In March 2020 Ethical Consumer viewed the Earth Friendly Products website for the company's environmental policy or report.

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.

No environmental report could be found, but the website included information on the company's approach to environmental sustainability. It discussed energy and water use in manufacturing, stating that it only sourced 100% renewable energy and was carbon and water neutral - although how this calculated and what exactly the company meant by it was unclear. It briefly discussed ingredients and transparency, and the FAQ section talked about some toxic chemicals. It was considered to demonstrate adequate understanding of its key environmental impacts, although it would have benefitted from more detail on these areas and discussion of issues such as transportation of goods and packaging.

No future, quantifiable targets could be found and the information did not appear to have been independently verified.

Earth Friendly Products received Ethical Consumer's worst rating for Environmental Reporting and lost a full mark under this category.

In March 2020, Ethical Consumer searched the ECOS website for the company's policy on the use of the hazardous chemicals parabens, triclosan and phthalates.
The FAQ section of the ECOS (Earth Friendly Products' brand) stated that all products were free of pthalates and parabens.
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.
In 2017 it was found that the company stated in press releases about individual products that they were not made with triclosan.
However, the website did not state whether triclosan had been banned in ECOS products and as the response was more than 2 years old it was no longer considered to be current. The company therefore received Ethical Consumer's middle rating for its toxic chemical policy and lost half a mark under Pollutions & Toxics.

In March 2020, Ethical Consumer searched ECOS’s website for the company's policy on the use of microplastics and non-biodegradable liquid polymers. No information was found. The company had also been sent a questionnaire but no response was received.

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.

According to a recent report by Code Check, 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 lacked a clear policy on the use of microplastics and non-biodegradable liquid polymers, it lost half a mark under Pollution and Toxics.

In March 2020, Ethical Consumer searched the Earth Friendly Products website for information on the company's palm oil sourcing policy. No information could be found.
The company had stated in 2012 that is did not use palm oil. However, as this was over two years ago, it was no longer considered to be current.
The company was contacted with a questionnaire, which included questions on palm oil sourcing. However, no reply was received.
The company received Ethical Consumer's worst rating for its palm oil sourcing and lost a full mark in the Palm Oil category.