Costco Wholesale Australia

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)

In early 2017, China's Communist Party began a new incarceration campaign, rounding up, detaining and forcibly indoctrinating over 1 million Uyghurs and other Muslim minority ethnic groups in the far-western region. A coalition of more than 180 human rights groups is calling on apparel brands and retailers to stop using forced labour in the Uyghur Region and end their complicity in the Chinese government's human rights abuses. This company is amongst those being targeted by coalition members for not doing enough to identify and disengage from business relationships with Uyghur Region-linked forced labour.
Source: End Uyghur Forced Labour (2021)

The 2019 Corporate Human Rights Benchmark assessed 200 of the largest publicly traded companies in the world from the Agricultural Products, Apparel, Extractives and ICT Manufacturing sectors on 100 human rights indicators. This company's score was in the 0-10 band range. The overall average score was a disappointing 24%.
Source: CHRB (2019)

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)

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)

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 16/100 in the Food & Staples Retailing category of the S&P Global Corporate Sustainability Assessment, an annual evaluation of companies' sustainability practices (last updated 7 Feb 2021). 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 (2021)

In 2019, 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 (2019)

The Forest 500 identifies, ranks, and tracks the governments, companies and financial institutions worldwide that together could virtually eradicate tropical deforestation. Rankings are based on their public policies and commitments and potential impacts on tropical forests in the context of forest risk commodities (palm oil, soy, beef, leather, timber and paper). This company received a score of 33%.
Source: Forest 500 (2020)

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)

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)

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 2020 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 social and environmental policies, practices and impacts. Brands owned by this company scored 15%, signifying it makes some efforts to manage and improve their supply chains but make little supply chain information publicly available. The average score was 23% and the highest score was 73%.
Source: Fashion Revolution (2020)

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)