In February 2019 Ethical Consumer sent Nestle a questionnaire requesting information about its environmental reporting and practices. No response was received. In March 2019 the company’s website, ‘Nestle Responsible Sourcing Standard’ report (July 2018) and 'Nestle in Society' report (2017) were searched for relevant information.

The Nestle in Society Report 2017 provided performance data for water, food waste, renewable energy use, raw material use, energy consumption, biodiversity and waste. All of these topics, in addition to sustainable agriculture, were discussed in detail. The Nestle Responsible Sourcing Standard provided further details, including a commitment to decreasing the use of plastics and increasing the recyclability of packaging material supplied.

Many environmental reduction targets for 2020 were presented, including:

"Reduce GHG emissions (Scope 1 and 2) per tonne of product in every product category to achieve an overall reduction of 35% in our manufacturing operations versus 2010."
"By 2020: Reduce direct water withdrawals per tonne of product in every product category to achieve an overall reduction of 35% since 2010."
and
"By 2020: Reduce GHG emissions by 10% in our distribution operations versus 2014."
There were numerous other dated and quantified targets.
"100% of our packaging will be reusable or recyclable by 2025."

The report was independently assured by Bureau Veritas.

As Nestle had an independently verified report dated within the past 2 years that showed a reasonable understanding of its key environmental impacts and presented more than two future environmental reduction targets, the company received Ethical Consumer's best rating for its Environmental Reporting.

Reference:

Nestlé Responsible Sourcing (July 2018)

According to the Nestlé's Creating Shared Value Report 2018, viewed by Ethical Consumer in February 2020, the company was in the process of phasing out HFC refrigerants with high global warming potential from its industrial operations including refrigerated trnucks. However, at the time of writing, global warming refrigerants were still being used in industrial regfrigeration in factories. Nestlé had targets to only use natural refrigerants in its ice cream chests and cold drinks dispensers but the target for 2020 for industrial refrigeration was only to 'expand the use of natural refrigerants'.

The company therefore lost half a mark under Climate Change.

Reference:

Creating Shared Value andmeeting our commitments 2018 (2018)

In a report by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), 13 major fast food, retail, and food manufacturing companies in the USA were assessed to see if they could be doing more to prevent deforestation in South America. The report - Cattle, Cleared Forests, and Climate Change - was published in September 2016.

Tropical forests, notably those in South America, were being cleared for use in beef production. Deforestation driven by beef production was more than twice that of the next three largest drivers combined. South American ranchers cleared tropical forests, grasslands and woodlands to create pastures - releasing heat-trapping gases, destroying wildlife habitats, and encroaching on the homes of indigenous peoples.

The 13 companies all sourced beef from South America. This meant they could help stop deforestation by working with their suppliers to change practices, and ensure that beef production was not causing deforestation.

UCS found that nine of the 13 companies had no public policies or plans detailing how they intended to eliminate deforestation associated with their beef purchases, and that the policies and practices of the remaining four companies had major gaps - meaning they could have profited from selling “deforestation-risk beef”.

Companies were assessed against a number of criteria and given an overall mark out of 100. The report rated each company's deforestation-free beef policies and practices as “Strong”, “Limited” or “Very Limited” - in practice no company was assessed as “Strong”.

Nestlé was ranked fifth of the 13 companies with 23 out of 100. This score put it in the bottom (“Very Limited”) band.

The company lost half a mark under Climate Change and half a mark under Habitats & Resources.

Reference:

Cattle, Cleared Forests, and Climate Change: Scoring Global Companies on their Deforestation-Free Be

In May 2015 Ceres produced a report called “Feeding ourselves thirsty: How the food sector is managing global water risks. A benchmark report for investors.” According to the report producing food was the most water-intensive business on earth. It stated that “seventy percent of the world’s freshwater was used to irrigate crops and raise animals” and “one-third of total food production was in areas of high or extremely high water stress, or competition.” It went on to state that the run-off of fertilizers from farm fields was one of the most common causes of “water pollution worldwide, causing dead zones, harming fisheries, affecting human health and raising water treatment costs.”
The report analysed food sector companies against actions taken in four categories of water risk management, using indicators and scoring drawn largely from the Ceres Aqua Gauge:
1) governance and management: board members with oversight of water-related issues and had a water strategy
2) direct operations: reports data on water use and wastewater discharge for direct operations; assesses risks; sets standards and goals on water water use, wastewater and impacts on watersheds
3) manufacturing supply chain: assesses water risks facing manufacturing suppliers; had policies for suppliers to improve water management; incentivises manufacturing suppliers to strengthen practices
4) agricultural supply chain: assess water-related risks facing key agricultural inputs and sourcing regions; had policies for suppliers to improve water management and report their water use and pollution impacts; incentivises manufacturing suppliers to strengthen practices
Companies were scored on a 0-100 point scale, using publicly available information from company financial statements, corporate sustainability reports and 2014 CDP water survey responses.

Nestlé received the second highest overall mark in the packaged foods sector with a score of 64. It scored the following in each section:
Governance and Management – 14/25
Direct Operations – 25/30
Manufacturing Supply Chain – 11/20
Agricultural Supply Chain – 14/25
Companies which scored 20 or under in agricultural supply chain lost half a mark under Ethical Consumer's pollution and toxics category due to the fact “erosion of topsoil and associated fertilizer run-off, both chemical and manure, is the most significant source of agricultural water pollution.”

Reference:

Feeding ourselves thirsty: How the food sector is managing global water risks. (May 2015)

In June 2015 Ethical Consumer viewed an article listed on the Business and Human Rights Resource Centre, dated 31st May. It stated: 'Indian food-safety inspectors had filed a criminal complaint against Nestlé India Ltd. after finding dangerous levels of lead in a batch of Maggi 2-Minute Noodles sold in the country...it found seven-times the permissible level of lead in a routine test of two dozen noodle packets...'.

The company lost half a mark under Pollutins and Toxics.

Reference:

Criminal complaint accuses Nestlé India of high lead levels in Maggi noodles (19 June 2015)

In March 2020, Ethical Consumer searched L’Oreal’s website for the company's policy on the use of microplastics and non-biodegradable liquid polymers. No information was found. Ethical Consumer also viewed a news article dated 10th February 2017 which stated that L’Oreal had eliminated microbeads from its wash off products.

According to Beat the Microbead, there are more than 500 known microplastics ingredients that can be found in our personal care products such as toothpastes, face washes, scrubs and shower gels. They are tiny plastic particles that are added for their exfoliating properties, but sometimes purely for aesthetic purposes only.

A recent report by Code Check found that non-biodegradable liquid polymers were also prevalent across a wide range of cosmetic products. Like microplastics, these materials degrade with a similar difficulty in the environment and may cause similar harm.

In 2018, the UK government banned the use of microbeads in toothpastes, shower gels and facial scrubs. However, some products classified as “leave on” were not subject to the ban, this would include lotions, sun cream and makeup, as well as abrasive cleaning products. This ban did not extend to non-biodegradable liquid polymers.

Given that the company’s policy did not cover all of its products and did not address the issue of non-biodegradable liquid polymers, the company lost half a mark under Pollution & Toxics.

Reference:

http://www.loreal.com/brand (March 2020)

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)

Forest 500, ‘the world’s first rainforest rating agency’, is a project of the Global Canopy Programme. In 2019, it published its fifth annual ranking. It ranks 350 of the biggest companies in forest-risk supply chains and the 150 biggest investors in these companies.

Tropical rainforests cover 7% of the earth, but contain 50% of global biodiversity. Their ecosystems regulate global water systems and the climate, and they directly support the livelihoods of over a billion people. The social and economic benefits of these services are estimated to be in the trillions.

Over two thirds of tropical deforestation is driven by the production of a handful of commodities including; palm oil, soya, timber, paper and pulp, beef, and leather. These commodities are in products we use every day and are present in more than 50% of the packaged products in our
supermarkets.

Companies and financial institutions had been assessed and ranked in respect to their policies addressing potential deforestation embedded in forest-risk commodity supply chains. The 2018 report stated that "the Forest 500 methodology was updated in 2018 to better distinguish between companies who have set commitments, and those that have taken the next step towards implementation. This new methodology has meant that many companies have received lower scores this year." A document on the 2019 methodology stated that had been updated again to better align with the guidance of the Accountability Framework, a set of norms and guidance on ethical supply chains developed by a coalition of civil society partners. Three new indicators were added and two indicators were updated.

The Forest 500 ranking and analysis will be repeated annually until 2020, to help inform, enable and track progress towards deforestation free supply chains.

Each company was rated from 0-5, across five categories:

L'Oreal was one of the 350 companies rated in the 2019 report.

It received an overall score of 4. Its scores in each category were as follows:
Overall Approach 3 out of 5

Commodity Score (palm, paper & pulp) 4 out of 5

Commitment Strength 4 out of 5

Reporting and implementation 3 out of 5

Social Considerations 3 out of 5

The company was a Consumer Goods Forum member but had not signed up to the following collective commitment: New York Declaration on Forests

As it had scored 4 overall, this reference is for information only.

Reference:

Forest 500 - 2019 ranking (2019)

In February 2019 Ethical Consumer sent Nestle SA a questionnaire requesting information about its palm oil sourcing policies and practices. No response was received and so the company’s website and the RSPO website were searched for relevant information in March 2019. The following documents were viewed: "Palm Oil Responsible Sourcing at Nestlé 2017 Update", and also examined its 2017 RSPO progress update, the most recent available.

The proportion of Nestle’s palm oil products that were segregated was relatively small, and the company’s target for sourcing sustainably produced palm oil had been extended. It stated it aimed to source ‘100% RSPO certified sustainable palm oil and oil palm products from any supply chain option’ in its own brand products by 2023. (This date had been extended by three years from that stated in its 2017 Society Report and 2017 update (2020). At the start of 2017, its palm oil was reported to be 92% traceable to mill, 47% traceable to plantation, and 57% Responsibly Sourced. This ‘Responsibly Sourced figure’ was inconsistent with the RSPO data.

In 2018 it stated that it was working towards 25% of total volume [20% SG + 5% Book and Claim] as RSPO certified, as well as targets of 95% traceability to mill, 70% traceability to plantation

Nestle described its commitment to transparency in its supply chain, and described its suppliers as including "Sime Darby, Wilmar International, Cargill and a collaboration between Golden Agri-Resources in Indonesia and Oleofats in the Philippines – that have established traceable supply chains that are also assessed against the RSG".

Nestle was involved with several positive initiatives, including Rurality - "an initiative of TFT that aims to engage with smallholders, identify scaleable improvement opportunities and build a train-the-trainer model that facilitates the sharing of best practice." It also aimed to exp[and its work in 2018 with Airbus and TFT to apply satellite monitoring to verify no deforestation in at least five countries from which it sourced palmoil, which in combination with traceability to plantation, HCS assessments, and conservation initiatives will work to achieve our 2020 no deforestation commitment.

Overall, Nestle received Ethical Consumer's worst rating for its palm oil sourcing.

Reference:

2017 RSPO Progress Report (2017)

In June 2019, Ethical Consumer viewed a petition on the Sum of Us website titled 'It's time Procter & Gamble tackles palm oil exploitation in its supply chain'. It stated:

"Procter & Gamble’s villainous palm oil partner FGV, has been sanctioned over multiple human rights violations, including trafficking and forced labour.

"FGV or “Felda” has been found guilty of human trafficking and forced labour on its plantations...

"Big brands like Procter & Gamble, PepsiCo, Nestlé, and Mars brag about their sustainable palm oil policies, while continuing to profit from FGV’s forced labour."

The company lost half a mark under Palm Oil.

Reference:

It's time Procter & Gamble tackles palm oil exploitation in its supply chain (17 June 2019)

In March 2018 Greenpeace International released its report called “Moment of truth time for brands to come clean about their links to forest destruction for palm oil”.

The report was based on the fact that in 2010 members of the Consumer Goods Forum (CGF) pledged to do their bit to protect forests and limit climate change, with a clear commitment to clean up global commodity supply chains by 2020.

However Greenpeace stated “with less than two years to go until 2020, deforestation to produce commodities such as palm oil shows no sign of slowing down. Corporate commitments and policies have proliferated, but companies have largely failed to implement them. As a result, consumer brands, including those with ‘no deforestation, no peat, no exploitation’ (NDPE) policies, still use palm oil from producers that destroy rainforests, drain carbon-rich peatland and violate the human rights of workers and local communities – making their customers complicit in forest destruction, climate change and human rights abuses.”

At the start of 2018, Greenpeace International challenged 16 leading members of the CGF to demonstrate their progress towards a clean palm oil supply chain. It called on them to disclose publicly the mills that produced their palm oil, and the names of the producer groups that controlled those mills. Eight of the global brands responded to Greenpeace’s challenge and published data revealing where and from whom they ultimately buy palm oil. It said “Transparency and accountability – including the publication of explicit details about who produces the palm oil that companies use – create the conditions for sectoral reform.”

Nestlé SA was one of the eight companies which had responded to Greenpeace’s challenge and had provided data on its traders / suppliers and the names of the mills and producers.

Yet in 2017, Greenpeace assessed the actions palm oil traders were taking to ensure that they were not buying from producers that were destroying rainforests, draining peatlands or exploiting workers and local communities. It said “Although most traders had published NDPE policies, there were serious problems with their implementation: inconsistent standards, questionable enforcement and non-existent deadlines. Not only was the palm oil industry not working to the 2020 deadline set by brands, it did not even have a common timeline for delivering a palm oil supply free from deforestation and other social and environmental harms.”

Nestlé SA lost half a mark under Ethical Consumer's palm oil category due to the fact Greenpeace concluded “none of the major traders can yet be relied upon to supply brands with palm oil that meets their NDPE standards; indeed, they are all known to source from forest destroyers... It follows that by sourcing from these traders brands are buying palm oil contaminated by forest destruction.”

Reference:

Moment of truth time for brands to come clean about their links to forest destruction for palm oil (