In December 2016 Ethical Consumer sent Logona a questionnaire requesting information about its supply chain management policies and practices. As no response was received, the translated version of Logona’s German website, www.logona.de/de/ueber-logona/qualitaet.html, was searched for publicly available information. No information could be found regarding how the company ensured workers’ rights were upheld throughout its supply chain. The company therefore received Ethical Consumer’s worst rating for Supply Chain Management.

Reference:

www.logona.de/ (15 December 2016)

Ethical Consumer visited the Baby Milk Action website in February 2020 and found its long standing boycott of Nestlé over its irresponsible marketing of breast milk substitutes was ongoing.
Boycotters have long accused Nestlé of harming children through the unethical promotion of infant formula. Nestlé is one of the most boycotted brands in the UK as a result of its activities. Baby Milk Action is one of the organisations which calls for such a boycott. According to Baby Milk Action, which describes itself as a non-profit organisation which aims to save lives and to end the avoidable suffering caused by inappropriate infant feeding, Nestlé was targeted with the boycott because monitoring conducted by the International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN) found it to be responsible for more violations of the World Health Organisation's marketing requirements for baby foods than any other company.

It quoted UNICEF "Marketing practices that undermine breastfeeding are potentially hazardous wherever they are pursued: in the developing world, WHO estimates that some 1.5 million children die each year because they are not adequately breastfed."

It stated that the boycott would continue until Nestlé accepted and complied with its four-point plan for saving infant lives and ultimately ending the boycott.

Nestlé therefore lost a whole mark under Irresponsible Marketing and a whole mark under Boycott Call.

Reference:

babymilkaction.org (2020)

In May 2018, Ethical Consumer viewed a report on the Business Reports website, titled 'Nestle, Kellogg’s sued in anti-obesity drive' and dated to November 2016. The article stated that the Chilean authorities were suing Nestle and Kellogg’s for putting children's cartoon characters on packets of fattening food in breach of an anti-obesity law. The authorities said that the two companies, along with Masterfoods, distributor of M&Ms, had broken the law by “using children's characters on packets of various products classed as 'high in’ certain unhealthy ingredients”. The authority was demanding a $110 000 fine for each company. Nestle therefore lost half a mark under Irresponsible Marketing.

Reference:

Nestle, Kellogg’s sued in anti-obesity drive (November 2016)

In February 2020, Ethical Consumer viewed Nescafé's websites; www.dolce-gusto.co.uk and www.nescafe-go.co.uk which both supplied and sold coffee machines which contained components likely to include the minerals tantalum, tin, tungsten and gold, collectively referred to as “conflict minerals”. However no conflict mineral sourcing policy could be found.

Particular concern had been raised over the sourcing of these minerals from the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and its surrounding countries due to the renowned human rights abuses in the extractive industries in this area with profits being used to fund armed groups. The trade was also said to have dire environmental consequences generating a massive amount of waste containing toxic and radioactive substances, polluting the environment, water supplies and affecting the local communities.

Under the US Dodd-Frank Act any company that "manufactures or contracts to manufacture products containing any 3TG that is necessary to the functionality or production of such products, to conduct a “country of origin” inquiry reasonably designed to determine whether the 3TG in such 3TG Products originated from the Democratic Republic of the Congo or adjoining countries."

While Nestle was not required by US law to report on conflict minerals campaign group Enough stated that all companies "should have been taking proactive action to trace, audit, and certify their supply chains to ensure that the effects of the above problems were limited."

Due to the fact the company had no policy it received Ethical Consumer's worst rating for its policy on conflict minerals and lost a whole mark under the Habitats and Resources and Human Rights categories.

Reference:

nestle.com (2020)

In February 2020, Ethical Consumer viewed the website for the not-for-profit organisation The Council of Canadians. The organisation was calling for a boycott of Nestlé.

It stated that Nestle had purchased a well in Ontario despite the local municipality's attempt to also purchase it to safeguard the water supply.

The website also stated: "Downstream from Nestlé’s operations, many people from Six Nations of the Grand River do not have clean, running water. Under the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, governments are required to obtain free, prior and informed consent from Indigenous peoples for water projects like this [...] Nestlé's permit to draw water in Aberfoyle, ON, expired on July 31, 2016. Since then, they've taken over 1.5 BILLION litres! Boycott Nestlé!"

The company therefore lost a mark under Boycott Call and Human Rights for failing to respect Indingenous right to free, prior and informed consent.

Reference:

Nestlé Boycott Pledge (25 January 2019)

In February 2020, Ethical Consumer viewed L'Oréal's list of subsidiaries in its 2018 Registration Document, which contained the company's financial reporting, and which stated that the company had operations in the following countries:

China, Turkey, Israel, Mexico, Bangladesh, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Phillipines, Nigeria, Pakistan, Russia

At the time of writing Ethical Consumer considered each country listed to be governed by an oppressive regime. The company therefore lost a whole mark in the Human Rights category.

Reference:

2018 Annual Report (2018)

On 30th November 2016 Amnesty International released a report called “The Great Palm Oil Scandal: Labour Abuses Behind Big Brands Names.” The report investigated labour exploitation on plantations in Indonesia that provide palm oil to Wilmar, one of the world’s largest processors and merchandisers of palm and lauric (palm kernel) oils, which controls over 43% of the global palm oil trade. The report also traced the palm oil produced in Indonesia for Wilmar to a range of consumer goods
companies that use palm oil in their products.
Amnesty International found serious human rights abuses on the plantations of Wilmar and its suppliers. These included forced labour and child labour, gender discrimination, as well as exploitative and dangerous working practices that put the health of workers at risk. The abuses identified were not isolated incidents but due to systemic business practices by Wilmar’s subsidiaries and suppliers, in particular the low level of wages, the use of targets and ‘piece rates’ (where workers are paid based on tasks completed rather than hours worked), and the use of a complex system of financial and other penalties. Workers, especially women, were employed under casual work arrangements, which made them vulnerable to abuses.
Amnesty stated “All of these are obvious and predictable areas of concern and risk. However, none of the companies that buy palm oil from Wilmar could demonstrate to Amnesty International that they had identified and addressed the actual abuses documented by Amnesty International.”
Nestlé said “…we confirm that we source, indirectly, palm oil from all refineries mentioned in
your letter, with the exception of PT Wilmar Nabati Indonesia in Bagendang, which we do not source from at all.”
Nestlé told Amnesty International that it had been monitoring Wilmar for human rights related reasons since 2010. Despite this claim, Nestlé did not appear to have identified the severe labour abuses investigated by Amnesty International on Wilmar’s and its suppliers’ plantations. Nestlé said that it had suspended a portion of trade with Wilmar from 2010 to 2012 for reasons related to environmental practices. In a letter to Amnesty International, the company said that: “…origins of a
proportion of palm oil provided [by Wilmar] were not in alignment with RSG [Responsible Sourcing Guidelines]. However, following extensive engagement we received assurances that it would change its practices, and our full commercial relationship restarted.”
Nestlé said that between the years of 2010 and 2013 the company was “…also gathering information on human rights issues during this period.” In relation to Wilmar, it said that “56.06% (25,587 tonnes) [of palm oil] is being monitored through our Responsible Sourcing Action Plan”. It stated: “Wilmar does not currently comply with all Nestlé’s RSG requirements yet”, but that Wilmar “…has made a policy commitment, with a time bound Aggregator Refinery Transformation (ART) plan.” Amnesty said that the ART plan was extremely limited in scope. While Nestlé states that Wilmar was non-compliant with parts of its own RSG policy, it did not disclose whether this non-compliance relates to labour standards.
In response to Amnesty International’s findings, Nestlé stated that: “We believe that our due diligence system, based upon the various steps noted above (risk assessment, supply chain transparency, on the ground assessments and action plans with suppliers, backed by suspending suppliers who are unwilling to improve) is a strong one.” However, despite its detailed response, Nestlé failed to demonstrate that it had, through its internal processes, identified labour risks or abuses linked to Wilmar’s Indonesian palm oil supply prior to being contacted by Amnesty International.
Nestlé therefore lost half a mark under Palm Oil and a whole mark under Workers' Rights.

Reference:

The Great Palm Oil Scandal: Labour Abuses Behind Big Brands Names (30 November 2016)

According to an article on the Guardian website dated 1st February 2016 and viewed by Ethical Consumer in February 2016, Nestle had admitted to finding slavery in its Thai seafood supply chain.
Andrew Wallis, chief executive of Unseen UK, argued that Nestlé’s self-reporting could also be seen as a tactic to head off or deflate other pending civil litigation suits. “It’s easy to own up to something that has already been uncovered,” he said. “By the time Nestlé owned up to slavery in the Thai seafood industry it was accepted knowledge."
Nestlé therefore lost a whole mark under Workers' Rights.

Reference:

Nestlé admits slavery in Thailand while fighting child labour lawsuit in Ivory Coast (22 February 2

A report in the New York Times on 27th July 2015 exposed the use of forced labour in the South China Sea. The article outlined how migrants were often sold onto fishing boats where they were held captive and forced to work, sometimes for years.
The article focused on a Cambodian man, Lang Long, who was sold by traffickers to a Thai fishing boat, where he was often shackled by the neck, during his two years of captivity. Mr. Long did not know where the fish he caught ended up. He did learn, however, that most of the forage fish on the final boat where he was held in bondage was destined for a cannery called the Songkla Canning Public Company, which is a subsidiary of Thai Union Frozen Products, the country’s largest seafood company. In the past year, Thai Union has shipped more than 28 million pounds of seafood-based cat and dog food for some of the top brands sold in America including Iams (owned by Mars), Meow Mix and Fancy Feast (owned by Nestle), according to United States Customs documents.
Lisa K. Gibby, vice president of corporate communications for Nestlé, which makes pet food brands including Fancy Feast and Purina, said that the company is working hard to ensure that forced labor is not used to produce its pet food. “This is neither an easy nor a quick endeavor,” she added, because the fish it purchases comes from multiple ports and fishing vessels operating in international waters.
Following the report, in September 2015 a group of consumers filed a class-action lawsuit in California against Nestle over the use of this forced labour in its pet food supply chain. The lawsuit accused Nestle of violating consumer protection laws, including false advertising and unfair competition, by failing to disclose the use of forced labour.
Nestlé therefore lost a whole mark under Workers' Rights.

Reference:

‘Sea Slaves’: The Human Misery That Feeds Pets and Livestock (27 July 2015)