In March 2020 Ethical Consumer viewed the Baylis & Harding 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.
The website had a page for the company's policies, as well as on sustainability which discussed installing water refill stations, electric vehicle charging points, and 'sustainable energy' for the building (although this was undefined. It also discussed the environmental impacts of its plastic packaging. However, the company did not discuss major impacts such as water and energy use in manufacturing, the sustainable sourcing of ingredients and the transportation of its products. It was not considered to demonstrate adequate understanding of its key environmental impacts.
Its 2020 Vision did not include any future, quantifiable environmental targets. No targets could be found elsewhere.
The information did not appear to be independently verified.
The company therefore received Ethical Consumer's worst rating for Environmental Reporting and lost a full mark in this category.

Reference:

baylisandharding.com (19 March 2020)

In March 2020, Ethical Consumer searched Baylis and Harding’s website for the company's policy on the use of microplastics and non-biodegradable liquid polymers. The following statement was located on the FAQ page: “We are as concerned as you are about the build-up of microplastics in oceans and lakes. As a result, we are proud to say we do not use plastic micro beads in any of our product formulations.”

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 was not clear about whether the company did not have any microplastics in its products, nor did it address the issue of non-biodegradable liquid polymers, the company lost half a mark under Pollution & Toxics.

Reference:

baylisandharding.com (19 March 2020)

In March 2020 Ethical Consumer searched the Baylis & Harding 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 website stated that none of the products contained parabens. No policies on phthalates or triclosan were found.
The company therefore received Ethical Consumer's middle rating for its toxics policy and lost half a mark in the Pollutions & Toxics category.

Reference:

baylisandharding.com (19 March 2020)

The Baylis and Harding website was searched in March 2020 for information on the company's palm oil policy. No mention of palm oil was found. In the absence of a statement saying otherwise, as the company produced cosmetics it was assumed that it used palm oil derivatives. Without a policy or evidence that the company used certified sustainable palm oil it recieved Ethical Consumer's worst rating for its palm oil policy and lost a full mark in the Palm Oil category.

Reference:

baylisandharding.com (19 March 2020)