In May 2021, Ethical Consumer viewed a story on Telegraph website dated August 2018, titled, 'Superdrug face backlash against Botox treatment from animal rights groups'. It stated:

"Superdrug is facing a backlash from animal rights groups for selling botox injections tested on animals.

"The high street retailer said it would provide the injections at one of its London stores from as little as £99, following feedback from thousands of its beauty conscious customers.

"However, Superdrug, has come under fierce criticism from animal welfare organisations who highlight the cruelty that can be involved in animal testing of these types of products."

The company therefore lost half a mark under Animal Testing.

Reference:

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/08/18/superdrug-face-backlash-against-botox-treatment-animal-r (9 May

In May 2021, Ethical Consumer viewed the Superdrug website for the company's policy on animal testing. On the CSR page, in a section titled Cruelty Free, the following statement was found:

"Superdrug believes that beauty should be cruelty free. We are proud to be Leaping Bunny approved... All of our own brand cosmetics and personal care products are approved under the Cruelty Free International Leaping Bunny programme, the internationally recognisable gold standard for cruelty free products. We adhere to a fixed cut-off date policy and proactively monitor our suppliers to ensure that our products continue to adhere to the Leaping Bunny criteria. Our supplier monitoring system is also independently audited."

However, as the company said nothing of its policy around animal testing for medical products, it was assumed the company did test some of its products on animals. The company therefore received Ethical Consumer's worst rating for animal testing and lost a full mark under Animal Testing.

Reference:

www.superdrug.com (10 May 2021)

In May 2021, Ethical Consumer searched the Perfume Shop website for an animal testing policy. Given that the company sold perfumes and animal testing was common practice in this industry, Ethical Consumer expected The Perfume Shop to have an animal testing policy.
The company stated that its own range, The Perfume Edit, was cruelty-free, but no information was found on which label (if any) the products were certified by. No fixed-cut-off-date was found. A fixed-cut-off-date was required to demonstrate that the company did not use animal tested ingredients.
The Perfume Shop received a worst rating for Animal Testing and lost a whole mark in this category.

Reference:

www.theperfumeshop.com (11 May 2021)

In May 2021, Ethical Consumer viewed the PARKnSHOP website. It displayed a number of meat and dairy products for sale that were not labelled as free range or organic. It consequently lost whole marks under Factory Farming as well as the Animal Rights category.

Reference:

www.parknshop.com (11 May 2021)

As Temasek Holdings was categorised as ‘Vague/unsubstantiated’ according to Ethical Consumer’s transparency of investments rating it was marked down for any investments it held in companies that had been criticised by Ethical Consumer. For example, if it held shares in company criticised for animal testing, the company would lost half a mark under the Animal Testing category.

In May 2021, Ethical Consumer viewed the company's latest Form 13-F, filed with the US Securities and Exchange Commission, which listed the company's investments, and was dated to 31st December 2020. The company held shares in Amazon Com Inc, Airbnb Inc, Mastercard Incorporated, Paypal Holdings Inc and Starbucks Corp, among many other companies. These companies have been criticised under the following Ethical Consumer categories:

Climate Change, Pollution and Toxics, Habitats and Resources, Animal Testing, Factory Farming, Animal Rights, Human Rights, Workers Rights, Arms and Military Supply, Political Activities, Boycott Call and Tax Conduct.

Temasek Holdings lost half a mark in all the above categories for having investments in these companies.

Reference:

Form 13-F (31 December 2020)

On 14th June 2021 Ethical Consumer viewed the Olam website and found that it had a dairy business and a poultry business.
Of dairy it stated: "Thanks to our global team of farmers, processors, traders, as well as the thousands of dairy cows on our farms, we have established a business that thrives on producing quality ingredients that meet international food safety standards, as well as multiple consumer trends without compromising on nutrition, taste or functionality." Of poultry it stated: "We operate Nigeria’s largest integrated animal feed mill, poultry breeding farm and day-old-chick (DOC) hatchery in Kaduna, and a second integrated poultry feed mill in Kwara." These were considered significant parts of the business and Olam lost a whole mark under Animal Rights.

There was no indication that the animals were free-range or organic. Ethical Consumer also downloaded the company's Animal Welfare policy. It stated that it adhered to the 'five freedoms' approach to animal welfare. This was not considered to meet the same standards as free-range or organic certification. Olam therefore lost a whole mark under Factory Farming.

Reference:

Animal Welfare Policy (14 June 2021)

In March 2021 Ethical Consumer viewed Greene King's website www.greeneking.co.uk. The company ran pubs serving a range of meat and dairy products that were not labelled as free range or organic. It consequently lost marks under the Factory Farming and Animal Rights categories.

Reference:

https://www.greeneking.co.uk/privacy/ (9 March 2021)