In March 2020 Ethical Consumer viewed Aesop's website for information on any use of nanotechnology. In October 2017 it had stated:

"We use Zinc Oxide in Sage and Zinc Facial Hydrating Cream – SPF15 and Protective Lip Balm SPF30 because of its unparalleled ability to coat the skin and create a barrier to UV radiation. In its (newly defined) nano form, Zinc Oxide also improves dispersion of sunscreens – products containing it appear ‘invisible’ when applied to the skin....
While scientific research into the safety of nanotechnology continues, we believe daily use of a high-quality sunscreen is of crucial importance in protecting the skin from the well-documented dangers of exposure to UV radiation.
Because of this, and because this material has been independently evaluated and approved on safety grounds, we stand by our decision to use Zinc Oxide."

Ethical Consumer considered Nanotechnology to be a controversial technology whose safety had not been fully established. While the statement could not still be found on the website the ingredients list of the products mentioned contained "Zinc Oxide (nano)".

Aesop lost half a mark under Controversial Technology.

Reference: (26 October 2020)

In November 2020 Avon Products website was viewed for the company's nanotechnology policy.

The policy stated:

Avon uses a limited number of ingredients characterized as nanomaterials, each with an average particle size of less than 100 nanometres. These are primarily titanium dioxide or zinc oxide, which are used in a wide range of cosmetic products to provide protection against the ultraviolet (UV) rays of the sun...

The safety of each of the ingredients characterized as a nanomaterial currently used by Avon has been individually and fully evaluated by our scientists before being permitted for use in cosmetic products. Avon's evaluation included a specific assessment of the potential for nano-sized particles of these materials to be absorbed through the skin. We will continue to closely monitor the scientific literature on nano-particles and, if we determine that a particular ingredient can no longer be considered to be used safely, we will discontinue its use."

As nanotechnology was considered by some campaigners to pose a significant threat to the environment and human safety, the company received a mark against it in the Controversial Technologies category.

Reference: (16 November 2020)

According to the website, viewed by Ethical Consumer in November 2020, Avon and its employees gave $9,428 to US political parties during the 2018 election cycle, with 49% going to Democrats and 31% to Republicans and the remaining to 'other'. NOTE: OpenSecrets states: “The organization itself did not donate, rather the money came from the organization's PACs, their individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate family members. Organizations themselves cannot contribute to candidates and party committees. Totals include subsidiaries and affiliates.”
The company lost half a mark under Political Activities.


Open Secrets generic ref 2020 (2020)

According to Ethical Consumer's list of lobby groups, updated in February 2020, Natura Cosmeticos was a member of the World Business Council for Sustainable Development. This was regarded by Ethical Consumer as an international corporate lobby group which exerted undue corporate influence on policy-makers in favour of market solutions that were potentially detrimental to the environment and human rights.


Ethical Consumer Lobby Group member list (19 February 2020)

In November 2020 Ethical Consumer viewed its list of free trade lobby groups, updated in February 2020.

Avon was a member of the American Chamber of Commerce website

Ethical Consumer regarded this group to be corporate lobby groups which lobbied for free trade at the expense of the environment, animal welfare, human rights or the environment.

As a result Avon lost half a mark under Political Activities.


Ethical Consumer Lobby Group member list (19 February 2020)

In November 2020 Ethical Consumer viewed Avon Products Inc's 2019 form DEF14a on the SEC website, which gave details of director's pay. Several directors received compensation over £1 million in 2018, the amount considered excessive by Ethical Consumer. The highest paid was the CEO who received $6,092,058.
As a result, Avon lost half a mark under Anti-Social Finance.


Form DEF 14a 2019 (4 March 2020)

In October 2020 Ethical Consumer viewed Natura's list of subsidiaries on the D&B Hoovers corporate database. This showed that the company had a number of subsidiaries in jurisdictions considered by Ethical Consumer to be tax havens at the time of writing, including Hong Kong, the Netherlands, Singapore, Ireland, Jersey, Guernsey and Macau. Of these, five were holding companies, which was a high risk company type for likely use of tax avoidance:
Natura (Brasil) International B.V. in the Netherlands
The Body Shop Benelux B.V. in the Netherlands
G.A. HOLDINGS (1979) LIMITED in Jersey
An internet search using the search terms “Natura tax policy statement country” found no country-by-country financial information or reporting (CBCR), nor clear public tax statement confirming that it was this company’s policy not to engage in tax avoidance activity or to use tax havens for tax avoidance purposes, including a narrative explanation for what each group entity located in a tax haven was for, and why it was not being used for purposes of tax minimisation.
Given that Natura had two or more high risk subsidiaries in jurisdictions on Ethical Consumer's tax haven list and no country-by-country financial information, nor adequate policy statement and narrative explanation, the company received Ethical Consumer's worst rating for likely use of tax avoidance strategies and lost a full mark under Tax Conduct.


Generic Hoovers ref (2020)