Moet Hennessy Australia
|Moet Hennessy Australia Pty Ltd
| Moet Hennessy
owns 100% of Moet Hennessy Australia Pty Ltd
| LVMH Moet Hennessy Louis Vuitton SA
owns 66% of Moet Hennessy
| Diageo PLC
owns 34% of Moet Hennessy
|Moet Hennessy Australia Pty Ltd
This company was a signatory to the Australian Packaging Covenant, a voluntary agreement to encourage waste minimisation. However in 2019 they were withdrawn for not meeting one or more of their APCO Member obligations.
Source: APCO (2023)
|No assessment data currently available for Moet Hennessy
|LVMH Moet Hennessy Louis Vuitton SA
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 A.
Source: CDP (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 A.
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 A.
Source: CDP (2022)
This company received an S&P Global ESG Score of 70/100 in the Textiles, Apparel & Luxury Goods category of the S&P Global Corporate Sustainability Assessment, an annual evaluation of companies' sustainability practices (last updated 23 Sep 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)
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 6.28/100 (retrieved 24 Nov 2023).
Source: IPE (2023)
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 10-20 band range. The overall average score was a disappointing 24%.
Source: World Benchmarking Alliance (2019)
In 2023 KnowTheChain benchmarked 65 apparel and footwear companies on their efforts to identify and tackle forced labour risks in their supply chains. This company received a score of 6/100. The average score was 21/100 and the highest score was 63/100.
Source: KnowTheChain (2023)
A number of this company's fragrance and cosmetics brands appear 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)
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 33%.
Source: Forest 500 (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)
LVMH is being pressured by PETA to end its use of animal skins after an expose of crocodile farms in Vietnam. "PETA is calling on LVMH to stop supporting the torment and killing of ostriches, crocodiles, and other beautiful wild animals for bags, watchbands, and shoes."
Source: PETA (2019)
This company has used fur in factory made clothing lines, and has not announced plans to stop.
Source: IFF (2021)
In 2019 LVMH subsidiary Sephora paid out US$159,349 to the State of Indiana in order to settle a dispute over tax fraud. The retailer stood accused of making false statements regarding its failure to collect gross retail taxes on shipping and handling fees for online sales to shoppers based in the state, in violation of the Indiana False Claims Act.
Source: The Indiana Lawyer (2019)
This company scores Ethical Consumer's worst rating for the likely use of tax avoidance strategies, and has at least two high risk subsidiaries in tax havens.
Source: Ethical Consumer (2022)
The 2022 Nature Benchmark ranks 400 companies across eight industries on their efforts to protect our environment and its biodiversity. The companies were assessed using three measurement areas: governance and strategy; social inclusion and community impact; and ecosystems and biodiversity. This company ranked #160/400, with a total score of 17.4/100.
Source: World Benchmarking Alliance (2022)
In 2015 the Rainforest Action Network (RAN) released a report documenting the results of decades of irresponsible fabric sourcing including land grabbing, forest destruction and human rights abuse to forest-dependent communities caused by deforestation from tree-based fabric production companies. This company was one of the "Fashion Fifteen" implicated in the report for irresponsibly sourcing tree-based fabrics such as rayon and viscose.
Source: RAN (2015)
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 towards the bottom of the scorecard. 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)
Greenpeace launched their Detox Campaign in 2011 to expose the direct links between global clothing brands, their suppliers and toxic water pollution around the world. As a result, many companies have joined Greenpeace's Detox Program, which requires companies to adopt a credible, individual and public commitment to phase out the use and release of all toxic chemicals from their global supply chain and products, by 1 January 2020. This company is yet to make a commitment despite pressure from Greenpeace.
Source: Greenpeace (2016)
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)
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)
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)
In 2011, a group of major apparel and footwear brands and retailers, including this company, made a shared commitment to help lead the industry towards zero discharge of hazardous chemicals by 2020. It includes specific commitments and timelines to realize this shared goal.
Source: ZDHC (2023)
Brands owned by this company are listed in Human Society International Australia's Better Wool Guide as using 100% non-mulesed wool from a robust certification scheme, or has a time-bound commitment to do so. Mulesing is the controversial practice of removing strips of the skin of a lamb's rear and is often done without pain relief. In Australia, the only country where mulesing still occurs, an estimated 10 million merino lambs are subjected to mulesing each year - equivalent to 19 lambs per minute.
Source: HSI Australia (2023)
This company is a member of Guidance, a pre-competitive global initiative, convened by Quantis, which aims to provide a methodological guide with credible references that companies can use to account for the climate change impacts of their efforts on sustainable forests and agriculture in an accurate and credible manner.
Source: Quantis (2016)
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 Supplier Ethical Data Exchange (Sedex), a not-for-profit, membership organisation that leads work with buyers and suppliers to deliver improvements in responsible and ethical business practices in global supply chains. Tens of thousands of companies use Sedex to manage their performance around labour rights, health & safety, the environment and business ethics.
Source: Sedex (2018)
This company is a member of the Textile Exchange, a global non-profit that works closely with its members to drive textile industry transformation in preferred fibres, integrity and standards and responsible supply networks. They identify and share best practices regarding farming, materials, processing, traceability and product end-of-life in order to reduce the textile industry's impact on the world's water, soil and air, and the human population.
Source: Textile Exchange (2019)
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)
This company is a signatory to the Fashion Industry Charter for Climate Action, a United Nations initiative which contains the vision to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050.
Source: UNFCCC (2023)
This company is a member of the Leather Working Group, a multi-stakeholder group who's objective is to develop and maintain a protocol that assesses the compliance and environmental performance of tanners and promotes sustainable and appropriate environmental business practices within the leather industry.
Source: Leather Working Group (2022)
This company is a member of the Better Cotton Initiative, a voluntary program which encourages the adoption of better management practices in cotton cultivation to achieve measurable reductions in key environmental impacts, while improving social and economic benefits for cotton farmers, small and large, worldwide.
Source: Better Cotton Initiative (2022)
Business & Human Rights Resource Centre digital platform presents news and allegations relating to the human rights impact of over 20,000 companies. Their enhanced Company Dashboards also include financial information, key data points based on corporate policies, and scores from prominent civil society benchmarks. Follow the link and use the search function to view this company's dashboard.
Source: BHRRC (2022)
In 2007 WWF-UK analysed and ranked the 10 largest publicly-traded luxury brand-owners on their environmental, social and governance (ESG) performance. (Listed under information due to age of report)
Source: WWF UK (2007)
This company received a score of 59/100 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)
The 2023 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. While Fendi scored 58%, other brands owned by this company scored 29% or worse, signifying it is doing a bit more than the others when it comes to having policies and commitments in place and auditing and reporting activities, but could be doing more. The average score was 26% and the highest score was 83%.
Source: Fashion Revolution (2023)
The 2021 Gender Benchmark ranks 35 companies from the apparel sector on their efforts to drive gender equality and women's empowerment across their entire value chain. This company ranked #19/35, with a total score of 30.4/100.
Source: World Benchmarking Alliance (2021)
|Level 3, 61-71 Dunning Ave, Rosebery, NSW, 2018, Australia
|02 8344 9900