Ecover (UK) Limited

How ethical is Ecover?

Our research highlights several ethical issues with Ecover, including packaging, workers’ rights and tax avoidance. 

We also highlight its relationship with parent company SC Johnson, and why it has raised concerns over animal testing. 

Below we outline some of these issues with Ecover and SC Johnson. To see the full detailed stories, and Ecover’s overall ethical rating, please sign in or subscribe.

Is Ecover vegan and cruelty-free?

Ecover states that its products contain no animal ingredients. Ecover is also certified by Leaping Bunny – a very stringent no animal testing certification.

However, Ecover is subject to a boycott call by the organisation NatureWatch because of its parent company SC Johnson’s approach to animal testing. SC Johnson’s statement on animal testing states: “We choose non-animal testing methods wherever possible.  We must comply with legal requirements in countries that require testing for certain products, however”. The company did not state that it restricted animal testing of ingredients (as opposed to finished products), where testing is most rife. 

NatureWatch has criticised Ecover and its sister company Method over its lack of transparency about its owner’s ongoing animal testing. The organisation states, “We think the omission that they [Ecover and Method] are owned by SC Johnson is outrageous. … Many unsuspecting animal lovers do not want the profits of supposedly cruelty-free companies bolstering the profits of parent companies which sell products developed using animals.” 

People

Ecover’s parent company SC Johnson scores poorly when it comes to workers’ rights, receiving 0/100 in Ethical Consumer’s rating. While the company has a policy outlining workers’ rights expectations for its supply chain, it overlooks a number of vital issues, such as payment of a living wage and limitations on working hours. 

The company does not appear to have published its suppliers – a key step towards transparency and to ensure that civil society organisations and workers’ unions can ensure rights are upheld. It also does not appear to have taken direct steps to ensure living wages are paid in its supply chains, or to work with unions or workers’ representatives. 

Environment

SC Johnson has also taken inadequate action to address its carbon footprint, receiving a score of just 20/100.

While the company has published information about steps already taken to cut its emissions– such as switching to renewable energy –, it was not considered to have outlined meaningful steps to cut emissions in the future, focusing only on those from packaging. It does not appear to comprehensively report on its emissions, or have a target in line with vital international climate goals. 

Ecover itself performs slightly better on packaging, scoring 40/100. While it has not tackled packaging in its supply chains, many of its products are now available as refills, with targets to increase the amount year-on-year. 

Politics and finance

SC Johnson also faces questions over its financial ethics. 

The company owns a number of subsidiaries in tax havens, such as the Netherlands and Switzerland. The subsidiaries do not seem to be serving the local population, and are of a high risk type for tax avoidance. The company's 2021 UK tax strategy was viewed but this did not provide evidence that the above subsidiaries were clearly not for the purposes of tax avoidance.

The text above was written in September 2024, and most research was conducted in April 2024. 

Subscribe to see the full detailed stories about Ecover.