Communications:http://www.
tatapetrodyne.in (15 November 2013) (1335721)
61 - Financial Express (India):Will look into Tata Group’s JVs
with Singapore Airlines, AirAsia, if required: CCI (16
November 2013 (1335760)
62 - Tata Motors Corporate Communications:68th Annual Report
2012-2013 (2013) (1335715)
63 - Ecologist, The (online):report - Whats in your cuppa (22
June 2011) (556339)
64 - Advinus Therapeutics Corporate Communications:http://
www.advinus.com (12 November 2013) (1335542)
65 - Tata International Corporate Communications:http://www.
tatainternational.com (15 November 2013) (1335708)
66 - Who Profits?:Land Rover (25 June 2013) (1331738)
67 - Accountability Counsel website - http://www.
accountabilitycounsel.org:Tea Plantation Workers Call on
Tata and Tetley to Stop Human Rights Abuses (5 July 2013)
(1332931)
68 - Health & Safety Exec:International chemical firm
prosecuted over multiple incidents (10 April 2013)
(1335676)
69 - Tata Advanced Systems Corporate Communications:http://
www.tataadvancedsystems.com/ (15 November 2013)
(1335678)
70 - International Defence Directory:IDD (2011) (1331630)
71 - forbes.com:India’s Dirty War (10 May 2010) (543979)
72 - Teapigs Ltd Corporate Communications:www.teapigs.co.uk
(15 November 2013) (1335742)
73 - Traidcraft plc Corporate Communications:Traidcraft Impact
Report (2013) (1335969)
74 - Traidcraft plc Corporate Communications:Development
Review (2013) (1335972)
75 - Traidcraft plc Corporate Communications:Palm oil policy (8
February 2013) (1328458)
76 - Traidcraft plc Corporate Communications:www.traidcraft.
co.uk (5 November 2013) (1335204)
77 - Yogi Tea GmbH Corporate Communications:www.
yogiproducts.com (27 November 2013) (1336116)
78 - Sikh Dharma International Corporate Communications:
Ownership ref (October 2012) (1336104)
79 - Yogi Tea GmbH Corporate Communications:www.yogitea.
eu (18 November 2013) (1335809)
23
Herbal, fruit and rooibos tea – The stories
behind the company ratings
Clearspring Mu tea
Owned by Clearspring Ltd
Clearspring Ltd, Unit 19A , Acton Park Industrial Estate, The
Vale, London, W3 7QE
Environment
Environmental Reporting
Best Ethical Consumer rating for environmental reporting
(November 2013)
In November 2013 a questionnaire was sent to Clearspring Ltd
asking for its environmental report. Ethical Consumer received
no reply. A search was made of Clearspring Ltd website, www.
clearspring.co.uk, for the company’s environmental report.
Under a section titled Food, Safety and Environmental Standards,
it said that all of its foods met vegan standards, as certified by
the Vegan Society. The company was also an affiliate member
of IFOAM, the International Federation of Organic Agriculture
Movements. The Clearspring goal was to get organic food back on
the dining table and it sold a number of products certified organic.
Due to the fact the company had a turnover of less than £8m and
was providing an environmental alternative it received Ethical
Consumer’s best rating for environmental reporting. (ref: 1)
People
Supply Chain Management
Best ECRA rating for supply chain management
(November 2013)
In November 2013 a questionnaire was sent to Clearspring Ltd
asking for its supply chain policy. Ethical Consumer received
no reply. A search was made of Clearspring Ltd website, www.
clearspring.co.uk, for the company’s supply chain policy. No
supply chain policy was found. Clearspring sold Japanese and
organic food products and was certified by the Soil Association.
The Soil Association’s organic certfication included some
provisions for workers. Given that Clearsping had a turnover of
less than £8 million and had an effective if not explicit policy
towards addressing workers rights issues within its supply chain
it received Ethical Consumer’s best rating for supply chain
management. (ref: 1)
Clipper Fairtrade & organic tea
[F,O]
Owned by Clipper Teas Ltd
Clipper Teas Ltd, Beaminster Business Park, Broadwindsor Road,
Beaminster, Dorset, DT8 3PR, England
Clipper Teas Ltd is owned by Koninklijke Wessanen nv (AKA
Royal Wessanen)
Koninklijke Wessanen nv (AKA Royal Wessanen), Communications
Manager, Beneluxlaan 9, 3500 HS Utrecht, The Netherlands
Clipper Teas Ltd is also owned by Delta Partners (28%)
Koninklijke Wessanen nv (AKA Royal Wessanen) also owns
Clipper organic herbal tea [O]
Environment
Environmental Reporting
Worst ECRA rating for environmental reporting
(November 2013)
A written request by ECRA for the company’s environmental
report in November 2013 received no response. A search was made
by ECRA on the website www.clipper-teas.com on November
2013 for a copy of the company’s environmental report. No such
document could be found. At the time of writing, the company
had a turnover of over £8 million, and therefore was not exempted
from being rated on this category. As a result, it received ECRA’s
worst rating for environmental reporting. (ref: 2)
Climate Change
Palm oil policy (November 2013)
According to the CSR section of the Wessanen website viewed
in November 2013, “We are committed to switching our palm
oil to RSPO certified sustainable palm oil (RSPO certified
segregated palm oil for organic and GREEN PALM certificates
for conventional) during 2012-14.”
However Ethical Consumer did not take into account future
commitments to source sustainable palm oil as a result of the
fact the negative effects of palm oil production had been apparent
since 2005. Royal Wessanen therefore lost half marks in Ethical
Consumer’s rating system in the categories of climate change,
habitats and resources and human rights. (ref: 3)
Politics
Habitats & Resources
Company Ethos (+ve)
(See also ‘Palm oil policy’ in Climate Change above.)
Vegan company (November 2013)
In November 2013 Ethical Consumer viewed Clearspring’s
website, www.clearspring.co.uk, it stated that all of its products
vegan standards, as certified by the Vegan Society. (ref: 1)
People
Human Rights
(See also ‘Palm oil policy’ in Climate Change above.)
Supply Chain Management
Worst ECRA rating for supply chain management
(November 2013)
The Clipper Teas website (www.clipper-teas.com) viewed on
4 November 2013, had a number of tea products which carried
the Fairtrade Mark. However there were a number of products,
notably teas that did not have Fairtrade certification. Clipper did
not respond to a request by Ethical Consumer for a copy of its
supply chain policy, nor could any indication of a supply chain
policy in regard to these products be found on the company’s
website. As a result, Ethical Consumer gave the company a worst
81
rating for supply chain management. (ref: 4)
Politics
Dragonfly organic herb & rooibos
teas [O]
Genetic Engineering
Owned by Tea Times Holding Ltd
Sold products containing GMOs (November 2013)
In November 2013 a questionnaire was sent to Royal Wessanen
asking for its policy on genetically modified organisms (GMO).
Ethical Consumer received no reply. A search was made of Royal
Wessanen website, www.wessanen.com, for the company’s policy
on genetically modified organisms. We found a Non-GMO Policy
dated April 2013 on www.wessanen.com/en/about-wessanen/
policies-on-nutrition-and-sustainability
Tea Times Holding Ltd, PO Box 5927, Newbury, Berkshire,
RG20 9FY, UK
It stated:
“This policy applies to Wessanen EU own branded products,
organic and conventional.
Our products do not contain any GMOs, GMO ingredients or
ingredients derived from GMOs.”
Environment
Environmental Reporting
Best ECRA rating for environmental reporting (November
2013)
On 12 November 2013, Ethical Consumer made a search of Tea
Times Holding Ltd brands websites; www.dragonfly-teas.com
and www.ticktocktea.com, for information on the company’s
environmental reporting. No such document could be found.
Some products were organic and Dragonfly sold Fairtrade tea
through its brand.
The company sold products in outside the European Union and
therefore it was assumed that they may contain GMOs. (ref: 3)
Due to the fact the company was a small company providing social
and environmental alternatives, it received Ethical Consumer’s
best rating for environmental reporting. (ref: 6)
Product sustainability (+ve)
People
Organic Product (+ve)
Fairtrade & Organic (November 2013)
According to the company website www.clipper-teas.com,
viewed by ECRA in November 2013, Clipper produced Fairtrade
and organic teas which were certified by the Fairtrade Foundation
and the Soil Association. (ref: 4)
Fairtrade Product (+ve)
(See also ‘Fairtrade & Organic’ in Organic Product (+ve)
above.)
Dr Stuart’s herbal teas
Owned by Only Natural Products Ltd
Only Natural Products Ltd, Kithurst Barns, Storrington, West
Sussex, RH20 4HT, UK
Environment
Environmental Reporting
Worst ECRA rating for environmental reporting
(November 2013)
A search was made of Only Natural Products brands websites,
Higher Living Tea website, www.higherlivingherbs.com, and Dr
Stuarts website, www.drstuarts.co.uk, in November 2013, for
the company’s environmental report. No information could be
found on either website regarding any policy on the environment.
Some of Higher Living Teas were ceritifed organic. Although
Only Natural Products had a turnover of less than £8m it was not
considered to be providing a social or environmental alternatives
and therefore Only Natural Products received Ethical Consumer’s
worst rating for environmental reporting. (ref: 5)
People
Supply Chain Management
Worst ECRA rating for supply chain management
(November 2013)
A search was made of Only Natural Products brands websites,
Higher Living Tea website, www.higherlivingherbs.com, and Dr
Stuarts website, www.drstuarts.co.uk, in November 2013 for the
companies supply chain management policies. No information
could be found on either website regarding any policy on supply
chain management. Due to the fact the company did not have an
effective if not explicit policy regarding workers’ rights Only
Natural Products received Ethical Consumer’s worst rating for
suplly chain management. (ref: 5)
82
Supply Chain Management
Best ECRA rating for supply chain management
(November 2013)
On 12 November 2013, Ethical Consumer made a search of Tea
Times Holding Ltd brands websites: www.dragonfly-teas.com
and www.ticktocktea.com, for information on the company’s
supply chain management. No such document could be found.
Some products were organic and Dragonfly sold Fairtrade tea
through its brand.
Due to the fact the company was a small company with an
effective if not explicit practice to ensure workers’ rights within
its supply chain, it received Ethical Consumer’s best rating in
this category. (ref: 7)
Product sustainability (+ve)
Organic Product (+ve)
Organic certified product (November 2013)
According to the website www.dragonfly-teas.co.uk, viewed by
Ethical Consumer on 12th November 2013, the company produced
organic teas which were certified organic by the Organic Food
Federation. (ref: 8)
Equal Exchange Organic Rooibos
[F,O]
Owned by Equal Exchange Trading Ltd
Equal Exchange Trading Ltd, 2 Commercial Street, Edinburgh,
EH6 6JA, Scotland
Environment
Environmental Reporting
Best ECRA rating for environment reporting (November
2013)
In November 2013 Ethical Consumer viewed Equal Exchanges
website, www.equalexchange.co.uk, for the company’s
environmental report. No report could be found however the
company’s website did state that it believed organic was better
and that its farmers only used traditional methods of growing,
reducing the need for expensive farm inputs and exposure to
harmful pesticides. Due to the fact it also only sold Fairtrade
and organic products and had a turnover of less than £8m it
was considered to be providing an environmental and social
alternative and therefore received Ethcial Consumer’s best rating
for environmental reporting. (ref: 9)
alternative to the mainstream, it received Ethical Consumer’s
best rating for environmental reporting. (ref: 11)
People
People
Supply Chain Management
Human Rights
Best ECRA rating for supply chain management
(November 2013)
In November 2013 Ethical Consumer viewed Equal Exchange’s
website, www.equalexchange.co.uk, for the company’s supply
chain policy. The company’s website stated that it only sold organic
and Fairtrade certified products. The Fairtrade mark ensured that
an independently verified code of conduct for workers existed,
at the time of writing. Given that Equal Exchange was a small
company with an effective if not explicit practice it received Ethical
Consumer’s best rating for supply chain management. (ref: 9)
Palm oil policy (November 2013)
In November 2013 Ethical Consumer asked Essential Trading
for a copy of their palm oil policy. The policy stated that Essential
sourced palm oil certified by Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil
(RSPO). In light of recent information it was removing palm oil
from its Essential brand products where possible and had recently
sourced palm fat free vegan crunchy which formed the basis of
many of its muselis. Essential’s supplier of palm fruit oil, Aarhus
United UK (formerly Anglia Oils Ltd), was a founder member of
the RSPO which was working closely with the World Wide Fund
for Nature to ensure sustainability of palm oil production. The
RSPO had established ‘Principles & Criteria for Sustainable Palm
Oil Production’ which included preserving threatened species and
high conservation value habitats.
Politics
Company Ethos (+ve)
Worker’s Co-operative (November 2013)
In November 2013 Ethical Consumer viewed Equal Exchange’s
website and found that it was a workers co-operative. (ref: 9)
All products fairtrade (November 2013)
In November 2013 Ethical Consumer viewed Equal Exchange’s
website, www.equalexchange.co.uk. and found that it only sold
Fairtrade and organic products. (ref: 9)
Product sustainability (+ve)
Its supplies were sourced via a plantation management company
that had a zero burning policy.
Although Ethical Consumer would not ordinarily accept RSPO
certification of suppliers as an adequate measure to mitigate the
human and environmental risks of palm oil production, due to
the fact that in addition to this the company provided ethical
alternatives and named its supplies, it did not lose marks for the
use of palm oil. (ref: 12)
Organic Product (+ve)
Supply Chain Management
Organic and Fairtrade product (November 2013)
According to the Equal Exchange website viewed in November
2013, their Organic Rooibos tea was Fairtrade certified and
organic. (ref: 10)
Best ECRA rating for supply chain management
(November 2013)
In November 2013 Ethical Consumer sent Essential Trading
Co-operative Ltd a questionnaire about its supply chain.
Fairtrade Product (+ve)
The company responded by stating that it “actively sources
products from organic co-operatives, Fairtrade initiatives and
ethical supplier companies who specialise in creating education
and schemes for the quality of life of their worker members and
families. Some like Zaytoun or Café Rebelde offer political
stability to communities and access to international trade. Some
brands offer triple the market price for products, some offer
kindergartens, drought and flood projects, or simply a guaranteed
market for their produce. Many are involved in groundbreaking
environmental schemes”.The company also stated that its supply
chain involved hand picked ethical co-operatives – chosen for
their human rights initiatives and that it developed long term
relationships with ethical suppliers and trade with co-operatives
and independents.
(See also ‘Organic and Fairtrade product’ in Organic
Product (+ve) above.)
Essential herbal teas [F,O]
Owned by Essential Trading Co-operative Ltd
Essential Trading Co-operative Ltd, Marketing Co-ordinator,
Unit 3, Lodge Causeway Trading Estate, Fishponds, Bristol,
BS16 3JB
Environment
Environmental Reporting
Best ECRA rating for environment report (November
2013)
In November 2013 a questionnaire was sent to Essential Trading
Co-operative Ltd asking for its environmental report. Ethical
Consumer received a reply which stated the company did not
have an environmental report.
Ethical Consumer viewed Essential Trading Co-operative
Ltd website, www.essential-trading.co.uk, and found that
the company’s mission was to operate a sustainable buisness
providing ethically sourced products within a workers co-operative
environment and its objective was to protect the environment.
The company’s ethos also included environmental commitments
such as 100% vegetarian and vegan; GM Free; Fairtrade,
sustainable, recycled, organic and eco friendly products; palm
fat, where used was sustainably sourced; power was provided by
Ecotricity at its retail outlets Harvest; packaging was made using
sustainable materials; all products were freighted by either land or
sea - never by air; and the warehouse was fitted with solar PV.
Due to the fact the company had a turnover of less than £8m
and was considered to be providing an environmental and social
Given that the company had a turnover of less than £8m and
had a effective if not explicit policy addressing workers rights
issues within its supply chain, it received Ethical Consumer’s
best rating in this category. (ref: 11)
Politics
Company Ethos (+ve)
Company is a workers’ co-operative (November 2013)
According to its company website, www.essential-trading.co.uk,
which was viewed by Ethical Consumer in November 2013,
the Essential Trading Co-op Ltd was a workers’ co-operative,
collectively owned by its members, which operated on a nonhierarchical and egalitarian basis. (ref: 11)
Product sustainability (+ve)
Organic Product (+ve)
Organic and Fairtrade product (2013)
According to the company website www.essential-trading.co.uk,
viewed by ECRA in November 2013, all Essential products were
83
100% vegetarian, and its range of herbal teas was organic and
biodynamic certified and Fairtrade Foundation certified (except
for Fennel which was just organic certified). (ref: 13)
Fairtrade Product (+ve)
(See also ‘Organic and Fairtrade product’ in Organic
Product (+ve) above.)
Floradix/Salus Organic Herbal
Teas [O]
Owned by Salus-Haus GmbH & Co KG
Salus-Haus GmbH & Co KG, Postfach 1180, D-83044, Bruckmuhl,
Oberbayern, Germany
Environment
Environmental Reporting
Worst ECRA rating for environmental reporting
(November 2013)
In November 2013 a questionnaire was sent to Salus-Haus
GmbH & Co KG asking for its environmental report. Ethical
Consumer received no reply. A search was made of Salus-Haus
GmbH & Co KG website, www.salus-haus.com, for the company’s
environmental report. An environmental report was found dated
2009-2011. The environmental report stated that the company
used organic products where it could stating that for organic
goods it generally followed the BNN guidelines ( Bundesverbände
Naturkost Naturwaren – the Association of Specialized Organic
Processors, Wholesalers and Retailers). According to the report
the percentage of organic herbs used stood at around 82%. The
company did not use any genetically modified ingredients. The
report also talked about how it mitigated against its impacts
regarding electricity, heat, water and waste materials.
The report also included environmental guidelines which it
expected employees to follow.
While the company was considered to show reasonable
understanding of its main impacts, the company did not have any
quantified future targets nor did it have a report dated in the last
two years, therefore it received Ethical Consumer’s worst rating
for environmental reporting. (ref: 14)
People
Human Rights
Operations in oppressive regimes (November 2013)
In November 2013 Ethical Consumer viewed Salus-Haus
website, www.salus-haus.com, and found that the company had
offices based in Russia and Nigeria. At the time of writing both
countries were on Ethical Consumer’s oppressive regimes list.
(ref: 14)
Supply Chain Management
Worst ECRA rating for supply chain management
(November 2013)
In November 2013 Ethical Consumer viewed Salus-Haus
website, www.salus-haus.com, for the company’s supply chain
management policy. No policy could be found. On the UK version
of its website, www.salusuk.com, it stated that “Salus co-operates
with farmers by subsidising their work in the cultivation of organic
crops and with the local people who gain valuable employment”.
It ran its farms in accordance to strict biological cultivation
guidelines in which no pesticides or fertilizers were used. “In
turn this contributes to the environmental preservation of local
eco-systems and ensures the well-being of local communities”.
There was no certification scheme in place and no mention of
workers rights. Given that the company had a turnover of more
than £8m it would be expected to have a policy guaranteeing
workers rights within its supply chain. Therefore the company
84
received Ethical Consumer’s worst rating for supply chain
management. (ref: 14)
Product sustainability (+ve)
Organic Product (+ve)
Certified organic (November 2013)
In November 2013 Ethical Consumer viewed Salus Haus UK
website, http://www.salusuk.com, it stated that its herbal teas
were certified organic. (ref: 15)
Hambleden Herbs Herbal teas [O]
Owned by Hambleden Herbs
Hambleden Herbs, Unit 6, South Park Business Centre, Park
Street,, Cambs, PE16 6AE
Environment
Environmental Reporting
Best ECRA rating for environmental reporting (November
2013)
In November 2013 Ethical Consumer viewed Hambleden
Herb’s website, www.hambledenherbs.com, and found the
company’s environmental policy. It stated that the company did
not use aeroplanes to fly spices or teas around the world instead
prefering to use ships. It was also committed to recycling its
waste paper and cardboard, often using second hand boxes to
post its products in. The company also made efforts to reduce
its use of packaging.
Hambleden Herbs was also an organic company.
Ethical Consumer considered Hambleden Herbs to be providing
an environmental alternative and it therefore received a best rating
in this category. (ref: 16)
People
Supply Chain Management
Best ECRA rating for supply chain management (October
2013)
In October 2013 Ethical Consumer viewed Hambleden Herb’s
website, www.hambledenherbs.com, and found the company’s
environmental policy which stated:
“The social impacts of our business are also very important
to us, and along with the clear environmental benefits, are part
of the reason for buying and supplying organic materials. For
farmers to switch to organic farming methods they must grow
using organic methods for 3 years before they are allowed to sell
a crop as organic. This requires significant investment by them
and they need the assurance that they will have customers at the
end of that 3 year process. That is why we prefer to have long
term agreements with our suppliers, enabling farmers to securely
invest for the future and continue to provide jobs for their local
community”.
Hambleden Herbs had a turnover of less than £8 million and
was considered to have an effective if not explicit practice at
addressing workers rights within its supply chain and therefore
received Ethical Consumer’s best rating for supply chain
management. (ref: 16)
Politics
Company Ethos (+ve)
Organic company (October 2013)
In October 2013 Ethical Consumer viewed Hambleden Herbs
website, www.hambledenherbs.com, and found that the company
only sold 100% organic products. (ref: 16)
Product sustainability (+ve)
Fairtrade Product (+ve)
Organic certified (November 2013)
In November 2013 Ethical Consumer viewed Hambleden Herbs
website, www.hambledenherbs.com and found that the company
sold herbal teas which were organic certified. (ref: 16)
Hampstead Tea herbal tea [F,O]
Owned by Hampstead Tea & Coffee Co Ltd
Hampstead Tea & Coffee Co Ltd, PO Box 2448, London, NW11
7DR
Environment
Environmental Reporting
Best ECRA rating for environmental reporting (November
2013)
In a phone conversation with Ethical Consumer on 12 November
2013, a representative of Hampstead Tea & Coffee confirmed
that the company’s turnover was less than £8 million. This, along
with the fact that the company only sold organic and Fairtrade
products, meant that it received Ethical Consumer’s best rating
for environmental reporting. (ref: 17)
People
Supply Chain Management
Best ECRA rating for supply chain management
(November 2013)
During a phone conversation with Ethical Consumer on 12
November 2013, a representative of Hampstead Tea & Coffee
confirmed that all the company’s products were certified Fairtrade.
The Fairtrade mark guarantees that an externally regulated code
of conduct for workers exists.
As the company’s turnover was less than £8 million and it
was offering environmental and social alternatives, Hampstead
was awarded Ethical Consumer’s best rating for supply chain
management. (ref: 17)
Politics
Company Ethos (+ve)
All company products were certified organic & Fairtrade
(November 2013)
During a phone conversation with Ethical Consumer on 12
November 2013, a representative of Hampstead Tea & Coffee
Co confirmed that all its products were certified Fairtrade by
the Fairtrade Labelling Organisation and approved to carry the
Demeter biodynamic agriculture logo. (ref: 17)
Product sustainability (+ve)
Organic Product (+ve)
Fairtrade and Organic (November 2013)
A conversation with a representative from Hampstead Tea on 12
November 2013 stated that all its teas were organic and Faritrade
certified. (ref: 17)
Fairtrade Product (+ve)
(See also ‘Fairtrade and Organic’ in Organic Product (+ve)
above.)
Heath & Heather organic tea [O]
Owned by Typhoo Tea Ltd
Typhoo Tea Ltd is owned by Apeejay Tea Group
owned by Apeejay Surrendra Group
Apeejay Surrendra Group, Apeejay House, 15 Park St, Kolkata
700016, India
Apeejay Tea Group also owns Heath & Heather teas and London
Fruit & Herb and Ridgways tea
Environment
Environmental Reporting
Worst ECRA rating for environmental reporting
(November 2013)
Ethical Consumer searched Apeejay Surrendra Group’s website,
www.apeejaygroup.com, for an environmental policy in November
2013. The ‘corporate citizen’ section of the group’s website
discussed recycling and waste across its supply chain, in addition
to its carbon emissions, which focused on shipping tea and IT.
The group reported changing its UK tea ports as an attempt to
reduce its carbon emissions, and it discussed how it was reducing
its carbon footprint in relation to IT and servers. According to
Typhoo’s website, Typhoo had achieved zero tea waste and nine
of the group’s tea estates were Rainforest Alliance Certified and
Sustainable Farm Certified.
However, in regard to discussing environmental issues relating
to Appejay Surrendra Group’s other businesses, no information
could be found. Further discussion about the company’s carbon
footprint, climate change, water use and issues associated with
sustainable agriculture would be expected. It was therefore felt that
the company did not fully understand its environmental impacts.
No future, quantified environmental reduction targets were found,
and no independently verified environmental report was provided.
The company therefore received Ethical Consumer’s worst rating
for environmental performance. (ref: 18)
People
Human Rights
Operations in oppressive regimes (November 2013)
According to Apeejay Surrendra Group’s website, www.
apeejaygroup.com, which was viewed by Ethical Consumer
in November 2013, Apeejay Surrenda had operations in the
following countries:
India, Russia, Iran, Nigeria and Pakistan. Ethical Consumer
considered these countries to be oppressive regimes at the time
of writing. (ref: 18)
Supply Chain Management
Worst ECRA rating for Supply Chain Management
(October 2013)
In October 2013 a questionnaire was sent to Apeejay Surrendra
Group asking for its supply chain policy. Ethical Consumer
received no reply. A search was made of Apeejay Surrendra
Group website, www.apeejaygroup.com, for the company’s
supply chain policy.
Supply chain policy (poor)
There was no supply chain policy which listed the International
Labour Organisation’s core conventions. Therefore Apeejay was
considered to have no supply chain policy.
Stakeholder engagement (rudimentary)
Apeejay’s website stated that 9 of its tea estates had been
certified by Rainforest Alliance as well as a few of its tea estates
being certified by Fairtrade Foundation. Typhoo Tea Limited (a
85
subsidairy of Apeejay) was also a member of the Ethical Tea
Partnership (ETP). There was no mention of an independent
complaints process for employees to feedback on working
conditions.
Auditing and Reporting (poor)
There was no information on Apeejay’s website about audits
of its supply chains.
Difficult issues (poor)
There was no information on Apeejay’s website about training
for buying agents, audit fraud, illegal freedom of association or
payment of living wage.
Overall the company received Ethical Consumer’s worst rating
for supply chain management. (ref: 19)
Product sustainability (+ve)
Organic Product (+ve)
Organic (November 2013)
The Heath & Heather website was viewed in November 2013 and
there were five Soil Association organic teas listed: peppermint,
echinacea, green tea, camomile, nettle. (ref: 20)
Jacksons of Piccadilly teas [F]
Some of the company’s businesses, for example AB Agri,
engaged with the Round table for Sustainable Palm Oil to source
palm oil sustainably by purchasing Green Palm Certificates.
As a business wide commitment to sourcing sustainable palm
oil was not yet implemented, and considering the fact that the
negative effects of palm oil have been known since 2005, ABF
lost half marks in Ethical Consumer’s rating system in the
categories of climate change, habitats & resources and human
rights. (ref: 22)
Rated “poor” by Oxfams behind the brand scorecard
(September 2013)
In September 2013 Ethical Consumer viewed the most recent
“Behind the brand” scorecard produced by Oxfam part of its
GROW campaign which sought to evaluate the world’s top 10
most powerful food and beverage companies. The campaign
aimed to challenge the companies to begin a “race to the top” to
improve their social and environmental performance.
Associated British Foods (ABF) was ranked last out of ten
companies in the scorecard. The company was rated in seven
areas based on information publically available and marked out
of ten for each area.
According to the report Associated British Foods was bad for
assessing the impact it has on producers, communities and the
planet. The company scored even worse on supporting women
and land rights and came bottom of the pile for climate change.
The company scored
1/10 for its land policies:
Owned by Jacksons of Piccadilly Limited
1/10 for policies on women:
Jacksons of Piccadilly Limited is owned by Associated British
Foods Plc
2/10 for policies on farmers:
owned by Wittington Investments Ltd (55%)
Wittington Investments Ltd, Weston Centre, Bowater House, 68
Knightsbridge, London, SW1X 7QT
Jacksons of Piccadilly Limited is also owned by Garfield Weston
Foundation (43%)
Associated British Foods Plc also owns Twinings herb teas
Environment
Environmental Reporting
Worst ECRA rating for environmental reporting
(November 2013)
In November 2013 Ethical Consumer searched Jackson’s of
Piccadilly’s website, www.jacksonsofpiccadilly.co.uk, for the
company’s environmental policy. All of the company’s products
were certified Fairtrade with the exception of its ‘White Tea’
product. The Fairtrade mark provided some provisions for the
environment and ‘more’ sustainable agriculture. However, it would
be expected that the company addressed environmental issues
associated with agriculture further, in addition to addressing the
company’s environmental impacts as a whole. As the company
did not provide an externally verified environmental policy, did
not discuss its key environmental impacts, and did not provide
future reduction targets, Jackson’s of Piccadilly received Ethical
Consumer’s worst rating for environmental reporting. (ref: 21)
Climate Change
Use of unsustainable palm oil (November 2013)
In November 2013, Ethical Consumer searched Associated
British Food’s website, www.abf.co.uk, for a palm oil policy.
The company’s 2013 CSR report was downloaded. The report
contained a CSR overview table which discussed the use of palm
oil. It stated that Associated British Foods was committed to
all businesses using Certified Sustainable or Identity Preserved
palm oil by 2015.
86
2/10 for policies regarding workers:
1/10 for policies on climate change:
3/10 for transparency:
2/10 on water:
Due to the fact Associated British Foods had not received best in
any of the categories it lost marks in Ethical Consumer’s climate
change, human rights and workers rights categories.
In October 2013 Oxfam released a report called ‘Sugar Rush’
which urged Associated British Foods along with two other food
and beverages giants to adopt a zero-tolerance policy on land grabs.
It stated that sugar, along with soy and palm oil, were driving
large-scale land acquisitions and land conflicts at the expense of
small-scale food producers and their families. Oxfam’s report
exposed the lack of transparency by food and beverage giants,
making it difficult for the public to hold companies accountable.
(ref: 23)
Pollution & Toxics
Pollution fine (2010)
The EIRIS Corporate Ethics Overview published in Autumn 2010
stated that Associated British Foods subsidiary George Weston
Foods had been fined Aus 67,000 (USD 63,000; EUR 49,000;
GBP 67,000) by the Australian Land and Environment Court for
polluting a the Peel River in September 2008. The prosecution was
brought by the Australian Department of Environment, Climate
Change and Water in response to a leak of animal fat and oil into the
Peel River. The leak left more than 2 kilometre slick that persisted
for 9 days. The presiding judge ordered George Weston Foods to
pay a penalty of AUD 67,000 to Tamworth Regional Council to
use for an environmental project. He also ordered the company
to pay prosecution costs of AUD 30,000 and publish notices in
the press outlining details of the offence. George Weston Foods
had already paid out AUD 38,217 in clean up costs.
The story had originated from the NSW Environment, Climate
Change and Water Dept press release 09/07/10 (ref: 24)
Habitats & Resources
No cotton sourcing policy (2011)
Primark (which was a subsidairy of Associated British Foods)
stated that it was unable to respond to Ethical Consumer’s written
request in June 2011 for its cotton sourcing policy. Ethical
Consumer searched the company’s websites, www.primark.
co.uk and www.ethicalprimark.co.uk, in July 2011 for this
information, but none could be found, nor any mention of the
issues surrounding cotton.
Retail of non-FSC products (March 2011)
In February 2011 Ethical Consumer emailed Heal & Son Ltd (a
subsidairy of Wittington Investments) and attached a questionnaire
that included questions regarding the company’s wood sourcing
policy. The company did not respond. Its website, www.heals.
co.uk, displayed some products made from wood marketed as
being from sustainable sources, but also sold many that were
not. Purchasing Forest Stewardship Council certified wood was
not mentioned. According the the Environmental Investigation
Agency report “Putting the Brakes on Drivers of Forest
Destruction”, published in December 2009, timber, pulp and paper
were one of four top commodity markets associated with tropical
deforestation and degradation. Heal & Son Ltd consequently lost
a mark in the habitats and resources category. (ref: 26)
According to the Environmental Justice Foundation (EJF)
website, www.ejfoundation.org, viewed by Ethical Consumer
in February 2011, Uzbekistan was the third largest exporter of
cotton in the world, and Europe was its major buyer (EJF quoted
UN data which stated that Europe received almost a third of all
cotton sold by Uzbekistan). The website stated that forced child
labour, human rights violations and excessive pesticide use were
“rife” in Uzbek cotton production. It was also said to have caused
an “environmental catastrophe of astonishing proportions” as a
result of its impact on the Aral Sea, reported to be 15% of its
former volume.
Due to the high proportion of cotton on the British market likely
to have come from Uzbekistan and the prevalence of child labour
in its production, Primark lost half a mark in the workers’ rights
category. Due to the impacts of the widespread use of pesticides
in cotton production worldwide it also lost half a mark in the
pollution and toxics category.
According to the International Service for the Acquisition of
Agri-Biotech Applications (ISAAA), a non-profit pro biotech
organisation, genetically modified cotton accounted for almost
half of the 33 million hectares of global cotton planted in 2009.
Due to the prevalence of GM cotton in cotton supply chains and
the lack of any evidence that the company avoided it, it was
assumed that the company’s cotton products contained some
GM material. (ref: 25)
No cotton sourcing policy (March 2011)
In February 2011 Ethical Consumer emailed Heal & Son Ltd (a
subsidairy of Wittington Investments) and attached a questionnaire
that included a question regarding the company’s cotton sourcing
policy. The company did not respond. Its website, www.heals.
co.uk, displayed a number of products made from cotton and
no mention was made of whether the company had any policies
relating to its cotton sourcing.
According to the Environmental Justice Foundation website,
www.ejfoundation.org, viewed by Ethical Consumer in February
2011, Uzbekistan was the third largest exporter of cotton in the
world, and Europe was its major buyer. The website stated
that forced child labour, human rights violations and excessive
pesticide use were “rife” in Uzbek cotton production. It was also
said to have caused an “environmental catastrophe of astonishing
proportions” as a result of its impact on the Aral Sea, reported to
be 15% of its former volume.
Due to the high proportion of cotton on the British market
likely to have come from Uzbekistan and the prevalence of child
labour in its production, Heal & Son Ltd lost half a mark in the
workers rights category. Due to the impacts of the widespread
use of pesticides in cotton production worldwide it also lost half
a mark in the and pollution and toxics category.
According to the International Service for the Acquisition of
Agri-Biotech Applications (ISAAA), a non-profit pro biotech
organisation, genetically modified cotton accounted for almost
half of the 33 million hectares of global cotton planted in 2009.
Due to the prevalence of GM cotton in cotton supply chains and
the lack of any evidence that the company avoided it, it was
assumed that the company’s cotton products contained some
GM material. (ref: 26)
(See also ‘Use of unsustainable palm oil’ in Climate Change
above.)
Sale of reindeer meat - impact on wild predators and stress
to reindeer through herding methods (January 2013)
According to the Viva! website, www.viva.org.uk, viewed
January 15th 2013, ‘The shocking secrets behind the trade in
‘novelty’ reindeer meat’ Fortnum & Mason (a subsidairy of
Wittington Investments) was selling the ‘Edible’ brand of reindeer
pate from Sweden. Viva! had uncovered concerns that the growing
popularity of reindeer meat in Britain was causing the destruction
of large wild predators including wolves, wolverines, lynxes,
foxes and bears with cubs.
It also reported that reindeer suffer from modern herding methods.
In Nordic countries, they are often herded with snowmobiles,
motorcycles and even helicopters, causing a huge amount of
stress.
Fortnum & Mason, said Viva!, was selling reindeer meat as a
‘novelty’, in itself popularising the consumption of meat from
wild animals, and in-turn exerting potentially disastrous pressure
on populations already suffering from the threats of climate
change, urban encroachment, pollution and poaching - as well
as their natural predators.
Viva! was calling on its supporters to contact the company
telling them to stop stocking the product. (ref: 27)
Animals
Animal Testing
Uses animals for research (November 2013)
In November 2013, Ethical Consumer searched Associated
British Food’s website for an animal testing policy. The ‘ethical
statement’ section of the website stated that ‘ABF avoided the
use of animal testing wherever possible. In each of the markets
where it was active, it complied with all relevant laws and only
used animals for research where it was a legal requirement.
The company therefore received negative marks for conducting
or commissioning testing on animals. (ref: 28)
No animal testing policy (January 2009)
British Sugar did not respond to a request by Ethical Consumer
in December 2009 for a copy of its animal testing policy, neither
was one apparent on the company’s website, www.britishsugar.
co.uk, when viewed by Ethical Consumer in January 2009. As a
large player in the UK sugar market, without a policy to confirm
otherwise, Ethical Consumer assumed that the company was
involved with funding research into sugar some of which was
likely to involve testing on animals. The company also retailed
artificial sweeteners, which were routinely tested on animals.
(ref: 29)
Worst ECRA rating for animal testing policy (2011)
A search of the Primark website, www.primark.co.uk, in July
87
2011 revealed that the company had received awards in Ireland
for its own brand sun lotion and a concealer. No animal testing
policy could be found on the company’s website. The company
responded to this rating in August 2011 with the following
statement: ‘Primark is against animal testing. Primark and our
own label manufacturers do not commission animal testing on
any Primark own brand products or ingredients. Our own brand
cosmetics and toiletry product range have not been tested on
animals by us, or by our own brand manufacturers.” However, in
the absence of a fixed cut-off date for the testing of ingredients,
the company received Ethical Consumer’s worst rating in this
category. (ref: 25)
Factory farming
Sale of non-organic, non free range meat (August 2011)
According to the George Weston Foods company (a subsidairy of
Associated British Foods) website, www.georgewestonfoods.com.
au, it sold meat under the brand KR Castlemaine®. No mention
was made of whether any of the meat it sold was organic or free
range, therefore it was assumed that the company was involved
in selling factory farmed meat. (ref: 30)
Sale of foie gras (2011)
According to the PETA UK website viewed in September
2011, PETA’s vegan campaigns officer had changed her name
to StopFortnumAndMasonFoieGrasCruelty.com in protest at the
company’s insistence on continuing to sell goose foie gras in its
store and its restaurants, despite stating in 2008 that it would no
longer sell duck foie gras. PETA was urging supporters to email
the company to protest. All major supermarkets in the UK have
refused to stock foie gras. Sir Roger Moore had also joined forces
with PETA once again and had fired off a letter to the retailer,
before featuring on a PETA ad which was placed at Piccadilly
Circus tube station.
Deprived of everything that is natural to them, ducks and geese
who are used in foie gras production suffer from frustration and
stress. They are crammed into tiny pens or individual cages fouled
with faeces and blood and often develop skeletal disorders and
respiratory problems as a result of forcefeeding. Pipes are shoved
down their throats several times a day to force approximately
two kilograms of grain, maize and fat into their stomachs. In
human terms, that is the equivalent of roughly 20 kilograms of
pasta per day.
The pipes sometimes puncture the birds’ throats, causing them
unbearable pain and making it impossible to drink. Pumps used
to force food into the birds’ stomachs can cause severe tissue
damage and internal bleeding. This painful overfeeding process
can even cause the birds’ internal organs to rupture. Those who
survive the forced-feedings suffer intensely as their livers swell
to up to 10 times their normal size. After several weeks of this
torture, the birds are hung upside down and slaughtered, and their
livers are sold as foie gras. (ref: 31)
Animal Rights
(See also ‘Sale of non-organic, non free range meat’ in
Factory farming above.)
(See also ‘Sale of reindeer meat - impact on wild predators
and stress to reindeer through herding methods’ in
Habitats & Resources above.)
(See also ‘Sale of foie gras’ in Factory farming above.)
People
Human Rights
(See also ‘Rated “poor” by Oxfams behind the brand
scorecard’ in Climate Change above.)
(See also ‘Use of unsustainable palm oil’ in Climate Change
above.)
Operations in oppressive regimes (November 2013)
According to Associated British Food’s 2013 Annual Report,
88
the company has subsidiaries in the following five countries
which Ethical Consumer considered to be oppressive regimes
at the time of writing: Philippines, Thailand, China. India, and
Vietnam. (ref: 32)
Workers’ Rights
Factory collapse (April 2013)
In April 2013 a building in Bangladesh that housed several
garment factories used by multinational corporations collapsed
killing at least 300 people and injuring over 800.
The eight-story Rana Plaza building in Savar, on the outskirts
of the capital Dhaka contained three factories and a shopping
mall.
A press release from the Clean Clothes Campaign stated that
workers’ rights activists had managed to enter the ruins of ‘Rana
Plaza’ and found labels and documentation linking the factories
with major retailers including Primark which in the same week
had announced record profits.
“It’s unbelievable that brands still refuse to sign a binding
agreement with unions and labour groups to stop these unsafe
working conditions from existing. Tragedy after tragedy shows
that corporate-controlled monitoring is completely inadequate,”
said Tessel Pauli from Clean Clothes Campaign.
Workers had complained about cracks appearing in the walls
days before the accident but managers ordered them back to
work. The Clean Clothes Campaign have alleged that the floors
where “illegally built.”
Campaigners were now calling on brands sourcing from
Bangladesh to sign up to the Bangladesh Fire and Building
Safety Agreement. The CCC, together with local and global
unions and labour rights organisations had developed a sectorwide programme for action that includes independent building
inspections, worker rights training, public disclosure and a
long-overdue review of safety standards. It is transparent as well
as practical, and unique in being supported by all key labour
stakeholders in Bangladesh and internationally.
The labour signatories were calling on all major brands sourcing
in the industry to sign on to the initiative in order to ensure its
rapid implementation. The programme has the potential to save
the lives of hundreds of thousands of workers currently at risk
in unsafe and illegally built factories. (ref: 33)
(See also ‘No cotton sourcing policy’ in Pollution & Toxics
above.)
Criticised for use of ‘workfare’ labour (August 2011)
According to an article on the Corporate Watch website, www.
corporatewatch.org, ‘Unemployed people ‘bullied’ into unpaid
work at Tesco, Primark and other multinationals’, dated August
12th 2011, unemployed people were being sent to work without
pay in multinational corporations, one of which was Primark, by
Job centres and companies administering the government’s welfare
reforms. Some were working for up to six months while receiving
unemployment benefit of £67.50 a week or less. The article said
that people were sent to Primark by contracted employment
companies through the previous government’s Flexible New
Deal for up to six months and that this would be continued in the
recently started Work Programme. Primark did not comment. In
an interview a woman who was given a placement in Primark for
six months, under the previous government’s welfare programme,
says her work was the same as that of other paid staff and that she
was not given a job at the end of it. She also says she was told
her benefits would be stopped if she did not attend. Campaigners
argue that such work placements provide companies with free
labour, undercut existing jobs and that people are “bullied” into
them. A spokesperson for the Boycott workfare campaign said:
“These placements are not designed to help people into full-time
paid work but they serve to increase organisations’ profits. They
provide a constant stream of free labour and suppress wages by
replacing paid workers with unpaid workers. People are coerced,
bullied and sanctioned into taking the placements. Placements
in the public sector and charities are no better and are making
volunteering compulsory. This is taking away the right of a person
to sell their own labour and their free will to choose who they
volunteer their time for.” (ref: 34)
Supply Chain Management
Worst ECRA rating for supply chain management
(November 2013)
Jackson’s of Piccadilly’s website, www.jacksonsofpiccadilly.
co.uk, was searched for a supply chain management policy in
November 2013. All of the company’s products were certified
Fairtrade with the exception of its ‘White Tea’ product. The
company was phoned by Ethical Consumer in November 2013
and questioned why this was. They stated that there was a limited
supply of White Tea, and they could not source Fairtrade white
tea at present. The Fairtrade mark ensured that an independently
verified code of conduct for workers existed. However, as the
White Tea was not certified Fairtrade, it would be expected that a
supply chain management policy would be provided that ensured
adequate workers and human rights across the supply chain.
Jackson’s of Piccadilly therefore received Ethical Consumer’s
worst rating for supply chain management. (ref: 21)
Politics
Genetic Engineering
GM policy (November 2013)
Ethical Consumer searched Associated British Food’s website
for a policy on genetically modified organisms. An undated Policy
on Genetically Modified (GM) Ingredients was downloaded. The
company recognised the differing views on GMOs within different
countries and stated it strove to meet consumer expectations as
they varied, country by country, as well as complying with local
regulations on the use and labelling of GM ingredients.
It stated that the majority of the food products sold to consumers
in Europe, Australia and New
Zealand did not contain GM ingredients. In a handful of the
thousands of products it sold, GM oils were present in the wider
supply chain, but the company had not been able to establish
for
certain that the oils it sourced were non-GM.
In regard to GM crops for animal feed, ABF stated that as GM
crops had been cleared by UK and EU regulatory bodies as safe
for both animal and human consumption, these formed part of
the company’s offerings. It also sourced assured non-GM crops
where demanded by consumers.
The company’s enzymes business used GM microorganisms in
the manufacturing process, but no GM material was said to be
present in the final product.
The company therefore received negative marks for for use
of GM ingredients in animal feed and in human grade food
prdoucts. It also received a mark in animal rights for supplying
animal feed. (ref: 35)
of which British Sugar (a subsidairy of Associated British Foods)
was said to be a member. In the article a representative of the
International Association for the Study of Obesity was quoted
as saying that the Foundation “did a big piece of work for the
Food Standards Agency reviewing ‘influences on consumer food
choices’ which conveniently left out any review of the influence
of marketing and advertising techniques”. A representative of
the Campaign Against Trans Fats in Food commented on two
documents published by the Foundation on his area of expertise
“The first is a briefing sheet and is very balanced...The other is a
submission to the Scottish parliament on a bill to limit trans fats,
and essentially it says to do nothing”, which coincides with the
industry view, according to the representative.
The Foundation was said to be open about its involvment
in lobbying, stating that it aimed to “help shape and support
policy”.
The article stated that “many of the Foundation’s staff move
between the organisation and the food industry” and that food
companies often direct people to the Foundations work, claiming
that it is an independent source of information.
The article detailed the involvement with the Foundation of
several other large, named, food companies. (ref: 36)
Charity Commission ruling for political donations (April
2010)
According to an article on the website Civil Society, www.
civilsociety.co.uk, published in April 2010, the Charity
Commission had ruled against trustees of the Garfield Weston
Foundation (GWF) following an investigation regarding political
donations by Wittington Investments Limited (WIL), a company
79.2% owned by the Foundation. It was said to have made
donations to the Conservative Party totalling £800,000 between
1993 and 1999 and another of £100,000 in 2004. Between 2001
and 2007 it was said to have also made five and six-figure donations
to the European Foundation, the Centre for Policy Studies and the
Labour Euro-Safeguards Campaign, all of which were claimed
to have political links.
The Commission was said to have found that shareholders of
the GWF, and thus the charity, had not been consulted on the
donations “due to an oversight”. According to the article, the
Commission found that “prior to 2006 the trustees of the charity
who were also directors of WIL had breached their duties by
failing to raise the issue with their fellow trustees”. In 2006 the
trustees were said to have passed a resolution allowing WIL to
make political donations without the charity’s consideration.
The Commission was said to have found this to be in breach of
their duties. (ref: 37)
Anti-Social Finance
Tax avoidance in Zambia (February 2013)
It was reported in February 2013 that Associated British Foods,
one of Britain’s biggest multinationals, was avoiding paying
millions of pounds of tax in Zambia.
New research from campaign group ActionAid released showed
that a subsidiary of ABF contributed virtually no corporation tax
to the state’s exchequer between 2007 and 2012, and none at all
for two of those years.
Political Activities
The firm, Zambia Sugar, posted record pre-tax profits and its
huge plantation was increasing its capacity to produce more
sugar for markets in Europe and Africa. Yet it paid less than
0.5% of its $123m pre-tax profits in corporation tax between
2007 and 2012.
Member of “independent” food information charity (22
March 2010)
An article on the Spin Watch website, spinwatch.org.uk, dated
22 March 2010 and credited to the British Medical Journal,
outlined criticisms made against the British Nutrition Foundation,
According to an article in the Guardian newspaper the company
benefited from generous capital allowance and tax-relief schemes
in Zambia, but the investigation also found that it funneled around
a third of its pre-tax profits to sister companies in tax havens,
including Ireland, Mauritius and the Netherlands. Tax treaties
(See also ‘No cotton sourcing policy’ in Pollution & Toxics
above.)
89
between Zambia and some of those countries meant the state’s
revenue authorities were unable to charge their normal tax on
money leaving their shores.
ActionAid estimated that the tax haven transactions of this one
British headquartered multinational deprived Zambia of a sum 14
times larger than the UK aid provided to the country to combat
hunger and food insecurity.
Chris Jordan, a tax specialist at ActionAid and co-author of the
report, said: “This is a really shocking case where the Associated
British Foods group has gone to great lengths to ensure it pays
virtually no corporation tax in a very poor country. Tax avoidance
is not victimless financial engineering. In Zambia 45% of children
are malnourished and two-thirds of the population live on less
than $2 a day.” (ref: 38)
Worst ECRA rating for likely use of tax avoidance
strategies (November 2013)
In November 2013 Ethical Consumer viewed the Wittington
Investments Ltd family tree on the corporate website Hoovers.
com. This listed a number of subsidiaries Ethical Consumer
to be considered at high risk of being used for tax avoidance
purposes due to the company type and the fact that they were
located in jurisdictions considered by Ethical Consumer to be
tax havens..
These included three holding companies in Luxembourg,
investment companies in Luxembourg and Jersey and several
business service subsidairies in Jersey and Guernsey. Wittington
Investments receieved Ethical Consumer’s worst rating for likely
use of tax avoidance strategies due to the fact it had two or more
high risk subsidaries based in tax havens. (ref: 39)
Excessive directors’ pay (November 2013)
Associated British Food’s 2013 Annual Report was downloaded
from the company’s website, www.abf.co.uk. The reported
stated that executive director George Weston received a total of
£2,181,000 in remuneration in 2013, and John Bason £1,441,000
in 2013. Ethical Consumer considered remuneration above one
million pounds to be excessive. (ref: 32)
Product sustainability (+ve)
Fairtrade Product (+ve)
Fairtrade certified (November 2013)
Jacksons of Piccadilly’s website, www.jacksonsofpiccadilly.
co.uk, was searched for product sustainability information in
November 2013. The majority of Jacksons of Piccadilly’s teas
were certified Fairtrade. (ref: 40)
Lipton tea
Owned by Unilever
Unilever, Unilever House, 100 Victoria Embankment, London,
EC4Y 0DY, United Kingdom
Unilever is owned by Unilever PLC (50%)
Unilever PLC, Unilever House, 100 Victoria Embankment,
London, EC4Y 0DY, UK
Unilever is also owned by Unilever N.V. (50%)
owned by Stichting Administratiekantoor Unilever
N.V. (50%)
Stichting Administratiekantoor Unilever N.V., Claude Debussylaan
24, Amsterdam, 1082 MD, The Netherlands
Environment
Environmental Reporting
Best ECRA rating for environmental report (2013)
The Unilever Sustainable Living Plan 2012 was downloaded from
the company’s website www.unilever.com in November 2013. The
90
report discussed the following of the company’s environmental
impacts: greenhouse gases, water, waste, sustainable sourcing of
raw materials. The company had set targets to train small holder
farmers in sustainable practices and had set targets for each raw
material it sourced such as sugar or tea.
The report contained several quantified targets for 2020 including
to source 100% of agricultural raw materials sustainably by
2020.
Selected performance data was independently assured by
PricewaterhouseCoopers.
Unilever received Ethical Consumer’s best rating for
environmental reporting. (ref: 41)
Climate Change
Rated “fair” by Oxfams Behind the Brands scorecard
(September 2013)
In September 2013 Ethical Consumer viewed the most recent
“Behind the brand” scorecard produced by Oxfam as part of its
GROW campaign which sought to evaluate the world’s top 10
most powerful food and beverage companies. The campaign
aimed to challenge the companies to begin a “race to the top” to
improve their social and environmental performance.
Unilever was ranked 2nd out of 10 companies in the scorecard.
The company was rated in seven areas and marked out of ten
for each area.
According to the report Unilever scored:
3/10 for its land policies - Unilever needed to explicitly commit
to addressing land disputes within its supply chain.
4/10 for policies on women - Unilever needed to understand
where women were most vulnerable within its supply chain.
7/10 for policies on farmers: Unilever needed to treat farmers
more fairly.
7/10 for policies regarding workers: Unilever needed to ensure
suppliers were implementing key labour rights.
6/10 for policies on climate change: Unilver needed to help
farmers respond to climate change.
6/10 for transparency: Unilever needed to be more transparent
about its suppliers.
6/10 on water: Unilever needed to set a target for reduction of
water use through its supply chain.
Due to the fact Unilever had not received best in any of the
categories it lost marks in Ethical Consumer’s climate change,
human rights and workers rights categories. (ref: 23)
Pollution & Toxics
Fined for Polluting California Air With Deodorant Spray
(February 2010)
According to an article posted on the Environmental News
Service website, www.ens.newswire.com, a fragrant personal care
spray, sold by Conopco (a subsidairy of Unilever) and designed
to make men appear to be free of unpleasant body odour, polluted
California air to the degree that the state fined the company
more than $1 million. The California Air Resources Board
penalised the company $1.3 million for illegal consumer sales of
AXE Deodorant Bodyspray for Men. An Air Resources Board
spokesman said that the deodorant spray contaminated California
air with the volatile organic compounds used as a propellant and
went on to say deodorant sprays sold in California had a very
small specific level of volatile organic compounds (VOCS) that
they were permitted to emit and this product exceeded that level.
Between 2006 and 2008, Conopco, sold, supplied and offered for
sale in California more than 2.8 million units of deodorant body
spray that failed to meet the state’s clean air standards for aerosol
deodorants. According to the Air Resources Board Enforcement
Chief James Ryden, “Consumer products, because of their
pervasive use, contribute a growing portion of VOC emissions
throughout California. Therefore, it’s important that every can
and bottle of product be compliant with ARB’s standards.” The
violations resulted in what the Board called “significant excess
emissions” from volatile organic compounds which contribute to
ground-level ozone, or smog. Exposure to ozone can cause lung
inflammation, impaired breathing, coughing, chest tightness,
shortness of breath and worsening of asthma symptoms. Over
90 percent of Californians were said to still breathe unhealthy
air at some time during the year. (ref: 42)
Shares in Vedanta (2009)
The Ecologist published an article on its website, www.ecologist.
org, on 19 June 2009 in which it listed several UK companies which
owned shares in Vedanta Resources plc. Vedanta was behind the
controversial mine in India’s Orissa state which was situated on a
mountain sacred to local people. The company was given the goahead to begin mining for bauxite in May 2009. Campaign groups
had warned that the 600-hectare mine would result in ecological
degradation that would threaten the livelihoods of tribal people.
They said that several villages had been razed to make way for
the construction of a refinery, with up to 100 indigenous families
evicted from their land and relocated to ‘rehabilitation colonies’
where locals claimed they felt as though they were living ‘in a jail’
with little access to land for farming. A nearby bauxite refinery
which was already in existence had been blamed for causing
health problems, damaging crops and killing livestock.
Unilever Pension Fund was listed in the Ecologist as having
shares in Vedanta. (ref: 43)
Products contain triclosan (July 2012)
According to the ‘What’s in our products’ section of the www.
unilever.com website viewed in July 2012, Mentadent P and
Mentadent Sensitive toothpastes both contained triclosan.
Several studies have shown that triclosan disrupts the thyroid
hormone in frogs and rats, while others have shown that triclosan
alters the sex hormones of laboratory animals. Others studies have
shown that triclosan can cause some bacteria to become resistant
to antibiotics. (ref: 44)
Habitats & Resources
(See also ‘Shares in Vedanta’ in Pollution & Toxics above.)
Animals
Animal Testing
Worst ECRA rating for animal testing policy (November
2013)
Unilever’s website, www.unilever.com, was viewed in November
2013 by Ethical Consumer for its animal testing policy.
We found a statement from Unilever:
“Unilever is committed to the elimination of animal testing.
We are equally committed to consumer health and safety, and to
the safety of our workforce and the environment. We do not test
finished products on animals unless demanded by the regulatory
authorities in the few countries where this is the law. In such
cases, we try to convince the local authorities to change the law.
Where some testing of ingredients is required by law or currently
unavoidable, we aim to minimise the number of animals used.”
Due to its use of animal testing and the lack of clarity about
when it was used, for example for medical or cosmetic purposes,
the company received Ethical Consumer’s worst rating in this
category. (ref: 44)
Involved in animal testing not required by law (November
2013)
According to the PETA website viewed in November 2013,
Unilever was listed in a pdf called ‘Companies that test on
animals’ produced by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals
and updated 11/11/13. The companies were on the list because
they have not eliminated tests on animals for their entire line of
cosmetics and household products. (ref: 45)
Animal testing of food for health benefits (June 2013)
The BUAV released findings in June 2013 of research showing
cruel and unnecessary animal tests carried out by some of
the world’s leading food giants, Yakult, Danone, Nestlé and
Unilever.
Animal experiments have been carried out in an attempt to
identify the ‘health benefits’ of certain foods to feed the growing
infatuation with ‘super foods’. The animals subjected to the
experiments uncovered included mice, rats, rabbits and pigs. The
research is recent, having been published in the past two years.
Unilever was named by the BUAV for experiments involving
Hoodia gordonii, a spiny African shrub (which is already used as
a weight management supplement for the treatment of obesity),
rabbits and mice were subjected to a reproductive toxicity test.
Pregnant rabbits and mice were force fed extracts of the plant
throughout their pregnancy for 25 days. The day before the
animals were due to give birth, they and their unborn foetuses
were killed and examined.
Unilever was also named in an experiment in which piglets
were given an extract of Lipton’s tea to see if it could counter
diarrhoea caused by the Ecoli stomach bug. Eight of the monthold animals died, with severe diarrhoea to blame in at least seven
of the cases. (ref: 46)
Factory farming
Sale of intensively farmed meat (2013)
The US website of Unilever brand Bertolli, www.bertolli.com,
listed several frozen meals on sale when viewed in November
2013. Some of these contained meat, and this was not stated to
be free range.
Unilever UK also owns Peperoni, a spicy pork salami and Bovril
beef and chicken extracts plus Knorr stocks. None of these were
listed as containing free range or organic meat. (ref: 47)
Use of non free range eggs (2012)
According to its Sustainable Living Plan 2012, Unilever stated
“We aim to move to 100% cage-free eggs for all our products, where
allowed by local legislation. In Western Europe our Hellmann’s,
Amora and Calvé brands have been 100% cage-free since 2009
and by the end of 2011, 99% of all eggs used in Ben & Jerry’s
ice cream mix worldwide were cage-free. Around one-third of
our mayonnaise portfolio in North America becoming cage-free
by end 2012.”
This suggested that not all its brands were cage free in Western
Europe, not to mention all its products outside of Western Europe
including non-mayonnaise products in North America. (ref: 41)
Use of battery farmed eggs (2011)
According to a press release by the Humane Society of the
United States, dated 23rd August 2006, a campaign had been
launched to ask Ben & Jerry’s to stop using eggs sourced from
battery chicken farms in its ice-cream. The company was said
to have given assurances over the space of a year that it would
switch to free range eggs, but had failed to do so.
In September 2011 the parent company’s website, www.unilever.
com, was searched and the following information on their eggs
sourcing policy was found:
“All Ben & Jerry’s ice cream sold in Europe has used only
cage-free eggs since 2004, and globally, 88.3% of all eggs used
in Ben & Jerry’s production in 2009 were cage-free. In the US
in 2010, all Ben & Jerry’s ice cream sold in pint containers was
made with certified cage-free eggs.”
However, this left some areas of the company’s business which
91
still used eggs from caged hens. (ref: 48)
Animal Rights
Product containing slaughterhouse by-products (2013)
An Ethical Consumer shop survey, conducted on the 11th
November 2013, found that the product Flora Lighter than Light,
contained pork gelatine, a slaughterhouse by-product. (ref: 49)
(See also ‘Sale of intensively farmed meat’ in Factory
farming above.)
People
Human Rights
Human rights abuses by palm oil supplier (23 August 2011)
On 23rd August 2011 it was reported on the Rainforest Rescue
website, www.rainforest-rescue.org, that the small village of
Sungai Beruang on the Indonesian island of Sumatra had been
stormed by 700 armed soldiers from the notorious special forces
unit Brimob, and the Wilmar Group’s security forces. Wilmar
International was reported to be one of the world’s biggest palm
oil companies and one of the major suppliers to Unilever, one of
the world’s biggest palm oil processors, which used palm oil it
in almost all of it’s products. The raid on Sungai Beruang was
reported to result in hundreds of people fleeing “to escape the
guns and bulldozers” and much of the village being destroyed. 40
people from the ethnic group of the Suku Anak Dalam, which had
lived in the area for generations, were reported to be missing.
Rainforest Rescue was calling on supporters to contact Unilever
and request that they reconsider their collaboration with Wilmar
and replace the palm oil in its products with native fats. (ref:
50)
(See also ‘Rated “fair” by Oxfams Behind the Brands
scorecard’ in Climate Change above.)
(See also ‘Shares in Vedanta’ in Pollution & Toxics above.)
Workers’ Rights
Workers rights issues at factory in Vietnam (January 2013)
A report by Oxfam in January 2013 revealed evidence of poor
labour practices in Unilever’s operations in Vietnam between
2011 and 2012.
The in-depth review by Oxfam of one of Unilever’s Vietnam
Factories showed that:
• Wages were insufficient to make savings or support dependants,
with instances of workers unable to eat adequate diets or afford
to keep children in school.
• Suppliers and managers unclear about Unilever’s codes of
conduct, in some cases only accessible in English.
• Workers were too scared to voice grievances or engage in
freedom of association.
• Factory workers employed by a third party were on much
poorer terms and conditions.
• Suppliers with employees working illegal overtime hours.
Oxfam researchers were given access to the factory at Cu Chi,
near Ho Chi Minh city, where 700 workers were directly employed
by Unilever and 800 more were employed by Thang Loi, a third
party labour provider. Managers and workers were interviewed
on site and off site; 48 suppliers were also interviewed, with
three selected for in-depth research. The results, published with
the approval of Unilever, showed the company fell short of the
standards it set for itself.
Although the study found that wages paid by Unilever were in
excess of the national minimum wage (approximately £45 per
month in 2011) and the international poverty line of $2 (£1.20)
per day, wages still did not meet the basic needs of employees
and their families.
The minimum wage itself, said the report, “lags behind a
92
rapidly-rising cost of living ... meeting only 40% to 46% of
workers’ minimum expenses per month.” Of workers in the Cu
Chi factory, 80% said they needed another source of income to
feed their families. One worker recounted having to take two
of her three children out of school to work as a consequence of
inadequate pay.
Any such labour issues could be dealt with by a grievance
hotline or the trade union. However, neither were used nor trusted.
There was only one state-run trade union in Vietnam, and it was
dominated by senior managers. Similarly, the workers feared that
the grievance hotline would simply go straight to the management
and put their job at risk. “We dare not raise our voice through the
union leaders because they are paid by the company, they are the
company’s people,” said one worker.
Conditions for those employed temporarily, by a third party, or
by suppliers, were even worse. Globally, the number of people
directly employed by Unilever decreased by nearly a half (45%)
from 295,000 employees to 164,000 between 2000 and 2009.
However, the report states: “The work of 131,000 people did not
disappear. According to Unilever, in 2009 this work was being
done instead by 86,000 people that were outsourced and/or under
temporary contracts.”
In the Cu Chi factory, 748 of the 1,539 workers (53%) were
employed by a third party, Thang Loi – mostly migrants living
in rented accommodation, paid just above minimum wage (only
with cash benefits and overtime did this rise above the local
average urban income).
Among suppliers outside the factory, 20 of the 48 interviewed
said Unilever’s supplier code (which required at a bare minimum
an adherence to local laws) had never been mentioned. At one
supplier, employees worked four hours’ overtime a day, six days
a week, for 10 months: well in excess of a legal national limit of
200 hours a year. Another said that offering excessive overtime
gave it a competitive advantage.
Unilever said it was disappointed by the outcome of the Oxfam
report and the problems stemmed from the assumption that
regional operations would follow its global CSR standards. It
stated that it would work with its factory in Vietnam to change
the way it works.
However, it was pointed out that Vietnam was just one case
study and that the company had a presence in over 100 countries,
directly employing 171,000 employees. Nearly 55% of its business
was in emerging markets.
Unilever stated that it would welcome Oxfam back to the factory
in two years time to assess improvements made. (ref: 51)
Child labour likely in vanilla supply chain (May 2011)
In May 2011 Dutch sustainable development NGO SOMO
published an overview of Unilever’s controversial business
practices that occurred in 2010. It focussed on Unilever’s use of
vanilla from Madagascar in its ice cream. Vanilla production is
plagued by child labour and unsustainable farm gate prices. Two
thirds of EU vanilla imports come from Madagascar.
There were 80,000 smallholder, family-run vanilla farms in
Madagascar. In 2008, growers were getting 6.6% of the export
price. In 2010 it was reported that growers were earning a dollar
a day. 97,000 children aged 5-17 were economically active in
Sava, a region of Madagascar responsible for the vast majority
of vanilla production.
On the subject of child labour, Unilever responded by saying
that it was satisfied that its suppliers were not sourcing from
producers that resort to child labour. It made no comment on low
farm income despite the fact that it sourced 8% of Madagascar’s
vanilla. Low farm income was related to child labour because
vanilla prices had plummeted, so growers were forced to rely on
their children for unpaid work in the fields.
However, the report stated that the ethical standards of Unilever’s
(first tier) suppliers were not effective because they could monitor
the work of farmers further down the chain. 6,000 individual
farmers might be indirectly supplying Unilever.
SOMO concludes that Unilever was not taking enough
responsibility for addressing both these issues, despite Unilever’s
awareness of the problems in its vanilla supply chain and its
influence as a major client. It was noted that it had committed too
sourcing Fairtrade vanilla for the minority share of its ice cream
(Ben & Jerry’s) by 2013 whilst failing to address responsible
sourcing for the majority of its ice cream. (ref: 52)
Sexual Harassment at Kericho tea plantation (August
2012)
In February 2012 the School of International and Public Affairs,
Columbia University, published a report entitled “Allegations of
sexual harassment and abuse in Unilever’s Kericho plantation,
Kenya: A case study of due diligence and certification processes”.
Unilever was criticized for not showing due diligence in its
response to allegations of sexual harassment and abuse of female
workers by their male supervisors at its Kericho tea plantation in
Kenya. The report claimed that “sexual harassment and coercive
sex [are] absolutely standard for all women under forty”. The
paper concludes that “on many dimensions the company took a
defensive rather than proactive approach to the allegations, thereby
falling short of its own commitments to due diligence.”
The report also criticized Unilever for forcing female employees
to take pregnancy tests, which Ethical Consumer considered to
be a discriminatory practice.
Due to the lack of stakeholder engagement the company received
a poor rating.
Auditing and reporting (poor)
A search of Unilever’s website found there was no evidence of
a schedule of audits for its whole supply chain or disclosure of
results of any audits completed. There was no commitment to
audit its whole supply chain.
Its website stated “Based on our assessment of supplier risk,
we may request further verification from suppliers in the form
of self-assessments and audits to verify that their operational
practices meet our Supplier Code requirements”. It continued
by stating that if practices did not meet its requirements then
suppliers would need to take action to achieve compliance.
Unilever said it was a continuous process but said in cases of
non-cooperation or final non-compliance, it would cease doing
business with that supplier.
It said that it engaged with other industry peers to “deploy a
common approach to supplier assessments that is recognised
across our industry...This facilitates a process where suppliers
can confidentially share their audit reports on the principle that
‘an audit for one is an audit for all’. This reduces unnecessary
duplication and complexity and accelerates the process of assessing
suppliers”. There was no mention of costs. Unilever was considered
to have a poor rating for auditing and reporting.
Difficult issues (poor)
Unilever published a response to the study, dated 17 April 2012,
written by Rachel Cowburn-Walden. This response argued that
the claims of sexual harassment had not been proven. However,
it also highlighted that Unilever had rolled out a human rights
training programme and appointed a welfare manager at the
Kericho plantation. (ref: 53)
No discussion was found on Unilevers website about working
towards payment of a living wage, homeworkers, and freedom
of association or problems with audit fraud or training for buying
agents on labour standards therefore the company received a poor
rating in this category.
Supply Chain Management
Overall Unilever received Ethical Consumer’s worst rating for
supply chain management. (ref: 54)
Worst ECRA rating for supply chain management
(October 2013)
Unilever was sent a questionnaire in October 2013 requesting
information on its supply chain management. No response was
received. Ethical Consumer searched Unilever’s website, www.
unilever.com, and found Unilever’s Supplier Code and set of
guidelines.
Supply chain policy (poor)
The Supplier Code had adequate provisions for child and
forced labour. It stated that freedom of association, hours and
wages should in be accordance with local laws, it did not state
an upper limit on hours work. Ethical Consumer considered
these provisions inadequate. There was no statement defining
the width and depth the code applied to within its supply chain
and there was no provisions relating to employment being free
from discrimination. Therefore Unilever was considered to have
a poor supply chain policy.
Stakeholder engagement (poor)
A search of Unilever’s website found no evidence of its
involvement in multi-stakeholder initiatives or NGOs / NFPs
in working to improve workers rights within its supply chain.
The company appeared to be members of several business-led
initiatives working on improving workers rights within supply
chains including the Global Social Compliance Programme
(GSCP) and AIM-PROGRESS.
There was a confidential ethics hotline but this appeared to be
for reporting non-compliance with Business Code Principles.
Politics
Genetic Engineering
Pro GM policy statement (November 2013)
In November 2013 Ethical Consumer searched the Unilever
website for the company’s policy on the use of GM ingredients.
The following position statement was found on its website; “We
support the responsible use of biotechnology within the framework
of effective regulatory control and provision of information about
its use. The use of this technology to improve food crops can
bring important benefits to mankind and individual applications
should be judged on their merits.
“We acknowledge that the public’s view of biotechnology, such
as the use of GM ingredients in foods, is still evolving and that
the debate and public acceptance is at different stages in different
regions of the world.
“Our companies are free to use ingredients derived from modified
crops, which have been approved by the regulatory authorities and
which meet our own standards for quality and acceptability.
“The decision whether or not such ingredients will be used is made
at local or regional level, taking into account public perception,
national legislation, availability and costs of alternatives and
attitudes of our customers, including the retail trade.” (ref: 47)
Political Activities
Member of WEF (July 2013)
Unilever was listed as a strategic partner of the World Economic
Forum, on its website www.weforum.org viewed by Ethical
Consumer in July 2013. The World Economic Forum was a lobby
93
group which campaigned for greater economic liberalisation
and deregulation. ECRA defined the World Economic Forum
as a corporate lobby group which lobbied for free trade at the
expense of the environment, animal welfare, human rights or
health protection. (ref: 55)
Member of four lobby groups (2011)
According to the Unilever website, www.unilever.com, viewed
in 2011, the company was a member of the follwing lobby groups;
the European Round Table of Industrialists (ERT), the International
Chamber of Commerce (ICC), TransAtlantic Business Dialogue
(TABD), the World Business Council for Sustainable Development
(WBCSD) and the World Economic Forum (WEF). (ref: 47)
Anti-Social Finance
Worst ECRA rating for likely use of tax avoidance
strategies (November 2013)
In November 2013 Ethical Consumer viewed the Unilever family
tree on the corporate website Hoovers.com. This listed a number
of subsidiaries Ethical Consumer to be considered at high risk of
being used for tax avoidance purposes due to the company type
and the fact that they were located in jurisdictions considered by
Ethical Consumer to be tax havens.
These included a management, a holding and security brokers
and dealers subsidiaries based in Switzerland plus an advertising
company based in the Channel Islands.
Based on this evidence Unilever was considered likely to be
using tax avoidance strategies and received Ethical Consumer’s
worst rating in this category. (ref: 39)
Excessive directors’ pay (2012)
According to Unilever’s 2012 Annual Report, in 2012 the CEO
was paid £6,030,000 and the CFO was paid £3,878,000.
Ethical Consumer regarded payments of over £1 million as
excessive. (ref: 56)
Criticised by ActionAid for having subsidiaries in tax
havens (October 2011)
ActionAid published a FTSE 100 Tax Haven Tracker in October
2011 which tracked how many of the subsidiaries of the FTSE
100 companies were in tax havens. It uncovered that Unilever
had 696 subsidiaries, 34% of which were in developing countries
and 26% of which were in tax havens.
According to ActionAid corporate tax avoidance, one of the
main reasons companies use tax havens, was having a massive
impact on rich and poor countries alike. Developing countries,
it said currently lose three times more to tax havens than they
receive in aid each year. Chris Jordan, ActionAid’s tax justice
expert said: “ActionAid’s research showing the use of tax havens
by Britain’s biggest companies raises serious questions they
need to answer. Tax havens have a damaging impact on the UK
exchequer, the stability of the international financial system,
and vitally on the ability of developing countries to raise tax
revenues which would lift them out of poverty and make them
less dependent on aid.”
The use of tax havens facilitates tax avoidance and evasion,
which undermines the revenue bases of both developing and
developed countries. Additional revenues are urgently needed
both to invest in the fight against poverty and to tackle the deficits
incurred during the financial crisis in rich countries. Chris Jordan
continued: “When multinationals use tax havens to avoid paying
their fair share, ordinary people in both poor and rich countries
are left to pick up the bill. Spending on doctors, nurses and other
essential services gets cut for those who need it most. Tax havens
might provide the lure of financial secrecy and low tax rates for
big companies, but at a time when all countries are desperate for
revenues, the UK government can’t afford to turn a blind eye.”
ActionAid was calling on the government to urgently rethink its
current proposals to relax UK anti tax haven rules. The Treasury
94
itself estimated these changes would result in an £840 million
tax break for multinational companies that used tax havens. With
both developing and developed countries bearing the brunt of
debilitating losses, ActionAid said the UK must ensure the G20
takes the decisive action it promised on tax havens at the London
summit in 2009. (ref: 57)
Pukka Herbs organic herbal teas
[O]
Owned by Pukka Herbs
Environment
Environmental Reporting
Best ECRA rating for environmental reporting (November
2013)
In November 2013 a questionnaire was sent to Pukka Herbs
asking for its environmental report. Ethical Consumer received
no reply. A search was made of Pukka Herbs website, www.
pukkaherbs.com, for the company’s environmental report. The
company’s website stated that all of its herbs and porducts were
certified organic by the Soil Association and the USDA. As the
company had a turnover of less than £8m and was providing an
environmental alternative it received Ethical Consumer’s best
rating for environmental reporting. (ref: 58)
People
Supply Chain Management
Best ECRA rating for supply chain management
(November 2013)
In November 2013 a questionnaire was sent to Pukka Herbs
asking for its supply chain policy. Ethical Consumer received
no reply. A search was made of Pukka Herbs website, www.
pukkaherbs.com, for the company’s supply chain policy. No
supply chain policy was found. The company sold products
ranging from skincare creams to tea. Most of the products had
been certified organic by the Soil Association, it also sold some
Fairtrade certified teas. The Soil Association certification scheme
included some provisions for workers rights.
Pukka Herbs received Ethical Consumer’s best rating for supply
chain policy due to the fact it had an effective if not explicit
practice and a turnover of less than £8m. (ref: 58)
Politics
Company Ethos (+ve)
All organic products (November 2013)
In November 2013, Ethical Consumer viewed Pukka Herbs
website, www.pukkaherbs.co.uk, which stated that “all our herbs
and products are certified organic by the Soil Association and the
USDA”. (ref: 58)
Product sustainability (+ve)
Organic Product (+ve)
Organic (November 2013)
Ethical Consumer viewed Pukka herbs website in November
2013 and found that it sold herbal teas certified by the Soil
Association. (ref: 58)
Redbush Rooibos Tea
Owned by Redbush Tea Co
Redbush Tea Co, 90 Long Acre, Covent Garden, London, WC2E
9RA
Environment
Environmental Reporting
Best ECRA rating for environmental reporting (November
2013)
In November 2013 a questionnaire was sent to Redbush Tea Co
asking for its environmental report. Ethical Consumer received
no reply. A search was made of Redbush Tea Co website, www.
redbushtea.com, for the company’s environmental report. The
company’s website included an environmental policy which
stated the company had put into place a number of “policies
and changes to ensure that we do what we can to protect and
preserve our precious planet”. It stated that for its tea boxes it
used timber sourced from managed, sustainable forests and for its
tea bags it used non-chlorine bleached paper which was sourced
from sustainable forests in Europe, Ecuador and the Philippines.
The company also stated that in 2006 it had made the decision
to drop using non-sustainable palm oil in its handmade soaps.
The company also donated profits from the sale of its tea to the
Kalahari Peoples Fund (KPF).
Redbush Tea Co was considered to be providing an environmental
and social alternative and therefore received Ethical Consumer’s
best rating for environmental reporting. (ref: 59)
People
Supply Chain Management
Worst ECRA rating for supply chain management
(November 2013)
In November 2013 a questionnaire was sent to Redbush Tea
Co asking for its supply chain policy. Ethical Consumer received
no reply. A search was made of Redbush Tea Co website, www.
redbushtea.com, for the company’s supply chain policy. No supply
chain policy was found. Since February 2001 the company had
donated some of its profits from the sale of their teas to the Kalahari
Peoples Fund (KPF). The fund helped to promote innovative
community development programmes ranging from training
community members to become local teachers, ensuring that their
culture and language is sustained, craft cooperatives, establishing
farmland where crops can be grown to support communities to
buying computers for their schools.
While The Redbush Tea company was applauded for its work
with the Kalahari people the company did not have any publicly
available information regarding its workers within its supply
chain. It therefore received Ethical Consumer’s worst rating for
supply chain management. (ref: 59)
Steenbergs organic tea [O]
Owned by Steenbergs Organic
Steenbergs Organic, Steenbergs Limited, 6 Hallikeld Close, Barker
Business Park, Melmerby, Ripon, HG4 5GZ, United Kingdom
Environment
Environmental Reporting
Best ECRA rating for Environmental Reporting
(November 2013)
In November 2013 a questionnaire was sent to Steenbergs
Organic asking for its environmental report. Ethical Consumer
received no reply. A search was made of Steenbergs Organic
website, www.steenbergsorganic.net, for the company’s
environmental report. An environmental policy was found which
included four aims:
1. To strive for zero environmental impact from our business
now
2. To be organic in all we do
3. To think about the environmental impact of the ways in
which we work, then to strive for the best practical environmental
option
4. Good packaging
The company also had information on sourcing, transport &
travel, packaging & waste, energy & IT, building, and carbon
costs. Steenbergs demonstrated excellent understanding of its
main environmental impacts.
It stated: “Our environmental principles are deeply held, so
the factory incorporates many eco-features, including low water
usage toilets, 100% green energy, solar tubes, natural linoleum,
carbon neutral carpet tiles and phone services from an ethical
phone co-operative.
Steenbergs offsets its excess carbon footprint, including all
transport in, staff travel (to and from work) and transport outwards
through Climatecare. We believe that we are one of the only UK
food businesses that already has a zero carbon footprint, and we
have been so since 2006. There’s still more to be done, but we’re
working on this - more recycling, better packaging and solar
heating are all being addressed.”
Due to the fact the company had a turnover of less than £8 million
and was providing an environmental alternative it received Ethical
Consumer’s best rating for environmental reporting. (ref: 60)
Animals
Animal Rights
Sells pet food (November 2013)
In November 2013 Ethical Consumer viewed Steenbergs website,
www.steenbergs.co.uk, and found that the company sold organic
pet food. While organic pet food addressed factory farming issues,
it was still a product containing animal which Ethical Consumer
considered to be an animal rights issues. The company therefore
lost a whole mark in this category. (ref: 61)
People
Supply Chain Management
Best ECRA rating for Supply Chain Management
(November 2013)
In November 2013 a questionnaire was sent to Steenbergs
Organic asking for its supply chain policy. Ethical Consumer
received no reply. A search was made of Steenbergs Organic
two websites, www.steenbergsorganic.net and www.steenbergs.
co.uk, for the company’s supply chain policy. An ethical policy
was located which included adequate clauses on prohibiting
forced labour, freedom of association, and employment free
from discrimination. The clause on child labour was considered
inadequate due to the fact “child” was not defined in accordance
with International Labour Organisation’s (ILO) definition. The
clauses on working hours and living wages were also considered
inadequate due to the fact they were only required to meet local
or national laws. However since its establishment in 2003 the
company was registered with FLO-Cert GmbH and The Fairtrade
Foundation to trade in and sell Fairtrade tea products, it was also
one of the few businesses to be registered to trade in and sell
Fairtrade spices and herbs. According to its website over 80% of
its raw material purchased were organic and much of it Fairtrade
as well. Due to the fact the company was considered to be a
small company with a turnover of less than £8million and had
an effective if not explicit policy it received Ethical Consumer’s
best rating for supply chain management. (ref: 60)
95
Product sustainability (+ve)
People
Organic Product (+ve)
Human Rights
Certified organic (November 2013)
In November 2013 Ethical Consumer viewed Steenbergs
website, www.steenbergs.co.uk and found that it sold teas certified
organic. (ref: 61)
Taylors of Harrogate Herbal teas
[O]
Owned by Bettys & Taylors Group Ltd
Bettys & Taylors Group Ltd, 1, Parliament St, Harrogate, North
Yorkshire, HG2 7NX, England
Environment
Environmental Reporting
Worst ECRA rating for environmental reporting
(November 2013)
Bettys and Taylors Group’s website, www.bettysandtaylors.
co.uk, was searched for an environmental policy in November
2013, and the group’s environmental policy was downloaded.
The policy discussed packaging, waste, emissions, noise
pollution, resource use, reforestation efforts, recycling and the
company said that they audited all suppliers to ensure that they
were environmentally aware and complied with environmental
legislation.
The company was a signatory to the Food and Drink Federation’s
Five-Fold Environmental Ambition, and consequently measured
and targeted reductions in energy, water, waste, packing and food
miles, and reported on the company’s progress annually. In the
2011 report the company said it recorded a 17% reduction in
energy used per tonne of production at its tea and coffee factory, a
saving of 100,000 road miles per year, by importing commodities
through Teesport in the North East, and a decrease in food waste
due to partnerships with charities and local farms.
(See also ‘No palm oil policy found’ in Climate Change
above.)
Supply Chain Management
Worst ECRA rating for supply chain management
(October 2013)
In October 2013 a questionnaire was sent to Bettys & Taylors
Group Ltd asking for its supply chain policy. Ethical Consumer
received no reply. A search was made of Bettys & Taylors Group Ltd
website, www.bettysandtaylors.co.uk, for the company’s supply
chain policy and downloaded the “Taylors of Harrogate Ethical
Trading Policy for Tea & Coffee” dated September 2011.
Supply chain policy (inadequate)
The company’s Trading Policy stated that it adhered to the
following principles, which included right to freedom of
association, employment free from discrimination and payment
of living wages. There was also clauses on hours and child labour
however these were not defined and therefore were not considered
adequate. There was no provision on the use of forced labour and
no statement which stated it applied to the entire breadth of the
supply chain. Therefore Battys and Taylors was considered to
have an inadequate supply chain policy.
Stakeholder engagement (rudimentary)
Taylors of Harrogate stated that it worked with the Ethical
Trading Intiative which was a multi-stakeholder process as well
as the Ethical Tea Partnership - a not-for-profit organisation that
monitored social and environmental conditions on tea estates in
all major tea producing regions. It also said it brought tea from
Faritrade, Rainforest Alliance and Utz Certified. There was no
mention of a process whereby workers could feedback to the
company about workplace conditions therefore Bettys and Taylors
received a rudimentary stakeholder engagement rating.
However, this report could not be found.
Although the company seemed to understand it key environmental
impacts, it did not present environmental performance data and
did not provide future dated and quantified environmental targets.
Bettys and Taylors Group therefore received Ethical Consumer’s
worst rating for environmental reporting. (ref: 62)
Climate Change
No palm oil policy found (November 2013)
Bettys and Taylors Group’s website, www.bettysandtaylors.
co.uk, was searched for a palm oil policy in Novermber 2013.
No information could be found. Due to the fact the company
sold biscuits and chocolates under the Betty brand the company
lost half marks in Ethical Consumer’s rating system in the
categories of climate change, habitats & resources and human
rights. (ref: 63)
Habitats & Resources
(See also ‘No palm oil policy found’ in Climate Change
above.)
Animals
Auditing and reporting (poor)
Taylors of Harrogate stated that suppliers not covered by an
international certification scheme would be required to have
a diagnostic visit from a certifying body of their choice. For
first time diagnostic visits costs could be covered by Taylors
of Harrogate. However producers would be expected to cover
the costs of certification. The company’s ultimate aim was to
have 100% suppliers covered by certification schemes by 2013.
However there was no disclosure of results from audits, there was
no schedule for continued audits until producers were certified
and it was unclear what the company did in instances of noncompliance. Taylor of Harrogates received a poor auditing and
reporting rating.
Difficult issues (poor)
No discussions about purchasing training, audit fraud, illegal
freedom of association and living wage could be found on the
company’s website.
Animal Rights
Sells meat in Cafes (November 2013)
A search of Bettys and Taylors website, www.bettysandtaylors.
co.uk, by Ethical Consumer in November 2013, found that the
company sold meat and fish in its cafe which were labelled as
being free-range. (ref: 63)
Overall the company received a worst Ethical Consumer rating
for supply chain management. (ref: 64)
Politics
Genetic Engineering
Products potentially contain GMOs (November 2013)
Bettys and Taylors Group’s website, www.bettysandtaylors.
co.uk, was searched for a GMO policy in November 2013. The
96
group’s environmental policy was downloaded. The environmental
policy had a small GMO section which stated ‘wherever possible
we try to work with the very best suppliers. We do not actively
source any genetically modified ingredients for our food
and beverage products. However, we acknowledge that the
increasingly widespread use of GM soya and corn – particularly
in animal feed– means that we can no longer expect our extended
supply chain to be GM free. No further information could be
found. The company sold meat through its cafés.
Climate change impact sector (November 2013)
In November 2013 Financial Times website, www.financialtimes.
com reported that the competition comission was looking into the
proposed joint venture between Tata Sons and Singapore Airlines
which will run Tata-SIA Airlines. The new airline was due to
launch in June-July 2014 according to the report. (ref: 68)
Product sustainability (+ve)
High climate impact sector (November 2013)
In November 2013 Ethical Consumer viewed Tata Motors 68th
Annual Report 2012-2013 which stated “Tata Motors Limited is
India’s largest automobile company. It is the leader in commercial
vehicles and among the leaders in passenger vehicles in India with
winning products in the compact, midsize car and utility vehicle
segments. It is also the world’s fourth largest bus and fifth largest
truck manufacturer”. (ref: 69)
Organic Product (+ve)
Pollution & Toxics
Marketed as Organic (November 2013)
The Taylors of Harrogate website was viewed in November
2013 and listed organic peppermint and chamomile tea bags as
being organic. (ref: 65)
Death of worker and protestors (2010)
According to the 2011 Ecologist report ‘Whats really in your
cuppa’ in 2010, on an estate owned by Tata Group, a worker who
collapsed while spraying pesticides was reportedly refused medical
treatment and later died. Protests in response to the death were
quelled by local police, resulting in the deaths of two protesters
and a further 15 injuries.
As the company did not commit to business-wide GMO free
products, Bettys and Taylor received a negative mark for potentially
supplying products containing GMOs. (ref: 62)
Teapigs tea
Owned by Teapigs Ltd
Teapigs Ltd is owned by Tata Global Beverages
owned by Tata Group (35%)
Tata Group, Bombay House, 24 Homi Mody St, Fort,, Mumbai,
400 001, India
Tata Global Beverages also owns Tetley Redbush tea [S] and
Tetley tea
Environment
Environmental Reporting
Worst ECRA rating for environmental reporting
(November 2013)
In November 2013 a questionnaire was sent to Tata Global
Beverages (TGB) asking for its environmental report. Ethical
Consumer received a reply. Which included a link to TGB’s
sustainability report dated 2008-09 which included a chapter
on environmental performance. The chapter included details
about how much the company had used in materials, green
house gas emissions, water use, biodiversity and environmental
expenditure.
In the questionnaire response from TGB it stated that its global
Green House Gas (GHG) emissions had been independently
verified by British Standards Institution (BSI) as per ISO 14064
and that it had been rated as Climate Disclosure Leadership Index
in India covering over 65 sites, globally, including factories and
plantations. Its climate change strategy included, sustainable
agricultural practices towards climate change adaptation;
sustainable forestry, afforest ration and sequestration towards
climate change mitigation; use of renewable sources - wind energy,
bio gas, Tata Solar, etc. and energy efficiency programs & ISO
50001 in all the production units. TGB was considered to have
demonstrated a good understanding of its main environmental
impacts however it did have two quantified dated targets nor was its
data or information independently verified. TGB received a worst
Ethical Consumer rating for environmental reporting. (ref: 66)
Climate Change
Oil and gas exploration (November 2013)
In November 2013 Ethical Consumer viewed Tata Petrodyne
website, www.tatapetrodyne.in. It stated that the company was
involved in the exploration and production of crude oil and
natural gas. (ref: 67)
The report also stated: “Grown in monoculture, tea plants
provide ideal conditions for a number of pests, resulting in the
widespread use of toxic pesticides. Recently four elephants were
found dead in Kaziranga National Park, India, after they wandered
into a tea plantation and ate grass which had been sprayed with
pesticides.” (ref: 70)
Shares in Vedanta (2009)
The Ecologist published an article on its website (www.ecologist.
org) on 19 June 2009 in which it listed several UK companies who
owned shares in Vedanta Resources plc. Vedanta was behind the
controversial mine in India’s Orissa state which was situated on a
mountain sacred to local people. The company was given the goahead to begin mining for bauxite in May 2009. Campaign groups
had warned that the 600-hectare mine would result in ecological
degradation that would threaten the livelihoods of tribal people.
They said that several villages had been razed to make way for
the construction of a refinery, with up to 100 indigenous families
evicted from their land and relocated to ‘rehabilitation colonies’
where locals claimed they felt as though they were living ‘in a jail’
with little access to land for farming. A nearby bauxite refinery
which was already in existence had been blamed for causing
health problems, damaging crops and killing livestock.
Jaguar Cars Pension Plan (a subsidairy of Tata Motors) was listed
in the Ecologist as having shares in Vedanta. (ref: 43)
Shares in Vedanta (2009)
The Ecologist published an article on its website (www.ecologist.
org) on 19 June 2009 in which it listed several UK companies who
owned shares in Vedanta Resources plc. Vedanta was behind the
controversial mine in India’s Orissa state which was situated on a
mountain sacred to local people. The company was given the goahead to begin mining for bauxite in May 2009. Campaign groups
had warned that the 600-hectare mine would result in ecological
degradation that would threaten the livelihoods of tribal people.
They said that several villages had been razed to make way for
the construction of a refinery, with up to 100 indigenous families
evicted from their land and relocated to ‘rehabilitation colonies’
where locals claimed they felt as though they were living ‘in a jail’
with little access to land for farming. A nearby bauxite refinery
which was already in existence had been blamed for causing
health problems, damaging crops and killing livestock.
Land Rover Pension Trustees Ltd (a subsidairy of Tata Motors)
was listed in the Ecologist as having shares in Vedanta. (ref:
43)
97
Habitats & Resources
(See also ‘Shares in Vedanta’ in Pollution & Toxics above.)
(See also ‘Shares in Vedanta’ in Pollution & Toxics above.)
(See also ‘Oil and gas exploration’ in Climate Change
above.)
Animals
Animal Testing
Involved in animal testing (November 2013)
In November 2013 Ethical Consumer viewed Advinus
Therapeutics website, www.advinus.com, a subsidairy of Tata
Group and found that it had been “only one of the 5 labs worldwide to successfully complete a Transgenic mice carcinogenicity
studies”. The company also offered in vivo services. (ref: 71)
Animal Rights
Manufactures and markets leather (November 2013)
In November 2013 Ethical Consumer viewed Tata Internationals
website, www.tatainternational.com and found that the company
was involved in the manufacturing and selling of leather
products. Leather was considered by Ethical Consumer to be a
slaughterhouse by product. (ref: 72)
People
Human Rights
Supplier to Israeli military (June 2013)
In June 2013 it was reported on the Who Profits? website that
Land Rover (a subsidariy of Tata Motors) supplied armoured
vehicles to the Israeli ministry of defence through its sole Israeli
distributor, Eastern Automobile Marketing, which also supplied
maintenance services for the vehicles. The Israeli army was also
said to have developed the ‘David’ armoured vehicle, which was
built on top of a Land Rover Defender chassis. According to the
article, “David Vehicles are used by the Israeli army to protect
illegal settlements and military bases along the West Bank, to
prevent Palestinian shepherds from herding on their lands and
to oppress Palestinian demonstrators. David Vehicles carrying
tear Gas launchers on their roofs were used during non violence
demonstrations in the village of Nabi Saleh.” (ref: 73)
Operations in oppressive regimes (November 2013)
In November 2013 Ethical Consumer viewed Tata Global
Beverages website, www.tataglobalbeverages.com, and found
that it had operations in Russia and China. It also had offices
in Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. The company was
headquartered in India. At the time of writing Ethical Consumer
considered each of these countries to be governed by oppressive
regimes. (ref: 66)
(See also ‘Shares in Vedanta’ in Pollution & Toxics above.)
Workers’ Rights
(See also ‘Death of worker and protestors’ in Pollution &
Toxics above.)
Labour abuses on Indian tea plantations (July 2013)
A press release from the Accountability Counsel on July 5th 2013
alleged that workers on Tata’s Tetley tea plantations in northeast
India, who made less than $2 a day, demanded the company
respect their human rights on World Bank-financed plantations.
A workers’ complaint to the World Bank calls on the Bank to
ensure the end of inhumane working and living conditions, and
coercion and pressure of workers on the plantations.
On Wednesday 3rd July 2013, in the presence of the World
Bank’s accountability office, Tata met with worker representatives
to discuss intimidation and retaliation by plantation management
against workers participating in the complaint process.
“While Tata and Tetley market themselves globally as socially
responsible leaders, they are fooling their customers and
making large profits from the mistreatment and exploitation
98
of marginalized indigenous communities,” said Stephen Ekka,
Director of PAJHRA, one of three community organisations that
filed the complaint to the World Bank’s accountability office.
Workers had been interrogated, intimidated, and in some cases,
retaliated against by plantation management for voicing their
complaints. One worker, who did not wish to be named for fear
of losing her job said, “I worked a heavy workload even when
nine months pregnant. I live in a broken home without clean
water. Tata refuses to respect us as human beings.”
“The World Bank Group must ensure that workers receive
the basic protections that it claims to value and is responsible
for upholding,” says Komala Ramachandra of Accountability
Counsel, a non-profit organization supporting workers in their
complaint. Jayshree Satpute of Nazdeek, a legal empowerment
organisation working closely with workers, said, “Tata is not
only in violation of its contract with the World Bank, but is also
denying the basic human rights guaranteed to the workers under
the Indian Constitution and domestic laws.”
Wilfred Topno, Secretary of People’s Action for Development,
stated, “A colonial attitude and feudal structure persist in the
plantations, with the same subhuman living and working conditions
for the last 150 years. Our community demands change.”
Tata Global Beverages, and their brand Tetley Tea, is the second
largest player in global tea industry. The World Bank Group,
through an investment in Tata, owns a nearly 20 percent stake in
the tea plantations involved in the complaint to the World Bank’s
accountability office. (ref: 74)
Health and Safety Executive fines (2013)
In April 2013 it was reported on the Health & Safety Executive
(HSE) website, www.hse.gov.uk, that Tata Chemicals Europe
Ltd, which is part of the global Tata group, had been fined more
than £100,000 after workers were put in danger in three separate
incidents at its Cheshire factory. Tata Chemicals was prosecuted
by the HSE following an investigation into the incidents at the
Winnington Lane site, all of which occurred during 2010.
Chester Crown Court was told on the 10th of April 2013 that
the first incident happened on 29 January 2010 when a worker
was trying to reach a pump to restart it when his right foot went
through a missing part of the grating. He was exposed to a toxic
liquid at a temperature of approximately 95 degrees Celsius
when his foot entered the sump below, which was used to collect
overflowing chemicals.
The second incident occurred six months later, on 25 July 2010,
when a dangerous gas was released, resulting in high levels of
carbon monoxide being present in the area of the plant where
employees were working. An investigation into the incident
found employees had not been given sufficient practical training
for the work activity that caused the gas leak, and the emergency
procedures at the plant were inadequate.
The final incident took place on 21 November 2010 when part
of the gantry a worker was walking along gave way as the metal
grating under his feet had become badly corroded. He escaped
with minor injuries after landing on a scaffolding board on the
walkway below.
When a HSE inspector visited the factory, she discovered the
company had failed to report another part of the grating on the
same walkway collapsing two days before the incident on 21
November.
Tata Chemicals Europe Ltd pleaded guilty to four breaches
of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 due to failing to
ensure the safety of workers.
The company also admitted two breaches of the Reporting
of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations
1995 after it failed to report the two walkway collapses in
November 2010 as soon as possible, despite this being a legal
requirement.
Tata Chemicals was fined a total of £100,750 for all six offences
and ordered to pay £71,082 in prosecution costs. (ref: 75)
Supply Chain Management
Worst ECRA rating for supply chain management
(October 2013)
In January 2013 a questionnaire was sent to Tata Global
Beverages (TGB) asking for its supply chain policy. Ethical
Consumer received a reply which stated that all of its tea was
covered under the Ethical Tea Partnership (ETP) and that it had
a target to source 100% of Tetley tea from Rainforest Alliance
certified farms by 2016. Overall TGB received Ethical Consumer’s
worst rating for supply chain management.
Supply chain policy (inadequate)
TGB stated that the company was a signatory of the UN Global
Compact and adhered to the principles contained within the code
which included freedom of association, forced labour, child labour
and employment free from discrimination. Ethical Consumer
searched the UN Global Compact website for the company’s
Communication of Progress - a document which was sent to update
the initiative on the company’s progress - however TGB could
not be located on the website. The only workers right provision
that could be located was in the company’s Code of Conduct
policy 2008 which included a provision for employment free
from discrimination. No commitment could be found to ensure
workers rights provisions were adhered to throughout its supply
chain. TGB received a inadequate rating in this category.
Stakeholder engagement (rudimentary)
TGB stated that its tea brand Tetly was a member of ETP, a
business led initiative bringing together tea companies which
worked towards (among other things) improving workers
and farmers livelihood. The company was also involved with
another buisness led initiative trustea. While it was clear TGB
was engaging with other tea companies to try and improve
workers and farmers livelihood within the tea sector, they were
not considered by Ethical Consumer to be a multi-stake holder
initiative which were led by non-governmental organisations. In
Sri Lanka, TGB stated that it worked with local staff from CARE
on the Plantation Community Empowerment Project that focused
on labour standards and wider empowerment issues, particularly
for women. TGB also stated that it worked with local staff from
WUSC and the Sri Lankan Centre for Poverty Analysis. TGB
stated in the questionnaire that it worked with indirectly or
directly a range of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) such
as Christian Aid, SOMO and Solidaridad.
TGB stated that under the Rainforest Alliance and ETP standards
there were grievance procedures which allowed employees to
feedback anonymously about working conditions. There was
no mention of TGB’s own grievance procedure for workers
not covered under these schemes. Due to its involvement in
trade unions and NGOs, TGB received a rudimentary rating for
stakeholder engagement
Auditing and Reporting (poor)
TGB stated in the questionnaire returned that its audits were
always performed by independent, third party audit firms. The
company only stated Tetley’s current situation with regards to
auditing which it said 50% had been certified by Rainforest
Alliance (RA), 14% were working towards RA certification,
another 20% were audited by ETP and 16% had not been audited.
TGB received a poor rating for auditing and reporting because
there was no commitment to audit its whole supply chain which
included other drinks brands, there was no remediation strategy
from those suppliers covered under ETP or RA, and no schedule
for auditing suppliers. Of the 16% that had not been audited
TGB stated they were “low priority” sites in Sri Lanka and
India which the company may exit in the future. There was no
mention of costs.
Difficult issues
TGB stated in its questionnaire that in November 2013 some
of its senior managers of the buying team underwent University
of Cambridge Sustainability Leadership Programme, it also said
that internal training occurred on sustainability issues. With its
Tetley brand the group had long term purchasing agreements
with former companies such as Kanan Devan Hill Plantation
and APPL. TGB stated that it had recently entered into a joint
partnership in China and stated that it had the support of ETP
whose standard required Chinese suppliers to have “parallel
means” in place and recommends that factories establish worker
committees. TGB was considered to be addressing one difficult
issue within its supply chain. It therefore received a rudimentary
rating for this category. (ref: 66)
Arms & Military Supply
Manufactures products for defence industry (November
2013)
In November 2013 Ethical Consumer viewed Tata Advanced
Systems (TASL) website, www.tataadvancedsystems.com, which
stated it was addressing the business areas of Defence, Aerospace,
Aero-Structures and Homeland Security.
The company was establishing critical manufacturing capabilities
through strategic alliances and collaborations with Global
Technology Majors in the following areas:
RF Systems and ICT Networks (SDRs, Ruggedized Switches
& Interoperability Gateways)
Maritime Systems – Maritime Command & Control (IPMS
& IBS), Sonars & Simulators
Mini and Micro UAVs
NVDs (Monoculars, Binoculars, Weapon Sights)
Aerospace & Aero-Structures
Homeland Security
TASL was also involved in developing a family of Mini
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) for various defence and civil
applications. These Mini UAVs would be fully equipped with a
wide variety of mission-specific payload, appreciated operational
capabilities and a user-friendly man-machine interface. (ref:
76)
Listed as military contractor (2011)
In the International Defence Directory 2011, Tata International
Singapore Pte. Ltd was listed as a military supplier involved in
the manufacture and distribution of steel and aluminium products
for the Air Force. The company was also provided supply chain
management services. (ref: 77)
Listed as military contractor (2011)
In the International Defence Directory 2011, Tata Consultancy
Services Ltd was listed as a military supplier involved in the
provision of consultancy service for information technology and
business process outsourcing. (ref: 77)
99
Politics
People
Anti-Social Finance
Supply Chain Management
Worst ECRA rating for likely use of tax avoidance
strategies (November 2013)
In November 2013 Ethical Consumer viewed the Tata Sons
family tree on the corporate website Hoovers.com. This listed
a number of subsidiaries Ethical Consumer to be considered at
high risk of being used for tax avoidance purposes due to the
company type and the fact that they were located in jurisdictions
considered by Ethical Consumer to be tax havens.
Worst ECRA rating for supply chain management
(November 2013)
In November 2013 a questionnaire was sent to Punjana Ltd
asking for its supply chain policy. Ethical Consumer received no
reply. A search was made of Punjana’s website, www.punjana.
com, for the company’s supply chain policy.
These included holding companies based in Switzerland,
Hong Kong and Singapore and an investment company based
in Switzerland.
Given that the company had two or more subsidaries which were
considered to be likely to be used for tax avoidance strategies and
were based in tax havens it received Ethical Consumer’s worst
rating in this category. (ref: 39)
Worst ECRA rating for likely use of tax avoidance
strategies (November 2013)
In November 2013 Ethical Consumer viewed the Tata Steel
family tree on the corporate website Hoovers.com. This listed
a number of subsidiaries Ethical Consumer to be considered at
high risk of being used for tax avoidance purposes due to the
company type and the fact that they were located in jurisdictions
considered by Ethical Consumer to be tax havens.
These included several holding companies based in Singapore.
Tata Steel receieved Ethical Consumer’s worst rating for likely
use of tax avoidance strategies due to the fact it had two or more
high risk subsidaries based in tax havens. (ref: 39)
Human rights abuses in India (May 2010)
On 10th May 2010 the website www.forbes.com published
an article that reported conflict between local Indian people
and mining companies. Tata Steel was named as a company
acquiring thousands of acres of land, and was reported to have
met with resistance from local people. The following instances
were reported: police breaking up gatherings of as few as five
people; people who refused to sell their land being repeatedly
arrested; police violence during arrests; suspected Tata officials
trying to persuade arrestees whilst they were detained; forgery of
records that stated people had sold their land when they hadn’t,
and prisoners being released when their families agreed to sell.
The company was said to have denied the allegations. (ref: 78)
Thompson’s Herbal Tea
Owned by Thompson’s Family Tea Ltd
Thompson’s Family Tea Ltd is owned by Punjana Ltd
Punjana Ltd also owns Thompson’s Organic apple & mint [O]
Environment
Environmental Reporting
Worst ECRA rating for environmental reporting
(November 2013)
In November 2013 a questionnaire was sent to Punjana Ltd
asking for its environmental report. Ethical Consumer received no
reply. A search was made of Punjana Ltd website, www.punjana.
com, for the company’s environmental report. No environmental
report was found. Punjana Ltd received Ethical Consumer’s
worst rating for environmental reporting due to the fact it had a
turnover of over £8 million and had no environmental report or
information available on its website. (ref: 79)
100
A statement was found which stated “As always, great care is
taken to source these teas and herbs from the finest producers
in the world, and from growers who share our ideals in treating
workers fairly, and giving regard to proper wages, healthcare and
education”. There was also a paged called “Ethical Sourcing”
which explained that health care, education and housing was
provided on its estates. It also stated that its tea pickers were “paid
more for their tea leaves than most other leading tea brands”.
As a company with a turnover of more than £8million Ethical
Consumer expected Punjana Ltd to have a more rigorous supply
chain policy and there received a worst rating in this category.
(ref: 79)
Yogi Tea herbal and fruit teas [O]
Owned by Yogi Tea GmbH
Yogi Tea GmbH, Burchardstraße 24, D-20059 Hamburg,
Germany
Yogi Tea GmbH is owned by Kit Holding BV
owned by Siri Singh Sahib Corp
owned by Sikh Dharma International
Sikh Dharma International, 2545 Praire Road, Eugene, Oregon,
97402-970, USA
Environment
Environmental Reporting
Worst ECRA rating for environmental reporting
(November 2013)
Yogi Tea’s website, www.yogiproducts.com, was searched
by ECRA for an environmental policy in November 2013. The
website stated that “YOGI TEA® was committed to providing
the highest quality ingredients while also protecting the earth’s
natural resources. The herbs and spices used in their teas were
grown in controlled organic environments wherever possible. The
website discussed the broader environmental benefits of organic
farming. Yogi tea was packaged in 100% recycled paperboard
and was shipped in cases made of 100% recycled cardboard. Yogi
Tea printed all of its packaging with environmentally-friendly,
vegetable-based inks.
However, no further information regarding an environmental
policy, the organisation’s key environmental impacts and future
reduction targets could be found. Yogi Tea therefore received
Ethical Consumer’s worst rating for environmental reporting.
(ref: 80)
People
Supply Chain Management
Worst ECRA rating for supply chain management
(November 2013)
Yogi Tea’s website, www.yogiproducts.com, was searched
by ECRA for a supply chain management policy in November
2013. No information could be found. Yogi Tea therefore
received Ethical Consumer’s worst rating for its supply chain
management. (ref: 80)
Arms & Military Supply
Own US contract security firm (November 2013)
According to an article on the www.sikhnn.org website, viewed
by ECRA in November 2013, Akal Security was owned by Sikh
Dharma International. According to Akal Security’s website,
www.akalsecurity.com, Akal Security was one of the largest
contract security companies in the United States and specialised
in providing security for critical federal government facilities,
state and local government agencies and military installations.
Akal’s capabilities included the design, installation, and integration
of electronic security, surveillance and access control systems.
(ref: 81)
Politics
Company Ethos (+ve)
All products are organic (November 2013)
Yogi Tea’s website, www.yogiproducts.com, was viewed by
ECRA in November 2013. It stated that all 70 of the company’s
herbs and spices were 100% organically grown. (ref: 80)
Product sustainability (+ve)
Organic Product (+ve)
Organic product (2013)
According to the company website www.yogitea.eu, viewed
by ECRA in November 2013, Yogi Teas were certified organic.
(ref: 82)
Clipper organic herbal tea [O]
See Clipper Teas Ltd above
Dragonfly Organic Rooibos [F,O]
Salus Organic Teas
See Salus-Haus GmbH & Co KG above
Taylors of Harrogate Teas
See Bettys & Taylors Group Ltd above
Tetley Redbush tea [S]
See Teapigs Ltd above
Tetley tea
See Teapigs Ltd above
Thompson’s Organic apple & mint
[O]
See Thompson’s Family Tea Ltd above
Tick Tock organic rooibos [O]
See Tea Times Holding Ltd above
Tick Tock rooibos
See Tea Times Holding Ltd above
Twinings herb teas
See Jacksons of Piccadilly Limited above
See Tea Times Holding Ltd above
Dragonfly Rooibos Breakfast Tea
See Tea Times Holding Ltd above
Eleven O’Clock organic rooibos
[O]
See Tea Times Holding Ltd above
Heath & Heather teas
See Typhoo Tea Ltd above
Higher Living Herbal Tea [O]
See Only Natural Products Ltd above
London Fruit & Herb
See Typhoo Tea Ltd above
Pukka Herbs teas [O,F]
See Pukka Herbs above
Ridgways tea
See Typhoo Tea Ltd above
References
1 - Clearspring Ltd Corporate Communications:www.clearspring.
co.uk (5 November 2013) (1335225)
2 - Clipper Teas Ltd Corporate Communications:www.clipperteas.com (7 January 2008) (518897)
3 - Koninklijke Wessanen nv (AKA Royal Wessanen) Corporate
Communications:www.wessanen.com (25 January 2013)
(1328069)
4 - Clipper Teas Ltd Corporate Communications:http://www.
clipper-teas.com (5 November 2013) (1335195)
5 - Higher Living Tea Corporate Communications:http://
higherlivingherbs.com (5 November 2013) (1335237)
6 - Tea Times Holding Ltd Corporate Communications:http://
www.dragonfly-teas.com (12 November 2013) (1335507)
7 - Hampstead Tea & Coffee Co Ltd Corporate Communications:
http://www.hampsteadtea.com (12 November 2013)
(1335496)
8 - Tea Times Holding Ltd Corporate Communications:www.
dragonfly-teas.com (7 January 2008) (518867)
9 - Equal Exchange Trading Ltd Corporate Communications:
http://www.equalexchange.co.uk (5 November 2013)
(1335201)
10 - Equal Exchange Trading Ltd Corporate Communications:
www.equalexchange.co.uk (10 January 2006) (281018)
11 - Essential Trading Co-operative Ltd Corporate
Communications:Questionnaire (19 November 2013)
(1335993)
12 - Essential Trading Co-operative Ltd Corporate
Communications:www.essential-trading.co.uk (16 August
2011) (560702)
13 - Essential Trading Co-operative Ltd Corporate
Communications:www.essential-trading.co.uk/brand.htm
(11 September 2006) (297461)
14 - Salus-Haus GmbH & Co KG Corporate Communications:
http://www.salus-haus.com (5 November 2013) (1335220)
15 - Salus-Haus GmbH & Co KG Corporate Communications:
101
http://www.salusuk.com (8 November 2013) (1335327)
16 - Hambleden Herbs Corporate Communications:www.
hambledenherbs.com (30 October 2013) (1335179)
17 - Hampstead Tea & Coffee Co Ltd Corporate
Communications:Hampstead representative (12 November
2013) (1335485)
18 - Apeejay Surrendra Group Corporate Communications:www.
apeejaygroup.com (13 November 2013) (1335610)
19 - Apeejay Surrendra Group Corporate Communications:
http://www.apeejaygroup.com (23 October 2013) (1335071)
20 - Typhoo Tea Ltd Corporate Communications:http://www.
typhootea.com/ (23 October 2013) (1335075)
21 - Jacksons of Piccadilly Limited Corporate Communications:
http://www.jacksonsofpiccadilly.co.uk/ (13 November 2013)
(1335593)
22 - Associated British Foods Plc Corporate
Communications:2013 CSR Report (11 November 2013)
(1335367)
23 - Oxfam International:Behind the Brands (September 2013)
(1334775)
24 - EIRIS News Release:Corporate Ethics Overview
(September 2010) (1327420)
25 - Primark Corporate Communications:www.primark.co.uk (16
July 2011) (558979)
26 - Heal & Son Ltd Corporate Communications:www.heals.
co.uk (7 March 2011) (552411)
27 - Viva! Web Site - www.viva.org.uk:The shocking secrets
behind the trade in ‘novelty’ reindeer meat (15 January
2013) (1327508)
28 - Associated British Foods Plc Corporate Communications:
Ethical Standards for Products (11 November 2013)
(1335396)
29 - British Sugar plc Corporate Communications:www.
britishsugar.co.uk (8 January 2009) (529995)
30 - George Weston Foods Corporate Communications:www.
georgewestonfoods.com.au (24 August 2011) (561132)
31 - PETA websites www.peta.org www.stopanimaltests.
com www.iamscruelty.com www.askcarla.com:
StopFortnumAndMasonFoieGrasCruelty.com (7 September
2011) (561553)
32 - Associated British Foods Plc Corporate
Communications:2013 Annual Report (11 November 2013)
(1335385)
33 - Clean Clothes Campaign press release:building collapse
(29 April 2013) (1330252)
34 - Corporate Watch (UK) website www.corporatewatch.org.
uk:Unemployed people ‘bullied’ into unpaid work at Tesco,
Primark and other multinationals (12 August 2 (562689)
35 - Associated British Foods Plc Corporate Communications:
Policy on Genetically Modified (GM) Ingredients (11
November 2013) (1335394)
36 - Spinwatch:Independence of nutritional information? The
British Nutrition Foundation (22 March 2010) (557049)
37 - www.civilsociety.co.uk:Garfield Weston Foundation
censured for links to political donations (1 April 2010)
(552920)
38 - Guardian Unlimited / Guardian website www.guardian.
co.uk:http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/feb/09/zambiasugar-empire-tax (11 February 2013) (1328468)
39 - Hoovers 2013:online commerce page (26 June 2013)
(1331764)
40 - Jacksons of Piccadilly Corporate Communications:www.
jacksonsofpiccadilly.co.uk/our-products.html (11 November
2013) (1335440)
41 - Unilever Corporate Communications:Sustainable Living
Plan 2012 (2012) (1335299)
42 - Environmental News Service www.ens-newswire.com:
Unilever Fined for Polluting California Air With Deodorant
Spray (12 February 2010) (539931)
43 - Ecologist, The (online):UK companies linked to devastating
Indian mine (19 June 2009) (553085)
44 - Unilever Corporate Communications:www.unilever.com (3
July 2012) (1321527)
45 - PETA - Companies that test on animals:CompaniesDoTest.
pdf (22 November 2007) (517163)
46 - BUAV :BUAV condemns cruel animal experiments by
102
major food companies to prove ‘health benefits’ (21 June 2
(1335304)
47 - Unilever Corporate Communications:www.unilever.com (15
September 2011) (562071)
48 - Humane Society of the United States:Tell Ben & Jerry’s to
help animals (23 August 2006) (301321)
49 - ECRA shop survey:ECRA shop survey (25 November 2008)
(529583)
50 - Rettet den Regenwald eV:The bloody products from the
house of Unilever (23 August 2011) (922979)
51 - Oxfam:Labour Rights in Unilever’s Supply Chain: From
compliance to good practice. An Oxfam study of labour
(1328453)
52 - SOMO Reports:Unilever - overview of controversial
business practices 2010 (May 2011) (564222)
53 - Allegations of sexual harassment and abuse in Unilever’s
Kericho plantation, Kenya:A case study of d:2 August 2012
(1322945)
54 - Unilever Corporate Communications:www.unilever.com (30
October 2013) (1335164)
55 - World Economic Forum website www.weforum.org:July
2013 members list (8 July 2013) (1332303)
56 - Unilever Corporate Communications:Annual Report 2012
(2012) (1335425)
57 - Actionaid:FTSE 100 tax haven tracker (October 2011)
(563594)
58 - Pukka Herbs Corporate Communications:http://www.
pukkaherbs.com (5 November 2013) (1335229)
59 - Redbush Tea Co Corporate Communications:www.
redbushtea.com (5 November 2013) (1335246)
60 - Steenbergs Organic Corporate Communications:http://www.
steenbergsorganic.net/ (5 November 2013) (1335232)
61 - Steenbergs Organic Corporate Communications:http://www.
steenbergs.co.uk (11 November 2013) (1335350)
62 - Bettys & Taylors Group Ltd Corporate Communications:
Environmental Policy (11 November 2013) (1335421)
63 - Bettys & Taylors Group Ltd Corporate Communications:
www.bettysandtaylors.co.uk, (11 November 2013)
(1335427)
64 - Bettys & Taylors Group Ltd Corporate Communications:
Bettys and Taylors Ethical Trading Policy (September 2011)
(1335171)
65 - Taylors of Harrogate Corporate Communications:www.
taylorsofharrogate.co.uk (14 April 2011) (554279)
66 - Tata Global Beverages Corporate Communications:
http://www.tataglobalbeverages.com/ (30 October 2013)
(1335167)
67 - Tata Petrodyne Corporate Communications:http://www.
tatapetrodyne.in (15 November 2013) (1335721)
68 - Financial Express (India):Will look into Tata Group’s JVs
with Singapore Airlines, AirAsia, if required: CCI (16
November 2013 (1335760)
69 - Tata Motors Corporate Communications:68th Annual Report
2012-2013 (2013) (1335715)
70 - Ecologist, The (online):report - Whats in your cuppa (22
June 2011) (556339)
71 - Advinus Therapeutics Corporate Communications:http://
www.advinus.com (12 November 2013) (1335542)
72 - Tata International Corporate Communications:http://www.
tatainternational.com (15 November 2013) (1335708)
73 - Who Profits?:Land Rover (25 June 2013) (1331738)
74 - Accountability Counsel website - http://www.
accountabilitycounsel.org:Tea Plantation Workers Call on
Tata and Tetley to Stop Human Rights Abuses (5 July 2013)
(1332931)
75 - Health & Safety Exec:International chemical firm
prosecuted over multiple incidents (10 April 2013)
(1335676)
76 - Tata Advanced Systems Corporate Communications:http://
www.tataadvancedsystems.com/ (15 November 2013)
(1335678)
77 - International Defence Directory:IDD (2011) (1331630)
78 - forbes.com:India’s Dirty War (10 May 2010) (543979)
79 - Punjana Ltd Corporate Communications:www.punjana.com
(5 November 2013) (1335240)
80 - Yogi Tea GmbH Corporate Communications:www.
yogiproducts.com (27 November 2013) (1336116)
81 - Sikh Dharma International Corporate Communications:
Ownership ref (October 2012) (1336104)
82 - Yogi Tea GmbH Corporate Communications:www.yogitea.
eu (18 November 2013) (1335809)
103