About Our Assessment

Methodology
Industry Alert
Sources
Limitations

Methodology

Please note, the focus of this guide is on a company's track record, rather than the features of the products themselves. Products with outstanding features are however noted.

We have tried to accurately distinguish more ethically preferable companies based on a simple screening process using existing assessment information. This includes information pertaining to the company record of both the related company and their parent company. Assessment covers the areas of environmental and social impact, treatment of animals and accountable business practice.

The primary related company listed in the comparison pages (ie. beer) is usually the manufacturer. The 'owned' icon and 'rating' icon are for this company. If there are other related companies, these are listed underneath along with the type of relationship (eg. brand owner). We assume manufacturer and brand owner are the same unless otherwise stated. *

Companies are listed according to their rating from those with praises and no criticisms, to those with no information, those with substantial criticisms and those receiving an international boycott call. We have recently introduced a grey cross and tick for lesser criticisms and for lesser praises to more accurately represent the weight given to particular sources used. (For example – companies whose only praise is being a signatory to the Australian Packaging Covenant now receive a grey tick as it is a voluntary agreement where companies set out their own action plan and goals for waste minimisation). Ratings for companies are calculated as outlined in the icon decoder (right), assigning criticisms, then lesser criticisms, then if no criticisms, praises and lesser praises. Assessments on the company profile page under 'information' (tagged as minor praise, minor criticism, neutral) are generally not used in the calculation of ratings. The exception to this is if a company has praises and no criticisms, but does have minor criticisms (listed under information), the company's rating is downgraded to a light tick instead of a full tick. (For example – Greenpeace True Food Guide rating of 'Red', signifying they may include GE-derived ingredients in their products or have not responded to Greenpeace's request for information is flagged under 'information', and would not count as a criticism but would limit their potential rating to a light tick). Company ratings are also limited to a light tick if that company has an annual revenue of over one billion dollars. This is consistent with our approach of supporting small local businesses over large multinationals.

The overall company tree rating is then calculated looking at all company ratings in the ownership tree. The same principles of identifying criticisms first apply. If there are companies with a boycott or cross rating, the overall rating is assigned in this way, if this is not the case, and there are praises, a tick or light tick is assigned. If there is no information, the '~' is assigned.

Products under a brand that have outstanding features are highlighted with a green star. Outstanding ethical or sustainable features include certified organic, GE free, recycled content and fair trade. Details can be seen by mousing over the star.

Additionally the ‘Product of Australia’ icon indicates that each significant ingredient originates from Australia and all production processes take place in Australia. (This differs from the ‘Made in Australia’ label which only requires goods to have been substantially transformed in Australia and at least 50 per cent of production costs incurred in Australia). This icon has only been included against brands where ‘Product of Australia’ is an outstanding feature compared to others in the same product type.

* The exception to this is house brands: If a company is the brand owner AND the exclusive retailer of a listed product, then that company is listed as the primary related company. The manufacturer, where available, is listed underneath.

Industry Alert

There are common practices in some industries that are questionable and deserve criticism, and some products that have substantial health concerns, enough to warrant avoiding the product completely. These have been signaled with our Industry Alert icon. We’ve provided information of the issues relating to the Industry Alert in the blurbs under the product type headings. Where the Industry Alert symbol appears next to the product type heading we recommend seeking products with an outstanding product feature star that addresses the particular concerns.

Examples of such practices are factory farming for eggs, chickens and pigs; child labour and exploitative work conditions for coffee, chocolate, clothing and footwear; tobacco, directly linked to lung cancer; and batteries, leaving toxic chemicals in landfill.

The common methodology used in the calculation of rating of companies is based on a 'best of sector' approach. – meaning that we’re presenting a ‘better’ buy in each area. We have however used a slightly different methodology for calculating ratings for different product types that have an Industry Alert.

For most product types with an industry alert we have not included the industry alert as a criticism that adds to calculation of the ratings. By adding criticisms for all companies involved in these activities, almost every company would get a cross, making it difficult to distinguish between companies on other issues. This would make the guide almost useless and a meaningful resource to help in guiding better choices. Note we have included specific criticisms for some companies when they can be found (ie. there are assessment criticisms of using child labour against some companies in the chocolate industry, but have not applied a criticism across all companies listed under chocolate even though an industry alert is in place).

For particular product types we have used a methodology for calculating ratings where we have included the industry alert as a criticism that adds to calculation of the ratings. This has come about as we have seen significant change in certain industries and a change in what people deem as acceptable. Presently these product types are Eggs, Poultry, Smallgoods (for factory farming); and Cosmetics (for animal testing).

See more details here.

Sources

See a list of main sources used in assessment.

All assessment uses existing information. We seek to make this transparent and accessible to the everyday shopper, in a way that assists in making buying choices. We are aware that inclusion of sources is based upon opinion, yet we have used the principles below as a guide, and made note of the reasons for inclusion if they fall outside those listed below.

We seek sources that are:

1. independent and impartial (separate from an organisation's own claims),
2. recognised and reputable (not someone's blog site),
3. systematic and reasonable (have methodology)

Criteria for inclusion of sources:

1. Broadly relate to company record under the areas of environment, social, animals, and business governance.
2. Fall into one of three general categories:
   • external – independent assessment from a third party
   • voluntary covenant – company signs up to an external agreement
   • self-disclosure – own reporting managed by third party
3. Not older than five years. If sources are dated prior to 2005, they have been included under "information" rather than "praises" or "criticisms" and so do not add in the calculation of the company rating.

Presently assessment sources include information on:

• Involvement in defense, uranium, gaming, tobacco, alcohol
• Business governance in relation to peers
• High or outstanding rating in sustainability indexes/CSR reporting
• Publicly available environmental/sustainability report
• Emissions reduction
• Packaging & waste
• Water management
• Awards
• Animal testing
• Genetic modification
• Fairtrade
• Boycott call

Please see our sources page, and follow links to the reports themselves for more information.

Limitations

It seems unfortunate that a company is seen as ‘outstanding' because it has commitment to be free from genetically engineered ingredients, or refrains from animal testing, or has made a voluntary agreement to minimise packaging waste. All these things should be normal practice for business, however the reality is that these things are often secondary to profit. Common business operation is based on reducing expenses by every possible means which for the most part involves exploitation – of our planet, its people, and each of us as consumers. Let us redefine what can be considered ‘acceptable' and raise the bar by holding companies to account, encouraging company responsibility.

In making this guide both concise and practical we offer a somewhat simplified version of what is a complex web of company ownership, assessments and related issues. Please view this website as a starting place in developing a greater understanding of the connections between how we act and its effect on the world around us.

You may note that some large companies tend to rate well given the sources and methodology used. This may be because: some sources focus only on large companies, or larger companies have more resources to put into sustainability reporting and policy, or simply that there is limited information available on smaller companies.