![the firm 2009 amazon the firm 2009 amazon](https://cdn01.vulcanpost.com/wp-uploads/2020/10/Tech-Firm-FI.jpg)
This led MPs to attack their immoral accounting practices.Īt a time when UK public services were being slashed and household budgets were under increasing strain Ethical Consumer felt it unfair that big companies such as Amazon weren't paying their way.
#The firm 2009 amazon full
The correct figure should have been over £8 million at the full rate of corporation tax at that time. This was called because in 2011, as the world's biggest online retailer, Amazon generated UK sales of £2.9bn yet paid only £1.8m in corporation tax. We called a boycott of Amazon in 2012 over its tax avoidance. They did not prohibit the sale of any of these materials despite the fact that their production involves the exploitation and killing of animals.Īs a result, Amazon lost a whole mark under the Animal Rights category. In August 2018 we looked into Amazon's policy on materials such as fur, angora, merino wool, and silk.
![the firm 2009 amazon the firm 2009 amazon](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BMjIzODIwMDE4NV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwNzk4MzA3Mg@@._V1_.jpg)
However, we saw this as a weak statement, and our expectations of quantified and dated targets for phasing out hazardous chemicals were not met at all.įor these reasons, Amazon lost an entire mark under the Pollution and Toxics category. When we viewed Amazon’s sustainability report in July 2019, they gave no information on the impacts of its electronic products or textiles used in its clothing so we did not consider Amazon to have demonstrated a reasonable understanding of its main impacts.įurthermore, in February 2019 when we looked for Amazon’s policy on toxic chemicals used in the production of clothing brands we found no information, despite the fact that the manufacture of clothing often releases numerous hazardous substances that negatively impact the environment.įor baby, cleaning, beauty and personal care products, Amazon did release a restricted substance list of chemicals which they stated “all brands should work to phase out and eliminate’. "Hundreds of ambulance call-outs, pregnant women telling us they are forced to stand for 10 hours a day, pick, stow, stretch and bend, pull heavy carts and walk miles – even miscarriages and pregnancy issues at work."Īs a consequence of these findings, the company lost several marks under Workers' Rights.Īmazon receives our worst rating for environmental reporting. This came alongside a claim that Amazon’s warehouses were on a list of most dangerous places to work in the United States in April 2018.Īnother Guardian article from May 2018 stated that, "During the past three years at one Amazon site, ambulances were called 115 times” whilst a similar-sized supermarket warehouse nearby had only eight call-outs".Ī GMB Union national officer painted a grim picture: One from July that year exposed cases of Amazon workers “being treated in ways that leave them homeless, unable to work or bereft of income after workplace accidents". In 2018, multiple Guardian reports outlined issues with Amazon’s warehouses.
![the firm 2009 amazon the firm 2009 amazon](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/5150S5C4T3L._SY445_.jpg)
In turn, as a spokesperson for Amazon, Melanie Janin stated that the company had issued a corrective action plan and regular monitoring. Ethical Consumer did not consider this a strong enough response due to the serious and systemic nature of the criticisms. It described how the Hengyang facility, “uses temporary and contract workers to an extent that violates Chinese law employee time spent waiting to clock in and out is not compensated overtime of up to 100 hours a month exceeds legal limits and wages are well below average for the area, starting at a rate that is “not enough for workers to maintain a decent standard of living.” In June 2018 an article in the Seattle Times exposed the poor treatment of some of Amazon’s Chinese workers.
![the firm 2009 amazon the firm 2009 amazon](https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/91QAlOBelgL._RI_.jpg)
It is appalling that a market player of this size and influence has managed to take so little responsibility for human rights at its suppliers, and has taken such a hands-off approach to this vital issue.” “Amazon has no policy on living wage and make no mention of wages being enough to cover workers’ basic needs in their supplier code. Where companies were graded from A to E where ‘A’ was the best and ‘E’ the worst, Amazon scored a grade E. Labour Behind the Label’s 2019 UK report ‘Tailored Wages' report assessed whether leading clothing brands ensured that garment workers were paid a living wage. To see the full detailed stories, and Amazon's overall ethical rating, please sign in or subscribe.Īmazon has faced criticism for far more than just its tax avoidance. Our research highlights many ethical issues for Amazon, including climate change, environmental reporting, habitats & resources, pollutions and toxics, arms & military supply, human rights, worker's rights, supply chain management, irresponsible marketing, animal rights, animal testing, factory farming, use of controverial technologies, political activies, and anti-social finance.īelow we outline of some of these issues.