Eesti Roheline Liikumine
Procter&Gamble
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 Procter&Gamble (P&G) 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
2003.a. sai Suurbritannia P&G vabrik trahvi keskkonna reostamise eest väävliühenditega.[7]
2000.a. süüdistati P&G Indoneesias ebasäästlike palmiõli tootmisemeetodite kasutamises[8]
Tööjõud
2002.a. oli P&G üks ettevõtetest, kes põhjustas arengumaade kohvifarmerite vaesumist, viies vähempakkumistega toorkohvi kokkuostuhinna omahinnast madalamaks.[4]
2001.a. nimetati P&G „alumise pulga“ ettevõtteks, kes ei pea töö-ja keskkonnatingimusi olulisteks, olles seisukohal, et kasum peaks tekkima sotsiaalseebaõigluse arvelt.[5]
1998.a. sai Suurbritannia P&G vabrik trahvi tööseadmete määruse mittetäitmise eest.[6]
Tarbijakaitse
2004.a. kahtlustas Greenpeace P&G Fairys kunstliku muskuselõhna kasutamises, mis võib häirida inimese geneetikat. P&G keeldus selgitustest.[9]
2002.a. leiti P&G Wella sampoonist ftalaate, mis mõjuvad kahjulikult viljakusele.[10]
Veel näiteid viidetes [11-20]
Reklaam ja turundus
2002.a. süüdistati P&G Sunny Delight joogi reklaamis eksitamise pärast, kuna reklaamiti naturaalsust, kuid tegelikkuses oli loodusliku mahlal osa vaid 2% [21]
2002.a. sai ülalnimetatud jook „õuduste lisandite“ auhinna. [22]
Haldus
2002.a. ei andunud P&G Maa Sõprade organisatsiooni päringule infot toodete koostise kohta.[23]
Eetika
2003.a. P&G tütarfirma Iams seati kahtluse ebaeetilise käitumise tõttu loomade operatsioonide pärast, sest reklaamiti hoopis teistsugust ettevõtte poliitikat. [26]
2002.a tegi P&G oma toote katsetusi ahvide peal, kellest 48 surid. [27]
Teisi näiteid viidetes.[28-34]
Infoallikad
(ühisprojekti spetsiifikast tingituna osaliselt inglise keeles)
|Keskkond |Manufacturer or parent company has been fined or criticized regarding air, water or soil pollution. |
|[7] |
|Proctor and Gamble fined for pollution plume |
|Proctor and Gamble Product Supply (UK) Limited were yesterday fined a total £28,000 and ordered to pay costs of £8,914.12 after a successful prosecution by the Environment Agency, Anglian Region under the Environmental |
|Protection Act 1990 and the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974. |
| |
|Proctor and Gamble Product Supply (UK) Limited operates a plant in West Thurrock which is a major supplier of a number of proprietary brand detergent products and light duty dishwashing liquids. As part of the |
|manufacturing process for a detergent, sulphur is burned to create sulphur trioxide. This is then feed into Falling Film Reactors (FFRs), which are upright tanks that are used in a sulphonation process. Material from |
|this process is then used as an ingredient in other separate processes at the site. The Environment Agency authorises this process through issuing an authorisation (permits). |
| |
|The Authorisation is subject to an implied condition that BATNEEC must be used. This is a concept that requires operators to use the best available techniques, not entailing excessive costs, for pollution control, so |
|reducing substances released to a minimum and rendering harmless those substances which are released. |
| |
|Proctor and Gamble pleaded guilty to failing to comply with this implied condition. The company also pleaded guilty to failing in its duty towards the New Holland employees, in that they failed, so far as was reasonably|
|practicable, to ensure that they were not exposed to risks to their health and safety. (Health and Safety at Work Act 1974). |
| |
|The Court heard that on the 28 March 2002 the Environment Agency were notified by the company of an unauthorised release of mainly acid mist but with traces of sulphur dioxide (SO2) and dilute sulphur trioxide (SO3) |
|which lasted some 2-3 minutes. |
| |
|Investigations by Environment Agency Officers revealed that the release had been caused by human error in the control room of the Falling Film Reactors (FFRs). The emergency shutdown procedure went into operation after |
|an operator realised that he had typed in an incorrect figure into the control system. A further mistake occurred as the operator attempted to re-start the FFR that had shut down. This had the end result of releasing |
|approximately 30kg of SO3 into the atmosphere. |
| |
|Employees of a nearby distribution warehouse, New Holland Logistics, observed the plume and investigated the source believing it to be a possible fire. Four employees suffered health effects from the SO3 release such as|
|eye and throat irritation and tightness to the chest. All employees attended the local Accident and Emergency department and underwent a full examination including x-ray. |
| |
|Paul Hayward of the Environment Agency, said of the case "Had the necessary procedures and software been in place, the environment and health of four individuals would not have been put at risk. It is vital that |
|businesses are alert and vigilant when their operations could have a harmful effect on our environment." |
|Proctor and Gamble Supply (UK) Ltd were fined £28,000 and ordered to pay costs of £8,914.12. |
|Doc reference: LR/PR125/03 |
|Contact: enquiries@environment-.uk |
|Author: Louise Reilly, Date published: 22-Jul-2003 |
| |
|[8] |
|A 2000 report named Procter & Gamble as a major global consumer of palm oil, including Indonesia palm oil. The report criticised the Indonesian palm oil industry for its environmentally unsustainable practices, |
|including cutting tropical rainforest to make way for palm oil trees and access roads. |
|REFERENCE Funding Forest Destruction: 1 March 2000, AIDEnvironment/Telapak Sawit Research Team |
|Tööjõud |Personnel is consulted and trained in environmental, health and security issues. |
|[4] |
|According to a report on the coffee industry, 'Mugged. Poverty in your coffee cup', published by Oxfam in 2002, Procter & Gamble was one of the big four coffee roasters with coffee brands worth US$1bn or more in annual |
|sales that had been contributing to the poverty of small-scale coffee farmers. According to Oxfam, the price of coffee had fallen to a 30-year low, leaving developing-country coffee farmers selling their coffee beans |
|for much less than cost of production. Oxfam reported that because large coffee roasters were able to buy from the lowest-cost producer, their profit margins were high. |
|Reference: Mugged. Poverty in your coffee cup: 1 January 2002, Oxfam |
| |
|[5] |
|In June 2001, Co-op America Quarterly named Procter & Gamble as one of a number of coffee companies on the "bottom rung of the ladder" when it came to fair labour practices and sweatshop conditions. Companies on the |
|bottom rung were reported to have exploited workers and the environment and claimed that social injustice was a necessary part of doing business. Bottom rung companies were also reported to have operated in secrecy |
|because they were afraid consumers would discover of the way they conducted their business. |
|REFERENCE Co-Op America Quarterly: 54, Summer 2001 (1 June 2001) 11 |
| |
|[6] |
|The Health and Safety Prosecutions Area website (hse-database.co.uk), reported that on the 10th October 2001, Procter and Gamble Product Supply (UK) Ltd was fined £3000 for breaking the 1998 Provision and Use of |
|Work Equipment Regulations. An agency worker was injured on the 2nd August 2000, whilst operating a fibre processing machine. The HSE reported that the case was taken because fixed guards on calendar rollers had been |
|removed to enable several machines to be linked by means of conveyor belts. HSE reported there was a trapping risk in the nip of the rollers. |
|REFERENCE Health & Safety Exec: hse-databases.co.uk (20 February 2004) hse-database.co.uk |
|Tarbijakaitse |Health issues |
| | |
|[9] |
|In February 2004, Greenpeace's 'chemical home' website (),said that Fairy washing up liquid and dishwasher tablets were likely to contain artificial musks. With regard to washing up liquid, Greenpeace|
|said "Procter and Gamble declined to give us any information about whether musk compounds or other hazardous chemicals are present in Fairy Liquid. They referred us to the Retail Association which was also unable to |
|answer questions about the ingredients used in particular brands. We think it's likely that Fairy products contain artificial musk compounds and we encourage consumers to buy an alternative brand..." With regard to |
|dishwasher tablets, Greenpeace said: "Greenpeace wrote two letters to Procter and Gamble, who declined to answer questions. We think it's likely that Fairy Dishwasher Tablets contain artificial musk compounds as well as|
|other persistent toxic chemicals. Artificial musks are cheap fragrance ingredients which accumulate in our fat tissue and can be found in breast milk. Cosmetics and washing agents may be an important source of |
|absorption through the skin. Food, contaminated because of environmental pollution, is also thought to be an important exposure route to these harmful chemicals." |
|REFERENCE Greenpeace website, Chemical Home: 15 January 2004 |
| |
|[10] |
|ENDS reported in November 2002 that Wella's Shockwaves Strong Big Body mousse sold in the UK contained phthlates. Phthalates were chemicals suspected of endocrine disruption and reproductive toxicity. According to the |
|cited research, the mousse contained phthlate DEHP. |
|REFERENCE ENDS Report: 1 November 2002 31, Environmental Data Services |
| |
|[11] |
|ENDS reported in November 2002 that a Vidal Sasson hair product sold in the UK contained phthlates. Phthlates were chemicals suspected of endocrine disruption and reproductive toxicity. According to the cited research, |
|the hair product contained phthlates DBP, BBP and and DEP. |
|REFERENCE ENDS Report: 1 November 2002 31, Environmental Data Services |
| |
|[12] |
|ENDS reported in November 2002 that Pantene Pro-V Extra hold hair spray sold in the UK contained phthlates. Phthlates were chemicals suspected of endocrine disruption and reproductive toxicity. According to the cited |
|research, the hair product contained phthlates DEHP and DEP. |
|REFERENCE ENDS Report: 1 November 2002 31, Environmental Data Services |
| |
|[13] |
|“Kosmētikas un plastmasu mīksinātāji apdraud veselību”, Vides vēstis, Aprīlis 2004. Nr.4 |
| |
|[14] |
|Pretty Nasty – Phthalates in European Cosmetic Products by Women’s Environmental Network, Swedish Society for Nature Conservation, Health Care Without Harm, 2002, Sweden |
| |
|[15] |
|According to the ecologist of April 2001, in 2000 the Women's Environmental Network commissioned tests on 5 of the top brands of disposable nappies, which included Pampers. All 5 brands were said to contain tributyl |
|tin, a chemical which had been associated with sex changes in shellfish in areas where it was used as an anti-fouling paint on ships. Although it was stressed that it is not known how much of the chemical might be |
|absorbed by babies wearing such nappies, fears were raised about such exposure to hormone disrupting chemicals. |
|REFERENCE Ecologist, The: v31 no3 (1 April 2001) 43 |
| |
|[16] |
|According to the boycott website in May 2002, there was a boycott of Procter & Gamble's Pampers brand of nappies because they contained potentially harmful TBT (tributyl tin), according to tests carried out|
|on behalf of Greenpeace by a laboratory in Germany. |
|REFERENCE Ecolinks Boycott list - : 28 May 2002, Empowered Consumer Options International |
| |
|[17] |
|According to a press release from an Irish PR agency, in July 2001 Proctor & Gamble withdrew 800,000 packets of Pringles crisps after they were found to have been made with unapproved GM potatoes. The potatoes were said|
|to have been approved for consumption in the USA, but not in Japan. An Irish food lawyer was said to be calling on the company to confirm that the same crisps were not on sale in Europe. |
|REFERENCE Brendan Bracken PR firm: 1 July 2001 |
| |
|[18] |
|According to Link December 2001, published by Friends of the Earth International, Procter & Gamble had been exposed for marketing illegal genetically engineered ingredients in its Pringle chips in India. |
|REFERENCE Link: 99 (1 December 2001) 8, Friends of the Earth International |
| |
|[19] |
|According to a the Food Magazine in March 2003, Pringles Original potato chips contained 540mg of salt (sodium) per 100g of food. According to UK government guidelines, foods with over 500mg in sodium per 100g food was |
|considered to be high in salt. |
|REFERENCE Food Magazine: 60 jan/mar 2003 (1 January 2003) 8, Food Commission (The) |
| |
|[20] |
|WEN News reported in Summer 2000 that Procter & Gamble had admitted that it had used GM cotton in its tampons. The company was reported to have argued that GM cotton fibres were "chemically and physically identical to |
|those from non genetically modified plants. Cotton fibres from GM or non modified plants do not represent any risk to women". WEN was concerned that there had at that point been a lack of independent scientific testing |
|or data about GM cotton and its potential effect on human health or the environment. |
|REFERENCE WEN News: Summer 2000 (1 June 2000) 5, Women's Environmental Network |
| |
|Reklaam ja turundus |Marketing, advertisements are not misleading. |
|[21] |
|According to the June 2002 issue of the Ecologist, a campaign had been launched in the US against Procter & Gamble, accusing the company of misleading parents and children. It said that when interviewed, 65% of |
|children and 46% of adults thought that P&G's Sunny Delight was made mostly from real fruit, instead of the reality of it containing less than 2% of any fruit juice. "There is nothing sunny or delightful about a junk |
|food dressed up as a fruit juice," said a spokesperson for the Center for Science in the Public Interest - one of the groups responsible for the campaign. |
|REFERENCE Ecologist, The: Vol.32 No.5 (6 January 2002) |
| |
|[22] |
|The Food Magazine published its Children's Food Awards in September 2002. Sunny Delight was announced as winning the "Additive Nightmare" award. The drink was criticised more than any other product for its additives. It|
|was also reported that the product had been relaunched without such high levels of added sugar, instead using artificial sweetening and chmeicals Acesulfame K and Aspartame to sweeten it. |
|REFERENCE Food Magazine: jul/sept02 58 (1 September 2002) 12 |
|Haldus |The environmental and/or social reporting. |
| | |
| |The manufacturer/parent company prepares environmental and/or social report. |
| |The manufacturer/parent company responds on request for the reports or is available on internet. |
| |The Report reveils problems and finds solutions. |
|[23] |
|Friends of the Earth reported in Spring 2002 that Procter & Gamble did not respond to requests to supply specific chemical information about its products. The research intended to find out whether a number of chemicals |
|said to be bioaccumulative and have an impact on the hormone system were present in its products. |
|REFERENCE Earth Matters: 51 Spring 2002 (1 February 2002) 10 |
|AUTHOR Friends of the Earth |
| |
|[25] |
|P&G atbildēja uz ZB lūgumiem pēc ilgtspējības pārskatiem, kā arī atsūtīja atbildi uz aptaujas anketu. |
|[Avots: e-pasta komunikācija ] |
| |The manufacturer/parent company has a code of conduct. |
| |
|Eetika |Company is criticized for its animal testing or involvement in genetic engeneering business. |
|[26] |
|According to ArcNews April 2003, Iams conducted vivisection on cats and dogs for pet food research. Uncaged complained to the Advertising Standards Authority in regard to Iams' Research Policy Statement on pet food |
|research, which Uncaged felt was misleading. The ASA had reportedly assessed the complaint and felt it was worthy of formal investigation. |
|REFERENCE ARC News: 1 April 2003 |
| |
|[27] |
|According to Uncaged Campaigns News, 23rd May 2002, the sixth annual global 'Boycott Procter & Gamble Day' had taken place on 25th May 2002. The article stated that the protest had been against the company's use of |
|animal testing. According to the article, an undercover investigation exposed the killing of 48 monkeys in a nasal decongestant test. Uncaged Campaigns wrote that one monkey had been autopsied before it was dead. |
|REFERENCE Uncaged Campaigns News: 23 May 2002 |
| |
|[28] |
|The PETA website , viewed by ECRA on 7.7.03, listed Max Factor, Clairol, Cover Girl, Physique, Oil of Olay as carrying out animal testing that is not required by law. |
|REFERENCE : 7 July 2003 |
|AUTHOR PETA |
| |
|[29] |
|PETA's Animal Times reported in Spring 2003 that Iams refused to pull its research into one laboratory. By having resesarch facilities across the US, PETA claimed that Iams was unable to adequately monitor the animals. |
|A PETA investigator working under cover at an Iams contract laboratory was reported to have found poor conditions. Caregivers were said to pay little attention to animals, there were no windows in any of the buildings |
|and the caging for dogs was said to be inadequate. The investigator found many examples of poor animal care resulting in the suffering of the animals and tests that were said to be invasive and unnecessary. |
|REFERENCE Animal Times: Spring 2003 (1 April 2003) |
| |
|[30] |
|The Uncaged campaign report of May 2003 documented that Iams had again been involved in comissioning or carrying out cruel animal experiments, confirming that the company's research policy was not being adhered to. A |
|complaint was registered with the Advertising Standards Authority regarding parent company P & G's claims that it did not kill animals in experiments when researchers uncovered the killing of 27 dogs. |
|REFERENCE Uncaged Campaign Bulletin: 1 May 2003 |
| |
|[31] |
|Procter & Gamble announced on June 30, 1999, that it had revised its animal-testing policy. P&G stated that it will end the use of animal tests for all its current non-food, non-drug products. This indicates that P&G |
|realizes how important the animal-testing issue is. However, Procter & Gamble has not permanently halted all non-required animal experiments. According to P&G, it will not perform experiments on many existing products. |
|P&G has not committed to discontinuing the testing of new ingredients or new products on animals. |
|This very small step in the right direction does not mean that we have stopped our boycott on any of P&G’s products. Just as any other company that states that it performs limited animal testing or testing on only |
|certain ingredients or products, P&G remains on our “do test” list, and we continue to encourage consumers to boycott all its products. We will also continue to try to push the company away from animal experiments |
|permanently. |
|Reference: Petas emails |
| |
|[32] |
|According to Earth Island Journal's Winter 2002 publication, the following varieties of Pringles sold in the US contained genetically engineered ingredients: Original, Low Fat, Pizza-licious, Sour Cream & Onion, Salt & |
|Vinegar, Cheezeums. |
|REFERENCE Earth Island Journal: Winter 2002/Vol1 4 (1 October 2002) 7 |
| |
|[33] |
|According to the Greenpeace truefoodnow website viewed in October 2002, the following varieties of Hawaiian Punch drinks sold in the US contained genetically engineered ingredients: Tropical fruit, Grape Geyser, Fruit |
|Juicy Red, Strawberry Surfin. The following varieties of Sunny Delight fruit drinks sold in the US contained genetically engineered ingredients: Sunny Delight original, Sunny Delight with Calcium Citrus Punch, Sunny |
|Delight California Style Citrus Punch |
|REFERENCE True Food Now website : 16 October 2002 1 |
| |
|[34] |
|An extract from 'Trust Us, We're Experts: How Industry Manipulates Science and Gambles with your Future' by Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber, which was posted on the PR Watch web site in 2000, stated that Procter & |
|Gamble had been on the 'core team' of a research project set up by the pro-GM International Food Information Council (IFIC) to investigate how to overcome consumer apprehensions about the new technology. It said the |
|goal of the research project had been to 'develop actionable strategies, messages, and language that will express information positively about the process and products...without stirring negative fears and conotations.'|
|REFERENCE PRWatch: 1 April 2000, Rampton & Stauber |
| |
Viited:
1. E-mail firmalt P&G Latvija (5. märts, 15. ja 20.juuli 2004) Green Liberty'le
2. Market Research Europe. – Euromonitor ( ): 2001. - Jan
3. Procter & Gamble Company Profile. – Corpwatch (): 2001.
4. Mugged. Poverty in your coffee cup (). – Oxfam: 2002.
5. C0-op America Quarterly (success/coop.html). – 2001. – No. 54
6. Health and Safety Exec.(hse-databases.co.uk) - 20 February 2004
7. Reilly, L. Doc reference: LR/PR125/03. (enquiries@environment-.uk) – 2003. – 22.jūl.
8. Funding Forest Destruction ( ). - AIDEnvironment ( )/Telepak Sawit Research Team: 2000. – 1 March.
9. Chemical Home: 15 January 2004,
10. ENDS Report (). - Environmental Data Services: 2002. – No. 31.
11. ENDS Report (). - Environmental Data Services: 2002. – No. 31.
12. ENDS Report (). - Environmental Data Services: 2002. – No. 31.
13. Strazdiņš, Ģ. Strazdiņa, I. Kosmētikas un plastmasu mīkstinātāji apdraud veselību. - Vides Vēstis (videsvestis.lv) : 2004. – Nr. 4
14. Women’s Environmental Network, Swedish Society for Nature Conservation, Health Care Without Harm. Pretty Nasty – Phthalates in European Cosmetic Products () . – Sweden: Health Care Without Harm: 2002.
15. The Ecologist () . – 2001. – Vol. 31, No. 3.
16. Empowered Consumer Options International. () – 2002. – 28 May.
17. Brendan Bracken PR firm () . - 1 July 2001.
18. Link. – Friends of the Earth International () : 2001. – No.99.
19. Food Magazine (.uk). - The Food Commission: 2003. – No. 60 Jan/March.
20. WEN News. - Women’s Environmental Network (.uk): 2000.
21. The Ecologist. - Vol 32, No 5.
22. Food Magazine. – The Food Commission: 2002. –No.58 Jul/Sept.
23. Earth Matters. - Friends of the Earth: 2002. – No. 51.
24. E-pasta sarakste ar P&G Latvija 16.augustā
25. väljavõte e-kirja vastusest, mis on Fanija Bluma elektroonilises kirjakastis
26. ARC news (news/arcnews/arcnews.html). – 2003. – 1 April.
27. Uncaged Campaign News. – 2002. – 23 May
28. PETA. - . - 2003. – 7 July
29. Animal Times. – 2003.
30. Uncaged Campaign Bulletin (). – 2003.
31. E-pasta sarakste ar PETA 13.maijā
32. Earth Islands Journal (eijournal). – 2002. – Vol. 4
33. True Food Now. - . - 16 October 2002.
34. Rampton, S. Stauber, J. Trust Us, We're Experts: How Industry Manipulates Science and Gambles with Your Future. (). PR Watch. – 2000.
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.