Rockstar

In 2016 Greenpeace published a report on the progress towards zero deforestation in the palm oil supply chains of several multinational companies. Companies were assessed on three criteria: responsible sourcing, transparency and industry reform. This company was rated as 'failed promises'.
Source: Greenpeace (2016)

Ethical Consumer has ranked companies' practices and policies in relation to their palm oil sourcing for the Rainforest Foundation/Ethical Consumer palm oil campaign. This company received a 'red' rating.
Source: Rainforest Foundation UK (2016)

In 2019 Break Free From Plastic engaged 72,541 volunteers in 51 countries to conduct 484 brand audits. These volunteers collected 476,423 pieces of plastic waste, 43% of which was marked with a clear consumer brand. This company ranked as the world's third worst plastic polluter.
Source: #breakfreefromplastic (2019)

This company sources palm oil from at least 20 of the 25 dirty palm oil producers identified in the 2018 Greenpeace report "The Final Countdown". In addition to deforestation, the 25 individual cases in the report include evidence of exploitation and social conflicts, illegal deforestation, development without permits, plantation development in areas zoned for protection and forest fires linked to land clearance.
Source: Greenpeace (2018)

The Talking Trash 2020 report by Changing Markets investigates the corporate playbook of false solutions to the plastic crisis. It found that the industry is actively delaying and derailing ambitious action on plastic pollution in its fight to maintain business as usual for as long as possible. For example, this company is signed up to 8 nice-sounding voluntary initiatives to address plastic waste, while also participating in 7 industry associations which lobby against legislation that could restrict plastic, or make corporations responsible for managing the waste they create, financially or otherwise.
Source: Changing Markets (2020)

This article outlines several criticisms of PepsiCo, including the promotion of bottled water and undermining local control of water supplies in communities by turning water into a profit driven commodity.
Source: Corporate Accountability international (2013)

This company appeared on Global Exchange's list of "10 Top Corporate Criminals of 2017" for violating worker rights, along with destroying rainforests, harming local communities and Indigenous Peoples’ lands, and causing massive greenhouse gas emissions by draining and burning peatlands for production of palm oil.
Source: Global Exchange (2017)

This company appeared on Global Exchange's 2014 list of "Most Wanted" Corporate Criminals for deforestation, destruction of peatlands, species extinction, greenhouse gas emissions, commodification of water, use of GMOs and prevention of labeling GMO foods, and privatization of public services.
Source: Global Exchange (2017)

As You Sow's 2019 report, Mining the Disclosures, is a deep analysis of 215 companies' human rights performance in relation to sourcing conflict minerals from the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). This company's score was 36.5% (Weak).
Source: As You Sow (2019)

This company received a score of 11.1/100 (retrieved 10-Oct-2020) in the Corporate Information Transparency Index (CITI), a system for evaluating supply chain practices in China, particularly in regards to environmental management and water pollution. Scores are calculated using government compliance data, online monitoring data, and third-party environmental audits, as well as trends in the environmental performance of factories in the company's supply chains.
Source: IPE (2020)

In 2019 Rainforest Action Network (RAN) conducted a series of undercover investigations which showed that several major snack food producers, including this company, have been found purchasing palm oil from mills that have continued to source palm oil resulting from the illegal clearing of lowland rainforests within the nationally protected Rawa Singkil Wildlife Reserve in Indonesia. These mills are located immediately next to areas of illegal encroachment into the Leuser Ecosystem and lack the necessary procedures to trace the location where the palm oil they sell is grown, a key requirement for complying with the No Deforestation, No Peatlands, No Exploitation (NDPE) policy this company has publicly committed to.
Source: RAN (2019)

As You Sow's 2020 report, Waste and Opportunity, 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) Packaging Data Transparency, 5) Support for Recycling, and 6) Producer Responsibility. This company received a grade of D+
Source: As You Sow (2020)

India Resource claims that PepsiCo intentionally used deceptive claims when the company claimed it has achieved 'positive water balance' in India. Scrutiny of these claims revealed that PepsiCo actually take far more water than they put back, despite company claims to the contrary.
Source: India Resource (2011)

This company received a score of 45.7/100 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 36/100 in the Beverages category of the 2019 SAM Corporate Sustainability Assessment, an annual evaluation of companies' sustainability practices. 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 (2019)

In 2019 the median pay for a worker at this company was US$45,896. The CEO was paid 368 times this amount. Exorbitant CEO pay is a major contributor to rising inequality. CEOs are getting more because of their power to set pay, not because they are increasing productivity or possess specific, high-demand skills. The economy would suffer no harm if CEOs were paid less (or taxed more). In contrast, the CEO-to-typical-worker compensation ratio was 20-to-1 in 1965 and 58-to-1 in 1989.
Source: AFL-CIO (2020)