In August 2018 Ethical Consumer searched the internet for information about Monwell Ltd, including its environmental policy. No policy could be found. The company had no website.
An environmental policy was deemed necessary to report on its environmental performance and set targets for the future. A strong policy would include two future, quantified targets, demonstrate that the company had a reasonable understanding of its main impacts, be dated within the previous two years and be independently verified.
Monwell Ltd had none of these, therefore it received Ethical Consumer's worst rating for Environmental Reporting.

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 the company's environmental policy. The company's 2015 Sustainability Report was the most recent report that could be found.
An environmental policy was deemed necessary to report on its environmental performance and set targets for the future. A strong policy would include two future, quantified targets, demonstrate that the company had a reasonable understanding of its main impacts, be dated within the previous two years and be independently verified.
Guardian News & Media had none of these, therefore it received Ethical Consumer's worst rating for Environmental Reporting.

Reference:

www.theguardian.com (15 August 2018)

In August 2018 Ethical Consumer searched Bertrams website www.bertrams.com for the company's environmental policy. No policy could be found.
An environmental policy was deemed necessary to report on its environmental performance and set targets for the future. A strong policy would include two future, quantified targets, demonstrate that the company had a reasonable understanding of its main impacts, be dated within the previous two years and be independently verified.
Bertrams had none of these, therefore it received Ethical Consumer's worst rating for Environmental Reporting.

Reference:

www.bertrams.com (15 August 2018)

In December 2016 Ethical Consumer viewed Guardians' website found that the company used Amazon Web Services (AWS). When the site was visited again in August 2018 it was not obvious whether the company still used AWS.
A customer profile on the AWS website stated: "The Guardian newspaper, increased the velocity of releases for its digital properties from 25 in 2012 to 40,000 in 2015 by using AWS. It uses a wide range of AWS services, including Amazon Kinesis and Amazon Redshift that power an analytics dashboard, which editors use to see how stories are trending in real time."
Ethical Consumer contacted the Guardian for clarification and a response was received that AWS was one of the cloud service companies used by the Guardian.
Amazon Web Services had been critised by Greenpeace in 2015 for its reliance on unclean energy sources to power its computing infrastructure. As Greenpeace stated in its report "While these customers may not operate the mega data centers that AWS do, their role in building a greener internet is just as important. Data center operators and cloud computing vendors will prioritise powering with renewable energy only when their customers demand it, and those customers need to step up to the challenge."
Greenpeace called on customers of AWS to "push the company to become more transparent about its energy
footprint, and to make clear what strategies and principles it is using to reach its 100% renewable energy goal,
Greenpeace estimated that energy usage from internet infrastructure would raise significantly."
The Guardian therefore lost half a mark under Climate Change.

Reference:

Email confirming use of AWS (17 August 2018)

In April 2015, Ethical Consumer viewed the article 'Guardian Media Group to divest its £800m fund from fossil fuels' on the Guardian website.
The Guardian Media Group (GMG), owner of the Guardian and Observer newspapers and websites, announced its plans to divest all fossil fuel assets from its £800million+ investment fund. This commitment joined the growing divestment campaign, which the Guardian was actively supporting through its 'Keep It In the Ground Campaign''; a campaign launched in March in partnership with 350.org.
Neil Berkett, chair of the GMG, commented on the groups decision to divest: “It is a hard-nosed business decision, but it is influenced by the values of our organisation...This [need to influence] is a major step in a strategy of managed divestment. It must be executed carefully to preserve our investment returns. But it remains the right thing to do. It is a policy we are proud to have initiated at a time when climate change has become an issue not just for investors, news organisations or UN negotiators – but for all of us.”

Reference:

Guardian Media Group to divest its £800m fund from fossil fuels (10 April 2015)

In August 2018 Ethical Consumer viewed the Guardian Bookshop website www.guardianbookshop.com and found that the company sold leather-bound books, however, it was not considered to form a substantial part of its business. As a result the company lost half a mark under Ethical Consumer’s Animal Rights category.
It also lost half a mark Pollution and Toxics category for the following reason. Leather, as the hide of a dead animal, naturally decomposes. To prevent this decomposition the leather industry uses a cocktail of harmful chemicals to preserve leather, including trivalent chromium sulphate, sodium sulphide, sodium sulfhydrate, arsenic and cyanide. Tannery effluent also contains large amounts of other pollutants, such as protein, hair, salt, lime sludge and acids. These can all pollute the land, air and water supply, making it a highly polluting industry.

Reference:

www.guardianbookshop.com (15 August 2018)

In August 2018 Ethical Consumer viewed the Bertams website www.bertrams.com and found that the company sold leather-bound books, however, it was not considered to form a substantial part of its business. As a result the company lost half a mark under Ethical Consumer’s Animal Rights category.
It also lost half a mark Pollution and Toxics category for the following reason. Leather, as the hide of a dead animal, naturally decomposes. To prevent this decomposition the leather industry uses a cocktail of harmful chemicals to preserve leather, including trivalent chromium sulphate, sodium sulphide, sodium sulfhydrate, arsenic and cyanide. Tannery effluent also contains large amounts of other pollutants, such as protein, hair, salt, lime sludge and acids. These can all pollute the land, air and water supply, making it a highly polluting industry.

Reference:

www.bertrams.com (15 August 2018)

In August 2018 Ethical Consumer viewed the Wordery.com website and found that the company sold leather-bound books, however, it was not considered to form a substantial part of its business. As a result the company lost half a mark under Ethical Consumer’s Animal Rights category.
It also lost half a mark Pollution and Toxics category for the following reason. Leather, as the hide of a dead animal, naturally decomposes. To prevent this decomposition the leather industry uses a cocktail of harmful chemicals to preserve leather, including trivalent chromium sulphate, sodium sulphide, sodium sulfhydrate, arsenic and cyanide. Tannery effluent also contains large amounts of other pollutants, such as protein, hair, salt, lime sludge and acids. These can all pollute the land, air and water supply, making it a highly polluting industry.

Reference:

https://wordery.com (14 August 2018)

In August 2018, Ethical Consumer searched the Guardian Bookshop website, www.guardianbookshop.com, for the company's timber soucing policy. None was found.
The company primarily sold books and as such Ethical Consumer would expect the company to have a policy that limited the amount of paper sold from virgin sources.
Due to a lack of policy, the company received Ethical Consumer's worst rating for timber sourcing and lost a whole mark under Habitats and Resources.

Reference:

www.guardianbookshop.com (15 August 2018)

In August 2018 Ethical Consumer searched the Guardian Media Group website www.theguardian.com for information on its paper / timber sourcing. No specific paper sourcing policy was found, however, a document entitled 'Sourcing Values' was downloaded, which contained the following statement:
"We wish to work with suppliers who are actively reducing their contribution to climate change and supporting those most at risk from its e?ects. This means respecting and caring for the environment to support and protect natural systems,human health and fair access to resources."
The company's most recent sustainability report (dated 2015) stated:
"Our paper consumption is responsible for our biggest impact on the environment. Over the last year, we reduced the amount of stock we buy from Canadian suppliers because of issues over quality and sustainability concerns raised byGreenpeace and Canopy. This was replaced with a UK recycled supply, which did increase our paper carbon footprint by 11% to 391kgCO2e per tonne of newsprint. But buying this stock also increased our recycled content to 87%, reducing our damage to ancient virgin forests. You can read about our latest paper policy here".
The link provided was not functioning.
Guardian News & Media therefore received Ethical Consumer's worst rating for its timber/paper sourcing policy and lost a whole mark under Habitats and Resources for retailing wood products not labelled as coming from FSC-certified sources.

Reference:

Living our Values: Sustainability report 2015 (15 August 2018)

In August 2018, Ethical Consumer searched the Wordery.com website for the company's timber soucing policy. None was found.
The company primarily sold books and as such Ethical Consumer would expect the company to have a policy that limited the amount of paper sold from virgin sources.
Due to a lack of policy, the company received Ethical Consumer's worst rating for timber sourcing and lost a whole mark under Habitats and Resources.

Reference:

https://wordery.com (14 August 2018)