Cosmetics & skin care
Founded in 1995 and acquired by Alticor (owner of Amway) in 2006, who sold the company to Shiseido in 2016.
|Gurwitch Products LLC||USA||website|
| Shiseido Company Ltd
owns 100% of Gurwitch Products LLC
|Gurwitch Products LLC|
This company does not appear on the cruelty free lists of PETA, Leaping Bunny or Choose Cruelty Free.
Source: PETA (2020)
|Shiseido Company Ltd|
In 2022, the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) asked companies to provide data about their efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and mitigate climate change risk. Responding companies are scored across four key areas: disclosure; awareness; management; and leadership. This company received a CDP Climate Change Score of A.
Source: CDP (2022)
This company received an S&P Global ESG Score of 81/100 in the Personal Products category of the S&P Global Corporate Sustainability Assessment, an annual evaluation of companies' sustainability practices (last updated 16 Dec 2022). The rankings are based on an analysis of corporate economic, environmental and social performance, assessing issues such as corporate governance, risk management, environmental reporting, climate strategy, human rights and labour practices.
Source: S&P Global (2022)
In 2022, the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) asked companies to provide data about their efforts towards removing commodity-driven deforestation and forest degradation from its direct operations and supply chains. Responding companies are scored across four key areas: disclosure; awareness; management; and leadership. This company received a CDP Forests Score of B.
Source: CDP (2022)
In 2022, the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) asked companies to provide data about their efforts to manage and govern freshwater resources. Responding companies are scored on six key metrics: transparency; governance & strategy; measuring & monitoring; risk assessment; targets & goals; and value chain engagement. This company received a CDP Water Security Score of B.
Source: CDP (2022)
This company appears on PETA's (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, USA) 'Companies That Do Test On Animals' list, signifying that they manufacture products that are tested on animals at some stage of development.
Source: PETA (2022)
The Green Supply Chain Corporate Information Transparency Index (CITI) evaluates consumer-facing companies that have a sizeable supply chain in China. The evaluation uses government supervision data and public information to assess the environmental management of their supply chains in China. This company received a score of 11.68/100 (retrieved 24 Nov 2023).
Source: IPE (2023)
As You Sow's 2021 Corporate Plastic Pollution Scorecard ranks companies on plastic packaging pollution. The study measures the progress of 50 large companies in the beverage, quick-service restaurant, consumer packaged goods, and retail sectors on six core pillars where swift action is needed to reduce plastic pollution: 1) Packaging Design, 2) Reusable Packaging, 3) Recycled Content, 4) Public Data Transparency, 5) Support for Recycling, and 6) Producer Responsibility. This company received a grade of D
Source: As You Sow (2021)
Forest 500 identifies the 350 companies and 150 financial institutions with the greatest exposure to tropical deforestation risk, and annually assesses them on the strength and implementation of their deforestation and human rights commitments. This company received a score of 24%.
Source: Forest 500 (2022)
This company scores Ethical Consumer's worst rating for their use of palm oil, signifying they are using no or minimal certified palm products, and with no or minimal positive commitments.
Source: Ethical Consumer (2022)
The PalmOil Scan app, produced by the World Association of Zoos and Aquariums (WAZA), rates companies on their commitment to sourcing sustainable palm oil. Companies are scored on their use of certified sustainable palm oil (CSPO), commitment to sourcing CSPO, on-the-ground conservation action, and membership to the RSPO. Companies can earn a rating of Excellent, Good, Poor or No Commitment. This company is rated "Poor" (retrieved 18 Nov 2023).
Source: WAZA (2023)
This 2010 Greenpeace report documents Sinar Mas repeatedly breaking industry guidelines, Indonesian law and its own public statements, and razing rainforests to the ground in its race to produce palm oil. Some international companies, including Kraft, Nestle and Unilever, have stopped buying palm oil from Sinar Mas following these revelations. However Shiseido, listed as customers of Sinar Mas' palm oil division in June 2009, have not yet made a similar commitment. [Listed under Information due to age of report]
Source: Greenpeace (2010)
This company uses plastic microbeads in some of its personal care products. These particles are not retained by wastewater treatment so end up in the ocean where they contribute to ocean plastic pollution, and are hazardous to sea life. While the effects of microplastics on human health are not completely understood, there are concerns about plastic additives, such as phthalates, which are known endocrine disruptors which are shown to have harmful effects on life.
Source: Beat the Microbead (2021)
This company has reported to the state of California that some of their products contain a known carcinogen or reproductive toxin, but they have requested trade secret status for these ingredients so that they are not publicly revealed.
Source: Women's Voices for the Earth (2014)
A 2014 report by China Labour Watch found poor working conditions in a Chinese factory that mainly manufactures cosmetic brushes for multinational beauty companies, including this one. Labor abuses include excessive overtime and poor worker safety measures. Also, the factory has not purchased social insurance for workers as required by law. Hundreds of workers went on strike in Jan 2014 after a female team leader was slapped by a male manager. [Listed under Information due to age of report]
Source: China Labor Watch (2014)
In Jan 2012 a Paris appeals court upheld a 40 million euro fine imposed in 2006 by the French competition watchdog, which said the companies involved had reached illicit agreements on price fixing, enforced by procedures to monitor prices in outlets and backed up by commercial threats for non-compliance. Thirteen leading perfume and luxury goods companies were fined.
Source: news article (2012)
In 2016 Greenpeace East Asia ranked the world's 30 biggest personal care companies on their commitment to eliminating microbeads from their personal care products. The scorecard was based on four main criteria: commitment & transparency, definition, deadline and global application. This company ranked joint second. Microbeads are not retained by wastewater treatment and end up in the ocean where they are a threat to the marine environment.
Source: Greenpeace (2016)
As listed on the We Mean Business website, this company has committed to the following climate action initiatives: adopt a science-based emissions reduction target.
Source: We Mean Business (2021)
This company is a member of the Responsible Beauty Initiative, an industry initiative focused on sustainable procurement. It was founded in 2017 to improve sustainability throughout the entire beauty supply chain, through sharing best practices and processes, driving a common understanding across the industry, and to use and share common tools, creating efficiencies.
Source: Ecovadis (2023)
This company is a member of the Responsible Mica Initiative, a Do-Tank which aims to eradicate child labour and unacceptable working conditions in the Indian mica supply chain by joining forces across industries.
Source: Responsible Mica Initiative (2023)
California, the UK and Australia have all enacted legislation requiring companies operating within their borders to disclose their efforts to eradicate modern slavery from their operations and supply chains. Follow the link to see this company's disclosure statement.
Source: company website (2017)
Skin Deep is an online safety guide to cosmetics and personal care products and their potential hazards and health concerns, with over 75,000 products rated from 1 (low hazard) to 10 (high hazard).
Source: Environmental Working Group (2019)
|Address||Houston, Texas, USA|