Procter & Gamble owns many household-name brands for cosmetics, cleaning and other products – from Fairy and Pampers to Pantene and Tampax.
So how ethical is this multinational giant and its brands like Gillette, Old Spize and Daz?
Our research highlights several ethical issues with Procter & Gamble, including animal testing of ingredients, criticism over inadequate climate targets, and links to deforestation.
Below we outline some of these issues. To see the full detailed stories, and Procter & Gamble’s overall ethical rating, please sign in or subscribe.
Procter & Gamble scores poorly when it comes to the workers in its supply chain.
While it has a workers’ rights policy, it overlooks key issues such as payment of living wage and prohibition of excessive working hours. The company did not appear to be taking steps to ensure good purchasing practices or to actively support and work with trade unions to uphold workers’ rights.
The company has also faced allegations of possible forced labour in its supply chain. In 2020, the US banned imports of palm oil from the Malaysian company FGV Holdings, after an investigation into allegations it uses forced labour. According to an article on the news site Reuters, “The U.S. agency said the ban was the result of a year-long investigation that revealed signs of forced labour such as abuse of the vulnerable, deception, physical and sexual violence, intimidation and threats, and retention of identity documents.”
Procter and Gamble was said to have a joint venture with FGV Holdings, and was warned to take the ban “seriously” if it imported the palm oil products. Procter & Gamble did not respond to requests for comment from the news site.
When it comes to the environment, Procter & Gamble also has much room for improvement.
The company scores 20/100 for its climate policies and practices. It has made some efforts to reduce emissions – for example, switching to renewable energy in its own operations and undertaking education campaigns to persuade consumers to use its products such as laundry detergents at lower temperatures.
However, its targets for cutting emissions have come under fire. An independent assessment by environmental advocacy group Planet Tracker in 2023 found that Procter & Gamble’s supply chain emissions targets did not align with the Paris Agreement – a vital climate agreement signed by the majority of the world’s leaders in 2015 to keep heating below 2 degrees celsius.
Multiple investigations have also linked Procter & Gamble’s palm oil suppliers to deforestation and destruction of vital habitats for Sumatran orangutans, elephants, and other wildlife.
Procter & Gamble is one of the world’s biggest companies selling cosmetics and household cleaning products – two markets where animal testing is rife.
The company’s policy states, "P&G no longer animal tests any consumer product unless required by law" or for medical purposes. However, the policy only appears to apply to finished products, rather than ingredients – where most testing takes place.
Procter & Gamble also performs poorly on financial ethics.
It does not appear to be taking action on pay ratios – the difference between the highest and lowest paid workers in the company – and in 2022-23, its highest paid director received $21.7 million (around £16.5 million).
The company also owns multiple subsidiaries in countries considered to be tax havens, such as the Netherlands and Switzerland. These did not appear to be serving local populations and were high risk company types for tax avoidance.
The text above was written in September 2024, and most research was conducted in April 2024.
Ethical Consumer Best Buy: No
Boycotts: No
The stories for this company are only available to subscribers.
To access all of our tools and data - and get the Ethical Consumer print magazine - start your subscription today.