Costco

A 2019 report by two major environmental groups, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and Stand.earth, rated companies on their efforts to source sustainable materials for their tissue products. This company received a rating of 'F'.
Source: NRDC (2019)

Greenpeace's 2019 report, "Packaging Away the Planet" assesses twenty US retailers on their efforts to address the plastic pollution crisis. Companies are scored on policy, reduction, innovation and initiatives, and transparency. All retailers profiled in the report received failing scores. This company received a score of 16.6/100.
Source: Greenpeace (2019)

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 F
Source: As You Sow (2021)

The 2022 Corporate Human Rights Benchmark assessed 127 companies in the food and agriculture, ICT and automotive manufacturing sectors on their human rights performance. This company received a score of 9.0%. The overall average score was a disappointing 17.3% and the highest score was 50.3%.
Source: World Benchmarking Alliance (2022)

In November 2017 the Enough Project published Demand the Supply, which ranked consumer electronics and jewelry retail companies on their efforts to develop conflict-free minerals supply chains from Congo. Companies were ranked on reporting; sourcing conflict-free minerals from Congo; supporting the artisanal mining communities in Eastern Congo; and conflict-free minerals advocacy. This company received a score of 7.5/120.
Source: Enough Project (2017)

This 2017 investigative report by China Labour Watch reveals labor abuses in four Chinese toy factories. One or more of these factories supply this company. Labor abuses include low wages, excessive overtime, dangerous work environments and humiliating living conditions.
Source: China Labor Watch (2017)

The Chinese government has facilitated the mass transfer of Uyghur and other ethnic minority citizens from the far west region of Xinjiang to factories across the country. Under conditions that strongly suggest forced labour, Uyghurs are working in factories that are in the supply chains of international brands. The 2021 Laundering Cotton report investigates how forced-labour-produced cotton and cotton-based goods from the Uyghur Region wend their way into international supply chains of well-known international clothing brands, including brands owned by this company.
Source: Sheffield Hallam University (2021)

This company received a 'Red' rating in Greenpeace USA's 2017 Tuna Shopping Guide, which evaluates and ranks tuna brands on how sustainable, ethical and fair their tuna products are for our oceans - and for the workers that help get the products to store shelves.
Source: Greenpeace (2017)

The 2022 Fashion Transparency Index reviewed 250 of the world's largest fashion brands and retailers and ranked them according to how much they disclose about their human rights and environmental policies, practices and impacts. Brands owned by this company scored 10%, signifying it has little to no information about their supply chain practices or policies available to the public. The average score was 24% and the highest score was 78%.
Source: Fashion Revolution (2022)

This company received a score of 17.7/100 in the Newsweek Green Ranking 2017, which ranks the world's largest publicly traded companies on eight indicators covering energy, greenhouse gases, water, waste, fines and penalties, linking executive pay to sustainability targets, board-level committee oversight of environmental issues and third-party audits. Ranking methodology by Corporate Knights and HIP Investor.
Source: Newsweek (2017)

This company received an S&P Global ESG Score of 19/100 in the Food & Staples Retailing category of the S&P Global Corporate Sustainability Assessment, an annual evaluation of companies' sustainability practices (last updated 18 Nov 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 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 D.
Source: CDP (2022)

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 25%.
Source: Forest 500 (2022)

In 2018 volunteers collected and catalogued more than 187,000 pieces of trash from beach cleanups around the world to find out which corporations are contributing the most to the global plastic pollution problem. While not in the top 10, this company ranked as one of the world's worst plastic polluters.
Source: #breakfreefromplastic (2018)

In 2020/21 KnowTheChain benchmarked over 180 large global companies in the ICT, Food & Beverage, and Apparel & Footwear sectors on their efforts to address forced labour and human trafficking in their supply chains. This company received a score of 28/100.
Source: KnowTheChain (2021)

In 2021 Mighty Earth and Be Slavery Free released their Easter Chocolate Shopping Guide, a scorecard which ranks retailers on transparency and cocoa sustainability practices in regards to deforestation, farmer poverty and child labour. It does not assess effectiveness or implementation. This company is rated as "Needs more work".
Source: Be Slavery Free (2021)

In January 2017 this company agreed to pay $11.75 million to settle allegations that its pharmacies violated the Controlled Substances Act when they filled prescriptions for controlled substances that were incomplete, lacked valid Drug Enforcement Administration numbers or were for substances beyond various doctors' scope of practice. Additionally, the settlement resolves allegations that the company failed to keep and maintain accurate records for controlled substances at its pharmacies and centralized fill locations.
Source: US Dept of Justice (2017)

In October 2018 the US Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) announced that this company agreed to pay a $3.85 million civil penalty.
The settlement resolves CPSC staff's charges that the company knowingly failed to report to CPSC, as required by law, that the EKO Sensible Eco Living Trash Cans (EKO Trash Cans) contained a defect or created an unreasonable risk of serious injury. CPSC staff charged that the black plastic protective collar in the opening on the back of the EKO Trash Can receptacle can become dislodged and expose a sharp edge, posing a laceration hazard to consumers. Costco received 92 complaints about the EKO Trash Cans, including 60 complaints from consumers who received injuries, some serious, but did not notify the CPSC immediately of the defect or risk.
Source: US CPSC (2018)

The 2021 Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare (BBFAW) report ranks global food companies on how they are managing and reporting their farm animal welfare policies and practices. This company appeared in tier 5, "On the business agenda but limited evidence of implementation", with tier 1 being the best, and tier 6 the worst.
Source: BBFAW (2021)

In July 2017 this company reached an overtime settlement of $9 million to resolve claims in a proposed class action lawsuit. The plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit were pharmacists employed by the company working in the San Diego area. The pharmacists stated that the company required them to remain on call in the pharmacy area during the time of their rest breaks and pressured employees to work overtime without receiving financial compensation. The company stated it would pay close to $5,000 to each of the estimated 1,175 pharmacists and pharmacy managers who had worked with the company any time from April 2010 to the present.
Source: Top Class Actions (2017)

The 2021 Food and Agriculture Benchmark assessed 350 keystone companies across the entirety of the food system, from farm to fork. It covers three dimensions where transformation is needed: nutrition, environment and social inclusion. This company ranked #195/350, with a total score of 15.4/100.
Source: World Benchmarking Alliance (2021)