Skip to main content

In August 2019, Ethical Consumer viewed CK Hutchison's Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) Report in its Annual report 2018. As of February 2020, this still appeared to be the company's most recent report.

The report stated that the company was "committed to integrating ESG considerations in its daily operations, both at the Group and business levels." The company had an ESG Committee chaired by an executive director which "set an overtone from a corporate perspective and upholds the Group’s ESG philosophy when key business decisions are made."

Although specific ESG initiatives were said to be driven by individual businesses within the group, due to the existence at the Ultimate Holding Company level of an ESG Committee which set the tone for businesses within the group, the company's main environmental reporting was considered to take place at this level rather than with subsidiaries.

The Annual report contained general discussions of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, renewable energy, waste and pollutants, water, packing materials and electronic waste. This was augmented with selected examples from across the company's operations, such as 3 Austria being CO2 neutral and Husky Energy's Fugitive Emissions Management Program to reduct its GHG emissions.

The topics in the report were too selective and the examples too specific for CK Hutchison to demonstrate a reasonable understanding of its main impacts across all of its areas of business (ports, retail, electronics, infrastructure, energy, telecommunications).

The report did not contain any group-wide, quantified, future environmental targets and the environmental data was not covered by the independent auditors report.

CK Hutchison therefore received Ethical Consumer's worst rating for Environmental Reporting.


AR (2018)

On 9th May 2021, Ethical Consumer viewed the Temasek Holdings (Private) Limited website for the company's environmental policy or report. We found a website section titled Sustainability, which contained information on the company's environmental impacts.

An environmental policy was deemed necessary to report on a company's environmental performance and set targets for reducing its impacts in the future. A strong policy would include two future, quantified environmental targets, demonstration by the company that it had a reasonable understanding of its main environmental impacts, be dated within two years and have its environmental data independently verified.

The company discussed the carbon emissions resulting from its own operations and its investments. It stated that as an investor, it had "a critical role to play in the successful transition to a net zero carbon economy by 2050" and that it had been a supporter of the recommendations of the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures since September 2020. The company stated it was encouraging its portfolio companies to "identify and share consistent, comparable and forward looking information on risks and opportunities they face as a result of climate change" as it sought to "support sustainable businesses with the aim of building an economy that is resilient to climate-related uncertainties". The company also published a table with its three-year environmental footprint, which included CO2 emissions from electricity, business travel, and corporate events and other sources; and water and paper use. With this information Temasek was considered to have demonstrated a reasonable understanding of its environmental impacts; however, the reporting table was not externally verified.

The company stated that it had achieved carbon neutrality for its own emissions in 2020 and aimed to reduce net emissions attributable to its portfolio to seven million tonnes of CO2 equivalent by 2030, which was said to represent "half the estimated carbon emissions in 2010 and approximately a quarter of current emissions". The company had bought carbon credits to offset its emissions. No other quantified targets were found.

Overall, Temasek Holdings (Private) Limited received Worst Ethical Consumer Rating for Environmental Reporting.

Reference: (9 May 2021)

In March 2021, Ethical Consumer viewed CK Hutchinson Holdings' corporate website.

It stated that CK Infrastructure Holdings Limited had interests in Australian Gas Networks Limited and Wales & West Gas Networks (Holdings) Limited.

Due to its involvement in the fossil fuel industry, the company lost a mark under the climated change category.

Reference: (2020)

In February 2020, Ethical Consumer viewed the website of Husky Energy. It was involved in the oil industry.

According to the 'Products' page on the company website, "The Company markets crude oil, natural gas, natural gas liquids, asphalt, petroleum coke and sulphur. It markets and distributes gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, asphalt, lubricants and ancillary products."

A page about its thermal operations, the company stated that it was engaged in cold heavy oil production with sand (CHOPS) methods in its heavy oil operations. CHOPS is an oil sands (or tar sands) extraction method.

Husky Energy therefore lost a whole mark under Climate Change.

Reference: (16 August 2019)

In August 2019 Ethical Consumer viewed the Grand Bahama Port Authority website which stated that the Grand Bahama Airport Company Limited was owned by Freeport Harbour Company Limited which in turn was jointly owned by PGL and Hutchison Port Holdings (HPH). The company was said to be managed by HPH.

The company therefore lost a whole mark under the Climate Change category for its involvement in aviation, which was a climate change impact sector.

Reference: (16 August 2019)

In May 2021, Ethical Consumer searched the Superdrug corporate 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.

The company had a paraben-free range, but did not appear to have any overall policies on the use of toxic chemicals in household and personal care products, therefore it lost a whole mark under Ethical Consumer's Pollution and Toxics category.

Reference: (10 May 2021)

In May 2021, Ethical Consumer searched the Perfume Shop website for a policy on toxic chemicals. As a company which sold perfumes, it was expected that they would have one. In particular Ethical Consumer was looking for a policy with reference to the use of triclosan, parabens and phthalates in the company's products and the brands that they sold. Some products were marked as free from triclosan, phthalates or parabens, but the company did not appear to have an overall policy on these.

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.
The company appeared to have no policies on the use of toxic chemicals in household and personal care products, therefore it lost a whole mark under Ethical Consumer's Pollution and Toxics category.

Reference: (11 May 2021)

In May 2021, Ethical Consumer searched the Superdrug website for a cotton sourcing policy. Although the company sold a range of products which included cotton such as menstrual products and cotton wool, no policy could be found.

According to Anti-Slavery international (ASI) website viewed by Ethical Consumer in August 2018, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan were two of the world’s largest exporters of cotton, and every year their governments forcibly mobilised over one million citizens to grow and harvest cotton. Due to the high proportion of cotton likely to have come from Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan and the prevalence of forced labour in its production, the company lost half a mark in the Workers Rights category.

The Organic Trade Association website,, stated in July 2018 that cotton covered roughly 2.78% of global arable land, but accounted for 12.34% of all insecticide sales and 3.94% of herbicide sales. Due to the impacts of the widespread use of pesticides in cotton production worldwide the company also lost half a mark in the Pollution & Toxics category.

According to the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications (ISAAA), a non-profit pro biotech organisation, genetically modified cotton accounted for 80% of cotton grown in 2017. Due to the prevalence of GM cotton in cotton supply chains and the lack of any evidence that the company avoided it, it was assumed that some of the company's cotton products contained some GM material. As a result it lost half a mark under the Controversial Technology category.

Overall the company received Ethical Consumer's worst rating for its cotton sourcing policy.

Reference: (10 May 2021)

On 15th June 2021 Ethical Consumer viewed Olam International Limited website for the company's policy on timber sourcing due to the fact that it sold timber and owned forest concessions.
Ethical Consumer's timber sourcing ranking required companies scoring a 'best' to cover six of the below issues:
1. Having a timber sourcing policy that covers all timber and timber-derived products
2. The exclusion of illegal timber or that sourced from unknown sources and...
3. ...a discussion on how a company ensures/ implements this
4. Clear targets for sourcing timber from sustainably managed sources
5. A discussion of a good minimum standard
6. Preference given to certified sources
7. A discussion about tropical hardwoods (THW) and the percentage of THW sourced that are FSC certified
8. Involvement with a multi-stakeholder initiative or bridging programme such as the World Wildlife Fund- Global Forest Trade Network
9. Use of reclaimed or recycled wood/ paper
10. A high total percentage (50%+) of FSC certified timber sourced by the company.

Olam stated that it Forest Concession in the Congo was 100% FSC certified. However, it also stated "in Asia, our subsidiary Concorde Industries Ltd processes Myanmar teak and hardwoods for wood products and furniture" without referring to any form of certification. The Concorde Industries website appeared to have only a homepage with the company name and no information.

Due to the fact that Olam International Limited had no information available it received Ethical Consumer's worst rating for its timber sourcing policy and lost a whole mark under Habitats & Resources.

Reference: (14 June 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.


Form 13-F (31 December 2020)

In May 2021, the Forest Stewardship Council continued to investigate the world's largest farmer, Singapore-based Olam which trades in 47 agricultural commodities across 70 countries.

The FSC investigation will assess Mighty Earth’s complaint filed with the FSC in December 2016, which provided damning evidence that Olam cleared vast areas of rainforest for oil palm and rubber plantation development in Gabon and, as a result, violated the FSC's sutainability criteria Olam had signed up to. The complaint was filed based on evidence presented in the report “Black Box,” co-authored by Mighty Earth and Gabonese Goldman Award winner Marc Ona Essangui’s organization Brainforest.

According to the Black Box report, Olam had begun to develop operations in Africa through joint ventures with the government of the Republic of Gabon. Under these joint ventures Olam received 300,000 hectares of landbank for its own plantations, plus a programme incentivizing Gabonese farmers to grow palm oil on a further 200,000 hectares as ‘smallholders’ and selling the product to Olam.

These deals were met with criticism, partly by Rainforest Foundation UK, which found that communities were denied the right to free, prior and informed consent to development on their lands and that the land included culturally important sites.

Mighty had also analysed satellite imagery of Gabon and determined that Olam had cleared approximately 20,000 hectares of mature, high quality rainforest since 2012. Mighty’s field team, in partnership with Gabonese NGO Brainforest, also found that Olam had imported Southeast Asian workers to Gabon rather than hire locals and it was unclear whether employees and smallholders would receive a living wage or an adequate price for their product.

As a result of the report, Olam suspended further clearing of rainfoest in Gabon but the investigation is to make sure it pays compensation for its deofrestation.

Mitsubishi Corporation owns 17.42% shares in Olam.

As a result, Olam International lost half marks under Palm Oil and Habitat and Resources.


World’s largest farmer’ faces investigation into deforestation (4 May 2020)

In June 2020, Ethical Consumer downloaded the A.S. Watson Group 2019 Annual Communication on Progress (ACOP) to the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) from the RSPO's website and looked for further information on the company group's website (no further information was found).

The ACOP report stated that 95% of the total palm oil used by the company was reported to be certified by the RSPO, however, it did not state whether or not this extended to the use of palm kernel oil or derivatives.

The report did not contain any data concerning the volumes of palm oil used.

The company did not have a group-wide commitment; the report was submitted under the company name of A.S. Watson (Health & Beauty Continental Europe)B.V. which was a subsidiary of the parent A.S. Watson Group. In addition, it stated the report only covered the markets of Belgium, France and the Netherlands.

No information could be found regarding any positive initiatives the company was engaging in, and it did not disclose its suppliers. It received Ethical Consumer's worst rating for its palm oil policy and practice.


Generic (2020)