On 3rd May 2021 Ethical Consumer viewed Unilever's website for the company's policy on supply chain management.

Supply chain policy (rudimentary)

A strong policy would include the following commitments: no use of forced labour, permission of freedom of association, payment of a living wage, the restriction of working hours to 48 hours plus 12 overtime (without exception), no use of a child labour (under 15 or 14 if ILO exempt), no discrimination by race, sex or for any other reason.

A document called 'Unilever Responsible Sourcing Policy' (dated 2017) was downloaded. A section called 'Mandatory Requirements for doing Business with Unilever' was viewed. This included workers' rights provisions which adequately addressed discrimination, forced labour, child labour and freedom of association. The section on wages required adherence to local laws or industry standards only and was not considered to constitute a requirement for a living wage to be paid. In the company's Responsible Sourcing Policy, a living wage was said to be Good Practice but it was not a policy or requirement. The company also stated working hours per week should not exceed 48 hours, but stated that in exceptional circumstances the sum of regular and overtime hours might exceed 60 hours. Unilever was therefore considered to have a rudimentary supply chain policy.

Stakeholder engagement (rudimentary)
Ethical Consumer deemed it necessary for companies to demonstrate stakeholder engagement, such as through membership of the Ethical Trade Initiative, Fair Labour Association or Social Accountability International. Companies were also expected to engage with Trade Unions, NGOs and/or not-for-profit organisations which could systematically verify the company's supply chain audits, and for workers to have access to an anonymous complaints system, free of charge and in their own language.

Unilever stated that it was a member of industry groups such as the Global Social Compliance Programme and the Leadership Group for Global Recruitment. However, Ethical Consumer did not consider these groups to be multi-stakeholder initiatives, as they were industry only groups with no civil society or trade union partners. The document ‘Unilever Human Rights Report 2020’ stated that the company also worked with AIM-Progress, The Consumer Goods Forum, The Business for Inclusive Growth (B4IG), Leadership Group for Responsible Recruitment (LGRR), World Economic Forum (WEF) Global Future Council: The Future of Human Rights (SSC) and the Responsible Labour Initiative, which was part of the Responsible Business Alliance. However these were also not considered multi-stakeholder initiatives. In 2019, Unilever also signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the Fair Labor Association (FLA) to participate in the “Harvesting the Future” project, in Turkey. Fair Labor Association was considered a multi-stakeholder initiative but as Unilever was not a member and this action did not cover its whole supply chain this was not considered adequate. In May 2019, Unilever, the IUF and IndusriALL signed a joint Commitment on Sustainable Employment in Unilever manufacturing. Both of these organisations were considered multi-stakeholder initiatives.

No evidence of systematic engagement of NGOs or trade unions in the verification of Unilever’s supply chain audits was found.

Ethical Consumer viewed Unilever’s ‘Raise a Concern’ page on their website. It had numbers for toll-free confidential complaints lines in its different countries of operation. However, it did not state whether the complaints service would be in the employees’ own language. Ethical Consumer viewed the ‘Reporting on Breaches’ page in Unilever’s ‘Responsible Sourcing Policy 2017’. This stated that the lines were ‘anonymous (where permitted by law)’. Overall it was not considered to meet Ethical Consumer's requirements.

Unilever was considered to have rudimentary stakeholder engagement overall.

Auditing and Reporting (reasonable)
Ethical Consumer deemed it necessary for companies to have an auditing and reporting system. Results of audits should publicly reported and quantitatively analysed. The company should have a scheduled and transparent audit plan that applies to their whole supply chain, including some second tier suppliers. The company should also have a staged policy for non-compliance. The costs of the audit should be borne by the company.

Unilever had an audit programme and stated: “We use a risk-based approach, where all suppliers are assessed for both the risk of what they supply and the inherent risks of the country where they operate. Suppliers that are deemed to represent a high risk are required to have a third-party audit conducted.” Its audit programme appeared to apply to its direct suppliers and also to its ‘extended supply chain’.

It provided an analysis of suppler audit results in its ‘Human Rights Report 2020: Supplier audit update’ (linked to from its Human Rights Report 2020).

Unilever also had a staged approach to instances of non-compliance. It stated: “If remediation is required, the supplier will devise and inform Unilever of their corrective action and implementation plans and timeline to effectively and promptly resolve the breach.”

However, a clear and transparent audit schedule could not be found nor information on who bore the cost of audits.

Unilever was considered to have reasonable approach to auditing and reporting.

Difficult issues (reasonable)
Ethical Consumer also deemed it necessary for companies to address other difficult issues in their supply chains. This would include ongoing training for agents, or rewards for suppliers, or preference for long term suppliers. It would also include acknowledgement of audit fraud and unannounced audits, and measures taken to address the issue of living wages, particularly among outworkers, and illegal freedom of association.

The Unilever website featured a page titled 'Partner with Purpose', which stated that the company had an approach to building long-term relationships with selected key strategic supplier partners.

The Unilever Human Rights Report 2020 stated: “One of our key commitments is that everyone who directly provides goods and services to Unilever will earn a living wage or a living income by 2030 […] we will focus on the most vulnerable workers in manufacturing and agriculture, working with stakeholders to create systemic solutions to raising living standards through purchasing practices, collaboration and advocacy wherever we operate. Our approach to extending our ambition on living wages beyond our direct employees builds on our requirement, enshrined in our RSP, that our suppliers must pay their workers the legal minimum wage or prevailing industry standard, whichever is higher”.

The report also contained a section on Freedom of Association which was said to be one of the company’s ‘salient issues’. It stated: “The Middle East and North Africa were described as the worst regions for working people and 10countries ranked as the worst countries for working people. Like many other businesses, we work in all of these countries and must remain diligent. One of the challenges continues to be working in those countries where, due to legal frameworks, unions are neither free nor fair, there are no effective collective bargaining mechanisms and/or workers are not free to join a union of their choice. In such cases, we recognise that we need to ensure that other credible means of worker engagement are available, while always supporting independent unions and respecting the right to freedom of association.”

Unilever was considered to have a reasonable approach to difficult issues found within supply chains.

Overall, Unilever received a best rating for Supply Chain Management and was not marked down in this category.


Responsible Sourcing 2017 (2017)

In October 2020 Ethical Consumer viewed the Advertising Standards (ASA) website which stated that ruling against Unilever UK Ltd, in relation to advertising of its subsidiary Ben & Jerry's, had been upheld.

As the product was high in fat, salt or sugar (HFSS) it should not be directed at children according to the CAP Code.

The ads were located within 100 metres of schools. It stated that the proximity of the posters to the schools was likely to mean that the audience of the ads were significantly skewed towards under-16s and because of that they were directed at children through the context in which they appeared. It was concluded that the placement of ads breached the Code.

It was ruled that Unilever UK Ltd must ensure to take measures in future to ensure that HFSS product ads were not displayed in close proximity to a school.

The company lost half a mark for Irresponsible Marketing.


ASA Ruling on Unilever UK Ltd (9 October 2020)

In March 2019, Ethical Consumer viewed an article on the Organic Consumers Association website, titled “Ben & Jerry's Loses the Legal Battle for Misinforming Consumers” and dated to 22 January 2019.

In July 2018 the Organic Consumers Association took Ben & Jerry to court for deceptive labelling, marketing and sale of its ice cream products. It stated that Ben & Jerry's promoted its ice cream as “made from milk from ‘happy cows’ supported by its ‘Caring Dairy’ program, a set of standards for cow care, planet stewardship and farmworkers that are supposed to go beyond the CAFO [concentrated animal feeding operations] status quo”.

In the lawsuit, OCA claimed that Ben & Jerry's marketing could lead consumers to assume all its dairy meets the standards of the Caring Dairy programme, while it had found that the company sourced its dairy from a Vermont cooperative where fewer than 25 percent of the participating farms met the Caring Dairy standards. The cooperative supplied Ben & Jerry’s with milk mixed together from all its farms. OCA also claimed that Ben & Jerry's' marketing could lead consumers to assume that its ice cream contained no harmful chemicals, such as the herbicide glyphosate.

In January 2019 the District of Columbia Superior Court allowed the lawsuit to move forward, after a motion by Ben & Jerry’s to dismiss it. The judge stated that a “reasonable consumer” could interpret Ben & Jerry's' labelling and marketing as “affirmatively (and inaccurately) communicating” that the company's dairy was all sourced from Caring Dairies and/or other sources guaranteeing animal welfare. The court also concluded that OCA had made a plausible claim that consumers could be misled into believing the company's ice cream products contained no traces of chemicals like glyphosate.

There was no outcome to the lawsuit at the time of writing. The company lost half a mark in the Irresponsible Marketing category.


Ben & Jerry's Loses the Legal Battle for Misinforming Consumers (22 January 2019)

In October 2020 Ethical Consumer viewed the Vermonters for a Just Peace in Palestine/Israel (VTJP) website, www.vtjp.org. The group was calling for a boycott of Ben & Jerry's over its selling of ice cream within illegal Israeli settlements. VTJP stated 'in violation of their social mission, their Israeli franchise sells ice cream in illegal, Jewish-only settlements in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem, transported on Jewish-only roads, on trucks with Jewish-only license plates, passing easily through military checkpoints that bedevil others.'

The company therefore lost half a mark under Human Rights.


https://icecream.vtjp.org/ (9 October 2020)

In October 2020 Ethical Consumer viewed an article titled 'Kenyan tea workers file UN complaint against Unilever over 2007 ethnic violence', dated 1 August 2020 on the Unilever website.

A group of 218 Kenyan tea plantation workers had filed a complaint with the UN against Unilever, alleging that the multinational violated international human rights standards by not adequately assisting its employees, who were attacked when ethnic violence broke out following a disputed election in 2007.

The workers said that Unilever breached its obligation to remediate any human rights abuses to which it had contributed, which was central to the UN’s guiding principles on business and human rights.

Unilever “strongly reject[ed] any allegation” that it violated the principles in the case of the tea workers, a spokesperson said, and “provided significant support to those employees impacted”.

A Guardian article titled 'Kenyan tea workers file UN complaint against Unilever over 2007 ethnic violence' dated 1 August 2020 stated:

"Following the violence, Unilever closed the plantation temporarily and sent workers home. The victims say they were not paid for six months [...] They brought a court case in the UK, but in 2019 the supreme court declined jurisdiction, saying Unilever’s Kenyan subsidiary was responsible for risk management of any crises and as such any case should be heard in Kenya. The court’s decision confirmed that Unilever 'can’t be held responsible for what happened', the company’s spokesperson said."

The article continued: "Daniel Leader, a lawyer with Leigh Day, the firm that filed Thursday’s complaint on the victims’ behalf, says that Unilever 'relentlessly hid behind its corporate structure” to prevent the case proceeding in the UK. The complaint requests a UN statement on “litigation strategies used by parent companies to distance themselves from subsidiaries and shield themselves from liability for human rights abuses occurring in their corporate group'."

The company lost half a mark under Ethical Consumer's Human Rights category.


Kenyan tea workers file UN complaint against Unilever over 2007 ethnic violence (1 August 2020)

In October 2020 Ethical Consumer viewed an article dated 10 March 2018 on The Times website, titled '‘Tatler Tory’ Mark Clarke quits City job after harassment claim'.

It stated that Clarke quit his job at Unilever during an internal investigation into a claim that he sexually harassed a female colleague.

Clarke was understood to have been suspended, but resigned before the investigation was completed. The inquiry followed an allegation from a female contractor who had been working for Unilever.

Ethical Consumer could not identify a statement by Unilever, including justification of their original hiring of Clarke, who was expelled from the Tory party for life in 2015 after claims he bullied a young activist who later took his own life.

The company lost half a mark under Human Rights.


‘Tatler Tory’ Mark Clarke quits City job after harassment claim (10 March 2020)

On 30th November 2016 Amnesty International released a report called “The Great Palm Oil Scandal: Labour Abuses Behind Big Brands Names.” The report investigated labour exploitation on plantations in Indonesia that provide palm oil to Wilmar, one of the world’s largest processor and merchandiser of palm and lauric (palm kernel) oils , which controls over 43% of the global palm oil trade. The report also traced the palm oil produced in Indonesia for Wilmar to a range of consumer goods
companies that use palm oil in their products.

Amnesty International found serious human rights abuses on the plantations of Wilmar and its suppliers. These included forced labour and child labour, gender discrimination, as well as exploitative and dangerous working practices that put the health of workers at risk. The abuses identified were not isolated incidents but due to systemic business practices by Wilmar’s subsidiaries and suppliers, in particular the low level of wages, the use of targets and ‘piece rates’ (where workers are paid based on tasks completed rather than hours worked), and the use of a complex system of financial and other penalties. Workers, especially women, are employed under casual work arrangements, which make them vulnerable to abuses.

Amnesty stated “All of these are obvious and predictable areas of concern and risk. However, none of the companies that buy palm oil from Wilmar could demonstrate to Amnesty International that they had identified and addressed the actual abuses documented by Amnesty International.”

Unilever confirmed to Amnesty that “Wilmar is both a direct and indirect supplier to Unilever of conventional and RSPO certified palm oil – the traded palm oil from Wilmar also enters our supply chain via other referineries and processors.”

Unilever was one of the largest buyers of palm oil and was the largest end user of “physically certified” palm oil in the consumer goods industry. In its response to Amnesty International, Unilever confirmed that Wilmar was one of its “key palm oil suppliers,” and that Wilmar supplied it directly and indirectly. It also confirmed that most of the palm oil it received came from Indonesia. Unilever had policies in place with respect to a range of human rights issues, including gender discrimination, forced labour, and the use of chemicals. However, based on the evidence gathered by Amnesty International, the company had failed to put its policies into practice. Unilever said it was developing a roadmap for supplier compliance with its Palm Oil Sourcing Policy and provided some details relating to verification efforts.
The company advised that: “…we are also working towards independent verification of our palm oil supply chain, especially on high risk mills where we have identified issues including those relating to wages, working hours, environment and health and safety issues. We have developed a programme for risk verification and have piloted this through three independent assessments.”
Unilever did not provide any explanation for why it had taken so long for the company to put in place a process to identify significant risks for labour rights issues and to check its suppliers, particularly since it had been sourcing from Wilmar for more than 10 years. Its efforts were still at the piloting stage and the future potential for addressing these issues was uncertain.
Summing up, Unilever agreed that the industry was “in need of structural and sustainable change”
and stated that: “We will continue to support the drive across the industry for greater visibility and
transparency of the palm oil sector’s supply chain. We are committed to the continuous improvement in the processes for the identification and remediation of social issues.”

Unilever lost half a mark under Palm Oil and a full mark under Workers’ Rights.


The Great Palm Oil Scandal: Labour Abuses Behind Big Brands Names (30 November 2016)

In May 2021 Ethical Consumer viewed Unilever's website for the company's cocoa sourcing policy.

On a page about Regnerative Sourcing the company stated: "Cocoa is a vital ingredient for many of our brands. We're working with partners to source 100% sustainable cocoa so that we can ensure our supply chain is resilient and we can meet consumer demand."
"Now, 99% of the cocoa we source for Magnum is Rainforest Alliance Certified™ and 100% of all the other cocoa we use is sustainably sourced."

In order to achieve a best Ethical Consumer rating Unilever needed to have 100% of its cocoa products certified. This was because of the inherent problems with child labour being used in Western Africa. Unilever stated, "We know that child labour exists within the cocoa sector, so we’re developing impact programmes with our partners, certifiers and suppliers to ensure that we source from cocoa co-operatives that have monitoring and remediation systems in place that assess and address child labour cases. By 2023, all the co-operatives we directly source from will have such a system in place."

As its cocoa was not yet 100% certified, Unilever lost half a mark under the Workers' Rights category.


Sustainable sourcing page (24 May 2021)

In May 2019, Ethical Consumer viewed an article on the Food and Allied Workers Union website, titled 'FAWU Condemns Brutal Force Against Striking Unilever Workers' and dated to 22 February 2019, which stated:

The Food and Allied Workers` Union strongly condemns the unprovoked attack on peacefully striking union members by private security guards at Unilever Pty Ltd`s Indosa plant in Durban on Monday , 18 February 2019. More than 600 FAWU members embarked on a legal strike on 11 February this year in demand of a housing allowance and profit-sharing scheme after the parties have been going back and forth over these issues during negotiations over the past five years.

Private securities calling themselves "S.W.A.T.", who were hired by the company two weeks before the strike, invaded the picketing area last Monday and summarily unleashed a torrent of rubber bullets on innocent workers while they were demonstrating peacefully. When female members questioned why they were shooting at them, the security guards continued blasting them with pepper spray. Four of our members were seriously injured and two of them have opened criminal cases against the security guards in question. Workers were brutally shot at when simply attempting to go to their cars parked on premises agreed on between the parties. Trigger-happy securities who clearly has no regard for picketing rules proceeded to shoot paintballs and rubber bullets at our members in an attempt to provoke them.

It is becoming more and more common over the last couple of years that employers use security guards to provoke our members to paint them in a negative light whilst these poor workers are simply exercising their right to demonstrate peacefully for better working conditions.

FAWU members have always enjoyed a profit-sharing benefit that was calculated annually but this has been taken away without consultation when the company was taken over as a going- concern a few years back. The union has also tried to negotiate a housing allowance for the past five years as it feels that Unilever, being a global company, can afford to grant these benefits to its workforce.

FAWU and the company have been in more than 15 sittings in an attempt to resolve the dispute before the union opted for strike action."

The company lost half a mark under Workers' Rights.


FAWU Condemns Brutal Force Against Striking Unilever Workers (22 February 2019)