In March 2020 Ethical Consumer searched the Lush website and found suncreens were listed. However, although the product appeared on the company's website, Lush no longer sold the product: "We've said goodbye to this product to make room for some exciting new launches in the near future."

Mineral sunscreens frequently contain nano-particles - microscopic particles about 1/50,000 the width of a human hair. At the time of writing, most scientific evidence suggested that sunscreens containing nano-particles were safe for humans to use. However, because the impact of nanoparticles on the environment or on the workers who make them is not fully understood, companies producing sunscreen with no policy on the use of nanotechnology lost half a mark under Controversial Technologies.

However, as Lush was no longer producing any type of sunscreen it was not expected to be using nanotechnology. Furthermore a questionnaire returned by Lush in March 2020 stated that the company did not use nanotechnology. This story is for information only.

Reference:

uk.lush.com (18 March 2020)

In May 2020 Ethical Consumer viewed Lush's list of subsidiaries in its annual report 2017. This showed that the company had multiple subsidiaries in the Netherlands and Hong Kong, jurisdictions considered by Ethical Consumer to be tax havens at the time of writing. All of these subsidiaries appeared to represent legitimate trading activity serving local populations.

Lush was accredited by the Fair Tax Mark and published country-by-country financial information in its annual accounts, including revenue, staff costs and number of employees. It also published a tax policy on its website which stated:

"At Lush, we believe that we should pay a fair tax in each of the countries in which we operate. We will take advantage of legitimate business tax structures and benefits available in each country – but we will never search for loopholes or devise schemes that stretch the rules beyond their obvious intended purpose."

Lush therefore received Ethical Consumer's best rating for likely use of tax avoidance strategies.

Reference:

AR 2018 (2018)