In this article we explore what the issues with SC Johnson are, and what ethical consumers can do if they want to buy cruelty-free and eco-friendly cleaning products.
Why are some people boycotting Ecover and Method?
Consumer goods giant SC Johnson took over ethical brands Ecover and Method in December 2017.
As a result, both brands have been under a boycott call from campaign group Naturewatch Foundation, over SC Johnson's links to animal testing.
In April 2018 Naturewatch launched a campaign asking supporters and the general public to contact Ecover and Method, expressing their disappointment at the takeover and pledging to no longer buy their products until SC Johnson is cruelty-free.
In September 2024 campaign manager for animal experiments at Naturewatch, Natalie Harney, said in an email to Ethical Consumer:
“While Ecover and method promote strong values, both brands are owned by SC Johnson, a corporate giant that still conducts animal testing when required by law. For us, the ethical standards of a parent company are just as important as those of the brands it owns. This is why we do not endorse Ecover or method in our cruelty-free Compassionate Shopping Guide, and why we urge ethical consumers to exclude these products, along with other SC Johnson brands, from their baskets.”
Naturewatch continues to ask compassionate consumers to boycott all SC Johnson brands, including Ecover and Method, until the entire company is cruelty-free.
SC Johnson owns other non Naturewatch-endorsed household cleaning brands such as Duck, Shout, Glade, Pledge and Windex.
Ecover and Method are themselves cruelty-free and remain Leaping Bunny certified but are no longer endorsed by Naturewatch because of the parent company.
Ecover and Method lose marks
Ethical Consumer always rates whole company groups rather than individual brands – so that you can be sure your money isn’t going to an unethical owner. SC Johnson’s takeover of Ecover and Method meant both companies lost marks in our ethical rankings.
These changes have led to Ecover and Method falling from roughly the middle of the score table to the bottom quarter.
SC Johnson scores very poorly across Ethical Consumer categories. This includes:
- 20/100 for animal testing
- 20/100 for environmental reporting
- 0/100 for likely use of tax avoidance strategies
- 0/100 for harmful chemicals
- 10/100 for workers' rights
SC Johnson also didn’t disclose director pay and was involved in lobbying.