In August 2018 Ethical Consumer searched the internet for information about Monwell Ltd, including its supply chain management policies and practices. No information or policy was found. The company had no website.
SUPPLY CHAIN POLICY - POOR
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). Monwell Ltd had none of these things, therefore its supply chain policy was considered to be poor.
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT - 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. Monwell Ltd had none of these things, therefore its stakeholder engagement was considered to be poor.
AUDITING AND REPORTING - 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. Monwell Ltd had none of these things, therefore its auditing and reporting was considered to be poor.
DIFFICULT ISSUES - 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. Monwell Ltd had none of these things, therefore its approach to difficult issues was considered to be poor.
Since Monwell Ltd'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:

Internet search for Monwell Ltd (no website) (15 August 2018)

In August 2018 Ethical Consumer searched Guardian News & Media's website www.theguardian.com for its supply chain management policy. A document entitled 'Sourcing Values' was downloaded.
SUPPLY CHAIN POLICY - POOR
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).
'Sourcing Values' only prohibited the use of child labour and discrimination. Guardian News & Media's supply chain policy was therefore considered to be poor.
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT - 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. Guardian News & Media had none of these things, therefore its stakeholder engagement was considered to be poor.
AUDITING AND REPORTING - 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. Guardian News & Media had none of these things, therefore its auditing and reporting was considered to be poor.
DIFFICULT ISSUES - 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. Guardian News & Media had none of these things, therefore its approach to difficult issues was considered to be poor.
Since Guardian News & Media'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:

Sourcing Values (15 August 2018)

In August 2018 Ethical Consumer searched Bertrams website www.bertrams.com for its supply chain management policy. No information or policy was found.
SUPPLY CHAIN POLICY - POOR
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). Bertrams had none of these things, therefore its supply chain policy was considered to be poor.
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT - 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. Bertrams had none of these things, therefore its stakeholder engagement was considered to be poor.
AUDITING AND REPORTING - 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. Bertrams had none of these things, therefore its auditing and reporting was considered to be poor.
DIFFICULT ISSUES - 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. Bertrams had none of these things, therefore its approach to difficult issues was considered to be poor.
Since Bertrams' 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:

www.bertrams.com (15 August 2018)

On 12th August 2014 it was reported in the Press Gazette website, www.pressgazette.co.uk, that the Guardian newspaper had been accused of pro-Israel bias after printing an advert accusing Hamas of 'child sacrifice'.  The advert was printed just over a month after Israel began an assault on the Gaza strip which left nearly 2,000 Palestinians, including nearly 400 children, dead.

“Jews rejected child sacrifice 3,500 years ago. Now it’s Hamas turn,” stated the advert. “In my own lifetime, I have seen Jewish children thrown into the fire. And now I have seen Muslim children used as human shields, in both cases, by worshippers of death cults indistinguishable from that of the Molochites."

The advert was written co-written by Elie Wiesel, a Nobel prize-winning author whom the Electronic Intifada reported had “been a chair of the advisory board of Elad, a group of fanatical religious Israeli setters actively involved in ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from the eastern sector of occupied Jerusalem.”

According to the Electronic Intifada, Israeli leaders and their supporters have repeatedly accused Hamas of using Palestinians as human shields in order to absolve Israel of responsibility for killing Palestinians in the besieged Gaza strip.  The advert read:

“Moderate men and women of faith, whether that faith is in God or man, must shift their criticism from the Israeli soldiers – whose terrible choice is to fire and risk harming human shields, or hold their fire and risk the death of their loved ones – to the terrorists who have taken away all choice from the Palestinian children of Gaza.”

In an article in the New Statesmen on 22nd July, the BBC's Middle East editor Jeremy Bowen said ““I saw no evidence during my week in Gaza of Israel’s accusation that Hamas uses Palestinians as human shields... Raji Sourani, the director of the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights in Gaza, told me that Hamas, whatever you think of it, is part of the Palestinian DNA.”

The Guardian said it had received 140 complaints about the ad at the time of publication on 11th August.  The following day it published an open letter on its website signed by individuals from the Stop the War Coalition, Palestine Solidarity Campaign and Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, amongst others, criticising the advert:

“We write to condemn the Guardian’s decision to print a wildly inaccurate and inflammatory advert from supporters of the state of Israel branding the Palestinian resistance as “child killers”. This is especially sickening when Israel’s latest bombardment of Gaza has killed close to 400 Palestinian children. Amnesty International has condemned the deliberate targeting of schools and hospitals by Israel as a war crime.”

The advert was said paid for by This World: The Values Network.  It was  previously published in a number of American newspapers but rejected by The Times in London. 

The Guardian defended its decision to publish the advert.  A spokesperson for Guardian News & Media, which owned the Guardian, said: "The decision to run any display advertisement in the Guardian is made on a case-by-case basis and there was a full discussion about accepting the advert in question.”

Ethical Consumer considered the Guardian's decision to run the advert to be discriminatory as it promoted the view that Palestinians were to blame for deaths caused during Israeli air strikes.

Reference:

Guardian accused of pro-Israel bias after carrying 'child sacrifice' ad rejected by The Times (12 Au

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.

Reference:

Annual report 2017 (10 August 2018)