In August 2018 Ethical Consumer sent a questionnaire requesting information about its supply chain management policies and practices. No response was received. The company's website was searched for its supply chain management policy. No information or policy was found.
Ethical Consumer deemed it necessary for all companies to have a supply chain policy. A strong policy would include the following commitments: no use of a child under 15 (or 14 if ILO exempt), no use of forced labour, no discrimination by race, sex or for any other reason, permit freedom of association, pay a living wage, restrict working hours to 48 hours plus 12 overtime (ideally specifying these hours and that this is without exception). had none of these things, therefore its supply chain policy was considered to be poor.
Ethical Consumer also deemed it necessary for companies to demonstrate stakeholder engagement, such as through membership of the Ethical Trade Initiative, Fair Labour Association or Social Accountability International. It is also constructive for Trade Unions, NGOs and/or not-for-profit organisations to have systematic input to verify the company's supply chain audits, and for workers to have access to an anonymous complaints system, free of charge and in their own language. had none of these things, therefore its stakeholder engagement was considered to be poor.
Ethical Consumer also deemed it necessary for companies to have an auditing and reporting system. Results of audits should be publicly reported and quantitatively analysed. The company should have a scheduled and transparent audit plan that applies to its whole supply chain, including some second tier suppliers. The company should also have a staged policy for non-compliance. The costs of the audit should be borne by the company. had none of these things, therefore its auditing and reporting was considered to be poor.
Ethical Consumer also deemed it necessary for companies to address other difficult issues in their supply chain. This would include ongoing training for agents, or rewards for suppliers, or preference for long term suppliers. It would also include acknowledgement of audit fraud and unannounced audits, and other measures taken to address the issue of living wages, particularly among outworkers, and illegal freedom of association. had none of these things, therefore its approach to difficult issues was considered to be poor.
Since's supply chain policy, stakeholder engagement, auditing and reporting, and approach to difficult issues were all considered poor, the company received Ethical Consumer's worst rating for Supply Chain Management.

Reference: (14 August 2018)

According to Aurelius Group's annual accounts 2017, viewed by Ethical Consumer in August 2018, the company had subsidiaries in China and Thailand. These countries were considered by Ethical Consumer to be governed by oppressive regimes.
Operations in 3 or more oppressive regimes are required in order for companies to lose marks under Human Rights. This story is therefore for information only.


Annual report 2017 (10 August 2018)