In September 2021 Ethical Consumer searched the internet for information about Monwell Ltd, including its environmental policy. No policy could be found.
An environmental policy was deemed necessary to report on its environmental performance and set targets for the future. A strong policy would include two future, quantified targets, demonstrate that the company had a reasonable understanding of its main impacts, be dated within the previous two years and be independently verified.
Monwell Ltd had none of these, therefore it received Ethical Consumer's worst rating for Environmental Reporting.

Reference:

Monwell website (6 September 2021)

In June 2021, Ethical Consumer viewed the Guardian website for the company's environmental policy or report. No such reporting could be found.

In July 2021, Ethical Consumer also viewed an article in the Guardian dated October 2020 which demonstrated reasonable understanding of its environmental impacts largely relating to paper usage by the Guardian and the energy use in its digital operations, packaging and travel. The article was titled “The Guardian launches new green initiatives including climate data dashboard and outlines plans for how it will achieve net zero emissions by 2030”. This article outlined that the Guardian’s aim to achieve net zero emissions by 2030 had been “informed by a full audit of greenhouse gas emissions from both Guardian Media Group’s direct and indirect emissions, which identified newspaper production and the subsequent supply chain as the biggest contributors to the Guardian’s carbon footprint.” It also stated that “Any emissions which cannot be eliminated will be balanced by certified, auditable carbon offsetting schemes."

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.
Aside from demonstrating reasonable understanding of its environmental impacts, The Guardian Bookshop did not meet any of these criteria therefore it received Ethical Consumer's worst rating for Environmental Reporting and lost a whole mark in this category.

Reference:

The Guardian website (19 July 2021)

In September 2021 Ethical Consumer viewed the website of Monwell Limited, looking for information on what the company was doing to tackle climate change. Ethical Consumer was looking for the following:
As the company had a turnover below £10.2m or was considered to be providing a lower carbon alternative it was only expected to discuss its areas of climate impact, and to discuss plausible ways it has cut them in the past, and ways that it will cut them in the future.
No information was found. The company therefore lost a mark under Climate Change.

Reference:

Monwell website (6 September 2021)

In July 2021, Ethical Consumer viewed the website of The Guardian looking for information on what the company was doing to tackle climate change. Ethical Consumer was looking for the following:

1. For the company to discuss its areas of climate impact, and to discuss plausible ways it has cut them in the past, and ways that it will cut them in the future. For the company to not be involved in any particularly damaging projects like tar sands, oil or aviation, to not be subject to damning secondary criticism regarding its climate actions, and to have relevant sector-specific climate policies in place.
2. For the company to report annually on its scope 1&2 greenhouse gas emissions (direct emissions by the company), and,
3. to go some way towards reporting on its scope 3 emissions (emissions from the supply chain, investments and sold products).
4. For the company to have a target to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions in line with international agreements (counted as the equivalent of at least 2.5% cut per year in scope 1&2 emissions), and to not count offsetting towards this target.

If a company met all of these criteria it would receive a best rating. If it met parts 1&2 (impacts and annual reporting CO2e) it would receive a middle rating. Otherwise it would receive a worst rating.

1.The Guardian outlined on its website its key impacts relating to carbon emissions, including ways that it will cut its emissions in the future. From a link to its Climate Pledge, it discussed its 'comprehensive audit' of its own emissions, and linked to a further article stating: "We have now set a goal of eliminating at least two-thirds of all emissions from our own operations and our supply chain by 2030", discussing how this would include lighting, packaging and increased use of technology. It also stated, “In 2019, we became the first major news organisation to certify as a B Corporation, and made a climate pledge to our readers committing to reach net zero carbon emissions by 2030”. In a news article on the The Guardian website, the company also announced in 2020 that it “will no longer accept advertising from oil and gas companies, becoming the first major global news organisation to stop accepting money from companies that extract fossil fuels” and that it had “eliminated more than 95% of our investment exposure to fossil fuels”. The Guardian did not appear to refer to any past emissions reductions.

2 and 3.The Guardian did not present any annual reporting on its Scope 1 & 2 emissions, nor Scope 3 emissions.

4. Ethical Consumer also viewed an article in the Guardian dated October 2020 titled “The Guardian launches new green initiatives including climate data dashboard and outlines plans for how it will achieve net zero emissions by 2030”. This article outlined that the Guardian’s aim to achieve net zero emissions by 2030 had been “informed by a full audit of greenhouse gas emissions from both Guardian Media Group’s direct and indirect emissions, which identified newspaper production and the subsequent supply chain as the biggest contributors to the Guardian’s carbon footprint.” It also stated that “Any emissions which cannot be eliminated will be balanced by certified, auditable carbon offsetting schemes."

Overall, The Guardian did discuss some key climate-related impacts and provided some future plans to cut emissions, but it did not adequately meet any of the criteria. In turn, the company received Ethical Consumer’s worst rating for carbon management and reporting and lost a full mark under Climate Change.

Reference:

About page (16 August 2021)

In September 2021, Ethical Consumer viewed The Guardian website and, given that The Guardian produces newspapers in print, and that paper products are a significant part of its offering, it was rated for its paper sourcing.

Only a paper policy dated 2013 could be found titled “Guardian Media Group – Paper Policy”. This policy stated that “A high proportion of the fibre for newsprint now comes from recycling used publications, although some ‘virgin’ fibre is always required to make good losses and to maintain paper quality” and that in 2013 96.85% of its total paper usage had a “sustainable fibre content with no less than 95% of total tonnes of fibre purchased”.

Although Ethical Consumer could not find any other more up to date evidence on The Guardian specifically, it was assumed to have at least 50% of its newspaper made from recycled paper, as a page on the News Media Association website was found which stated, “The average recycled content of newspapers in 2019 was 63.2 per cent, according to a report compiled by independent auditors for the Newspaper Industry Materials Committee. The combined recycled/certified fibre content ratio stands at 95 per cent.” The company therefore received a best rating and was not marked down under Habitats and Resources.

Reference:

Paper policy 2013 (2013)