Reckitt Benckiser
Järgnevalt toome rahvusvahelise koostööprojekti raames toimunud uuringu tulemused, kus uurisime ja võrdlesime erinevate Eestis ja Lätis tootmist
arendavate või oma toodangut müüvate kosmeetika- või keemiaettevõtete, sh Reckitt Benckiser (toodab näiteks pesupulbrit Dosia) tegevust ja vastutust
keskkonnakaitse, töökaitse ja teistest valdkondadest. Eesti Rohelise Liikumise (ERL) koostööpartneriks projektis oli Läti keskkonnaühendus Green Liberty ja
projekti toetas Euroopa Liidu Phare programm. Projekti eesmärgiks on kutsuda ettevõtteid suhtuma tõsiselt keskkonna- töö- ja tarbijakaitse küsimustesse ning
kanda sotsiaalset vastutust ühiskonna ees, väljastades oma tegevuse ja selle mõjude kohta maksimaalselt infot. Meie poolt vaadeldavate firmade hulgas on
rahvusvaheliste suurkorporatsioonide kohalikke filiaale, kellelt me ootame informeeritust ja tõsist suhtumist ka oma emaettevõtte tegemistesse ja
vajakajäämistesse teistes riikides ja regioonides.
Keskkond
2002.a. avaldas Reckitt Benckiser oma aastaaruandes, et nad said $1000 trahvi heitvee väljalaskelimiidi ületamise eest.[2]
2000.a. sai Reckitt Benckiser tehas Hispaanias trahvi, kuna elektrikatkestuse tõttu voolas rohkem heitvett tehasest välja kui saasteloas ette nähtud.[3]
2002.a. loetud Reckitt Benckiser kontsern ENDS aruande kohaselt madala jätkusuutlikkusega.[4]
Tööjõud
1990.a. arreteeriti 135 Keemia ettevõtete töötajate liidu liiget, kes viibisid Reckitt & Colman tehases Lõuna-Aafrikas.[1]
Tarbijakaitse
Info tarbijakaitseprobleemide kohta puudub
Haldus
2004.a. ei saatnud Reckitt Benckiser oma keskkonnaaruannet Ethical Consumer ajakirjale.[5]
Eetika
Viidetes [6-14] võib leida erinevaid juhtumeid seoses toodete katsetamistega loomadel.
Keskkond
Manufacturer or parent company has been fined or criticized regarding air, water or soil pollution.
[2]
Reckitt Benckiser's 2002 environmental report said that it had been fined $1000 (£625) in the US for exceeding a wastewater discharge limit. It said the affected wastewater
was being tankered off-site whilst a more permanent solution was investigated.
REFERENCE Reckitt Benckiser PLC Corporate Communications: Sustainable Growth (19 February 2004) 9
[3]
Reckitt Benckiser's environmental report 2002 said that it had been fined 2100 euros (£1500) in Spain for exceeding a wastewater discharge limit due to a power cut. Reckitt
Benckiser said a fail safe system was being installed.
REFERENCE Reckitt Benckiser PLC Corporate Communications: Sustainable Growth (19 February 2004) 9
[4]
Reckitt Benckiser plc received a poor rating in a sustainability matrix, according to ENDS in May 2002. The matrix assessed company's business sustainability and the
sustability of its policies and practices. Reckitt Benckiser plc was classified as D grade company. The lowest grade was E which was defined as "a business fundamentally
incompatible with sustainable development". It received a middle rating for the sustainability of its practices and policies.
REFERENCE ENDS Report: 328 May 2002 (1 May 2002) 4
Tööjõud
Personnel is consulted and trained in environmental, health and security issues.
[1]
During the apartheid years, Reckitt & Colman had six subsidiaries in South Africa
In June 1990, 135 striking members of the chemical workers' union, CWIU, were arrested and charged with trespass at a Reckitt & Colman plant in South Africa.
http://www.mcspotlight.org,
Tarbijakaitse
Health issues
Marketing, advertisements are not misleading.
Haldus
Communication with NGOs.
The environmental and/or social reporting.
6.1. The manufacturer/parent company prepares environmental and/or social report.
6.2. The manufacturer/parent company responds on request for the reports or is available on internet.
6.3. The Report reveils problems and finds solutions.
[5]
Reckitt Benckiser did not respond to a request by Ethical Consumer in February 2004 for a copy of its latest environmental report. However, its 2002 environmental report
was found on its website (www.reckittbenckiser.com). The report demonstrated a reasonable understanding of its main impacts, contained specific time and performance
targets, was dated within the last two years, and some aspects had received independent verification. The report claimed that 33 per cent of its manufacturing facilities are
certified to ISO14001.
REFERENCE Reckitt Benckiser PLC Corporate Communications: Sustainable Growth (19 February 2004)
The manufacturer/parent company has a code of conduct.
Eetika
Company is criticized for its animal testing or involvement in genetic engeneering business.
[6]
Reckitt & Colman tests its pharmaceutical products on animals, but, according to the company, its Household and Toiletries Division no longer undertakes animal testing, no
does it use contract research houses to carry out testing on its behalf. However, in March 1994, the UKs Advertising Standards Authority found Reckitt & Colman guilty of
misleading claims for Down to Earth washing-up liquid. The company claimed that the product was not animal-tested, but the ASA found that some of the ingredients are
tested.
In the year to March 1991, Reckitt & Colman exceeded its discharge consent in the UK at least once according to the NRA and/or the RPBS. The company is also listed as
being a member of the British Road Federation, a lobby group that campaigns for more motorways and roads in the UK.
The company also has operations in Colombia, Egypt, India, Kenya, Mexico, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Sri Lanka and Uganda.
Source: Reckitt & Colman in the McSpotlight
[7]
The BUAV July 2002 'Dirty Secrets' Report named Reckitt Benckiser and brands such as Air Wick, Brasso, Calgon, Dettox, Down to Earth, Finish, Gaviscon, Harpic, Haze,
Mr Sheen, Vanish, Windolene and Woolite as the target of a boycott over the company's continued use of animal testing. A telephone call to BUAV in February 2004
confirmed Beckitt were still on the cruelty list.
REFERENCE BUAV boycott/campaigns list: Dirty Secrets (19 February 2004) 1
AUTHOR British Union of Antivivisectionists
[8]
According to a list produced in June 1999 by U.S. campaign group, PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals), Benckiser was one of a number of companies that
was still manufacturing products that were tested on animals. These were personal care or household products which were not required by law to be tested on animals.
REFERENCE Companies that test on Animals: 1 June 1999 1
AUTHOR PETA - website peta-online.org
[9]
Naturewatch reported in Winter 1998 that Benckiser manufactured products which used ingredients which had been tested on animals.
REFERENCE Naturewatch Shopping Guide Supplement: 1 (1 December 1998) 4
AUTHOR Naturewatch
[10]
In January 2000 Benckiser failed to respond to a request made by ECRA Publishing for a copy of its animal testing policy.
REFERENCE Ethical Consumer: 64 (1 April 2000)
AUTHOR ECRA Publishing
[11]
According to a list produced in June 1999 by U.S. campaign group, PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals), Boyle-Midway was one of a number of companies
that was still manufacturing products that were tested on animals. These were personal care or household products which were not required by law to be tested on animals.
REFERENCE Companies that test on Animals: 1 June 1999 1
AUTHOR PETA - website peta-online.org
[12]
Reckitt Benckiser was listed by US animal rights group PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) in January 2001 as manufacturing personal care and household
products that are tested on animals. These products are not required by US law to be animal tested.
REFERENCE Consumer Products Companies that Test on Animals: 1 January 2001
AUTHOR PETA
[13]
According to the autumn 2000 SHAC newsletter, Reckitt & Colman had commissioned animal testing services from notorious animal testing laboratories Huntingdon Life
Sciences.
REFERENCE SHAC Newsletter: 7 (1 October 2000) 9
AUTHOR Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty
[14]
Benckiser was acquired by Reckitt & Coleman and now are known as Reckitt & Benckiser. A recent form response letter from this company stated, "it is still necessary to
resort to animal testing when no valid alternatives exist or our laws require it".
[SOURCE: PETA e-mail, 13 May]