Procter & Gamble

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)

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)

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 one of the world's top 10 plastic polluters.
Source: #breakfreefromplastic (2019)

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 6 nice-sounding voluntary initiatives to address plastic waste, while also participating in 6 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)

Record of testing products on animals. Listed on PETA (people for the ethical treatment of animals, USA) 'Companies that test on animals' factsheet.
Source: PETA (2020)

This company received a score of 33.1/100 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)

CDP's 2019 Consumer Deforestation Report 'No wood for the trees' analyses action against deforestation by 22 consumer goods companies by scale and commodity use. Procter & Gamble ranked 14th of the 22 companies.
Source: CDP (2019)

A 2016 report by Amnesty International found a range of labour rights abuses on the palm oil plantations operated by Wilmar's subsidiaries and suppliers in Indonesia. These abuses include worst forms of child labour, forced labour, discrimination against women workers, people being paid below the minimum wage, and workers suffering injuries from toxic chemicals. The report confirms that this company purchases palm oil from Wilmar.
Source: Amnesty Intl (2016)

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 (2020)

A civil society coalition is calling on investors and buyers (including this company) of palm oil producer Felda Global Ventures (FGV) to take robust, transparent action to address ongoing risks. This follows the Wall Street Journal's expose of human trafficking, forced labor, withholding of wages and other abuses of workers on FGV's palm plantations in July 2015.
Source: Rainforest Action Network (2016)

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 42.5% (Minimal).
Source: As You Sow (2019)

In 2019 the median pay for a worker at this company was US$66,326. The CEO was paid 309 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)