In March 2019 Ethical Consumer viewed KKR's Sustainability website,, for the company's environmental report.
A 2017 ESG and Citizenship Update was viewed which talked about its commitments to reducing its impacts through its investments.
It stated "In 2009, we became a signatory to the globally recognized voluntary framework of the Principles for Responsible Investment (PRI) and helped to develop the American Investment Council Guidelines for Responsible Investing."

One goal stated in the ESG update was:
"Enhance environmental management in the portfolio companies where improved environmental performance is material to the business."

While the company had qualitive targets for addressing ESG issues through its investments it did not have any discussion about its own environmental impacts such as energy usage, employee travel or paper use. KKR therefore was not considered to have demonstrated a reasonable understanding of its environmental impacts. Nor did the company have two dated and quantified future environmental targets.
Overall it received Ethical Consumer's worst rating for environmental reporting.


ESG report 2017 (6 March 2019)

In April 2020 Ethical Consumer viewed KKR & Co's investment portofilo.

According to KKR's website the company had investments in several oil companies including Colonial Pipeline Company which "connects the robust U.S. refinery region of the Gulf Coast with customers serving communities and businesses throughout South and the Eastern United States."

It also had investments in oil and gas producers including:
- Accelerated Oil Technologies "Joint venture focused on acquiring oilfields in North America with the objective of enhancing production through the application of Enhanced Oil Recovery Technologies";
- Comstock Resources "a Texas-based oil and gas producer, to develop oil and gas assets in the Eagle Ford Shale";
- EXCO Resources "Joint acquisition and drilling partnership on a portion of Chesapeake Energy's undeveloped acreage in the oil window of the Eagle Ford Shale in south Texas";
- Westbrick Energy "is an oil and gas company with operations in the greater Pembina area of Alberta with over 70,000 net acres of oil and gas rights."

Due to the associated climate change impacts of investing in the oil and gas industry KKR lost a whole mark under Ethical Consumer's climate change category.

Reference: (6 March 2019)

In November 2020 Ethical Consumer viewed Coty's website, looking for information on what the company was doing to tackle climate change. Ethical Consumer was looking for the following:

1. For the company to discuss its areas of climate impact, and to discuss plausible ways it has cut them in the past, and ways that it will cut them in the future.

For the company to not be involved in any particularly damaging projects like tar sands, oil or aviation, to not be subject to damning secondary criticism regarding it’s climate actions, and to have relevant sector-specific climate policies in place.

2. For the company to report annually on its scope 1&2 greenhouse gas emissions (direct emissions by the company), and,

3. to go some way towards reporting on its scope 3 emissions (emissions from the supply chain, investments and sold products).

4. For the company to have a target to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions in line with international agreements (counted as the equivalent of at least 2.5% cut per year in scope 1&2 emissions), and to not count offsetting towards this target.

If a company met all of these criteria it would receive a best rating. If it met parts 1&2 (impacts and annual reporting CO2e) it would receive a middle rating. Otherwise it would receive a worst rating.

The company was considered to meet part 1 as it stated in its Beauty of our Planet section of its website that "Across our supply chain, we have completed 70% of low energy-lighting and installed motion sensors wherever it is safe to do so. Similar actions are taken at our offices whenever possible. In some of our sites, we are also generating energy with solar power and biomass. Within our manufacturing operations, we have a dedicated team who identify opportunities to update equipment with newer, more energy-efficient solutions." It was not involved in the tar sands, oil or aviation industries.

It was considered to meet part 2 as it also reported its Scope 1 and 2 emissions for 2017, 2018, 2019. It was not considered to have met part 3 as it reported Scope 3 emissions but these did not appear to include supply chain or product usage emissions.

In the Beauty of our Planet section it listed a target for 2030 with a 2017 baseline, "To reduce our absolute CO2e emissions across the entire value chain* by 30%. This did not equate to 2.5% or more per year.

It received Ethical Consumer’s middle rating for Climate Change.

Reference: (9 November 2020)

In April 2020 Ethical Consumer searched the Nature's Bounty website for the company's policy on the use of the hazardous chemicals parabens, triclosan and phthalates.
Some forms or uses of these chemicals were banned or restricted in the EU or the USA. Triclosan is an antibacterial and a suspected endocrine disruptor. Parabens are also endocrine disruptors and have been linked to breast cancer. They are used as preservatives. Phthalates, usually DEP or DBP, are used in fragrances and are endocrine disruptors. A strong policy on toxics would be no use of these chemicals or clear, dated targets for ending their use.
No mention of triclosan was found on the website. One product was said to be paraben free. A blog on the website about going make-up free stated "While skin sensitivities vary from person to person, Krant said consensus is forming that it's best to avoid formaldehyde-related preservatives (which are often unlisted, as they can be lumped in with "fragrance"), such as DM, DM hydantoin, phthalates (plasticizers) and "anything with a benzene ring," such as oxybenzone, a sunscreen ingredient". However there did not seem to be a clear policy on phthalates.
The website of one of its subsidiary companies, Dr Organic stated: "No Harsh Chemicals: Natural ingredients are used in all formulations" and "Preservatives: Where necessary preservatives are used to guarantee product safety and shelf-life. Only the highest-grade, naturally-derived preservatives are used". It also stated "Our men’s products do not contain any negative ingredients but contain at least 70% organic ingredients and are free from parabens, SLS and mineral oil".
Nature's Bounty was not considered to have clear policies stating that it did not use or was in the process of banning these chemicals. It therefore received Ethical Consumer's worst rating for toxic chemicals and lost a whole mark under Pollution and Toxics.

Reference: (22 April 2020)

In April 2020, Ethical Consumer searched the Nature’s Bounty website for the company's policy on the use of microplastics and non-biodegradable liquid polymers. No information was found.

Ethical Consumer also viewed the Dr Organic website which, in the FAQs, stated "Dr. Organic products do not include plastic microbeads." There was no acknowledgement of other microplastics or non-biodegradable liquid polymers.

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 the use of all microplastics or the issue of non-biodegradable liquid polymer in its products, the company lost half a mark under Pollution & Toxics.

Reference: (21 April 2020)

In November 2020 Ethical Consumer viewed Coty Inc's website for the company's policy on toxic chemicals. Ethical Consumer expected companies to have removed or have clear targets to remove from their supply chains the following chemicals: parabens, triclosan and phthalates.
A statement on parabens was found: "The ingredients used in our products have been developed, manufactured and packaged in compliance with the strict guidelines and regulations set by each country in which they are sold, including guidelines and regulations relating to the disclosure of the presence of parabens in such products. An extensive body of scientific research supports the safety of specific parabens as currently used in cosmetics products."
No policy for removal of any of the chemicals above could be found. Therefore the company received Ethical Consumer's worst rating for its toxic chemicals policy and lost a whole mark in this category.

Reference: (9 November 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

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:

Coty was one of the 350 companies rated in the 2019 report.

It received an overall score of 1. Its scores in each category were as follows:
Overall Approach 1 out of 5

Commodity Score (palm, paper & pulp) 1 out of 5

Commitment Strength 2 out of 5

Reporting and implementation 0 out of 5

Social Considerations 2 out of 5

The company had not signed up to the following collective commitments:

New York Declaration on Forests signatory
Consumer Goods Forum member

As it had scored under 4 overall, it lost half a mark under Habitats and Resources.


Forest 500 - 2019 ranking (2019)