Cosmetics wholesaler
Established in 1979 as a subsidiary of Shiseido of Japan.
Company Ownership
Shiseido (Australia) Pty Ltd
AUS
Shiseido Company Ltd
owns 100% of Shiseido (Australia) Pty Ltd
JPN
Cosmetics manufacturer
The world's fourth largest, and Japan's largest, cosmetics manufacturer. Founded in 1872. Shiseido operate factories in Japan, France and United States. Acquired Bare Escentuals for about US$1.8 billion in 2010. Sold its shampoo and affordable skin-care business to CVC Capital Partners in 2021 for US$1.5 billion.
Company Assessment
(Last updated Nov 2024)
Praise
Criticism
Information
Shiseido (Australia) Pty Ltd
No assessment data currently available for Shiseido (Australia) Pty Ltd.
Shiseido Company Ltd
Praise
Criticism
Information
CDP Climate Change score of A
In 2023, the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) asked companies to provide data about their efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and mitigate climate change risk. Responding companies are scored across four key areas: disclosure; awareness; management; and leadership. This company received a CDP Climate Change score of A.
Source: CDP
(2023)
CDP Forests score of A-
In 2023, the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) asked companies to provide data about their efforts towards removing commodity-driven deforestation and forest degradation from its direct operations and supply chains. Responding companies are scored across four key areas: disclosure; awareness; management; and leadership. This company received a CDP Forests score of A-.
Source: CDP
(2023)
81/100 S&P Global ESG Score
This company received an S&P Global ESG Score of 81/100 in the Personal Products category of the S&P Global Corporate Sustainability Assessment, an annual evaluation of companies' sustainability practices (last updated 16 Dec 2022). The rankings are based on an analysis of corporate economic, environmental and social performance, assessing issues such as corporate governance, risk management, environmental reporting, climate strategy, human rights and labour practices.
Source: S&P Global
(2022)
CDP Water Security score of B
In 2023, the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) asked companies to provide data about their efforts to manage and govern freshwater resources. Responding companies are scored on six key metrics: transparency; governance & strategy; measuring & monitoring; risk assessment; targets & goals; and value chain engagement. This company received a CDP Water Security score of B.
Source: CDP
(2023)
12.5/20 in Social Benchmark
The 2024 Social Benchmark assesses the world's 2,000 most influential companies on their responsibility in meeting society's fundamental expectations towards three measurement areas: respecting human rights, providing decent work, and acting ethically. This company was assessed in 2024 and received a score of 12.5/20. The average score was an alarmingly low 4.6/20 and the highest score was 15.5/20.
36.6% in Nature Benchmark
The Nature Benchmark ranks 816 companies across 20 industries on their efforts to protect our environment and its biodiversity. Companies were assessed in three phases between 2022 and 2024 using three measurement areas: governance and strategy; social inclusion and community impact; and ecosystems and biodiversity. This company was assessed in 2024 and is ranked #34/816, with a total score of 36.6/100.
Animal Testing
This company appears on PETA's (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, USA) 'Companies That Do Test On Animals' list, signifying that they manufacture products that are tested on animals at some stage of development.
Source: PETA
(2022)
Unsustainable palm oil use
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
(2023)
21.9% in Forest 500 Rankings
Forest 500 identifies the 350 companies and 150 financial institutions with the greatest exposure to tropical deforestation risk, and annually assesses them on the strength and implementation of their deforestation and human rights commitments. This company received a score of 21.9%.
Source: Forest 500
(2023)
Palm oil rating - WAZA
The PalmOil Scan app, produced by the World Association of Zoos and Aquariums (WAZA), rates companies on their commitment to sourcing sustainable palm oil. Companies are scored on their use of certified sustainable palm oil (CSPO), commitment to sourcing CSPO, on-the-ground conservation action, and membership to the RSPO. Companies can earn a rating of Excellent, Good, Poor or No Commitment. This company is rated "Poor" (retrieved 18 Nov 2023).
Source: WAZA
(2023)
11.68% for supply chain practices in China
The Green Supply Chain Corporate Information Transparency Index (CITI) evaluates consumer-facing companies that have a sizeable supply chain in China. The evaluation uses government supervision data and public information to assess the environmental management of their supply chains in China. This company received a score of 11.68/100 (retrieved 24 Nov 2023).
Source: IPE
(2023)
D grade in Plastic Promises Scorecard
As You Sow's 2024 Plastic Promises Scorecard measures the corporate ambition and action of 225 large companies across six industries on six core pillars of plastic packaging pollution prevention: 1) Recyclability, 2) Reduction, 3) Recycled Content, 4) Recovery, 5) Reuse, and 6) Producer Responsibility. This company received a grade of D.
Source: As You Sow
(2024)
Palm oil supply chain
This 2010 Greenpeace report documents Sinar Mas repeatedly breaking industry guidelines, Indonesian law and its own public statements, and razing rainforests to the ground in its race to produce palm oil. Some international companies, including Kraft, Nestle and Unilever, have stopped buying palm oil from Sinar Mas following these revelations. However Shiseido, listed as customers of Sinar Mas' palm oil division in June 2009, have not yet made a similar commitment. [Listed under Information due to age of report]
Source: Greenpeace
(2010)
Use of microplastics
This company uses plastic microbeads in some of its personal care products. These particles are not retained by wastewater treatment so end up in the ocean where they contribute to ocean plastic pollution, and are hazardous to sea life. While the effects of microplastics on human health are not completely understood, there are concerns about plastic additives, such as phthalates, which are known endocrine disruptors which are shown to have harmful effects on life.
Source: Beat the Microbead
(2021)
Secret ingredients
This company has reported to the state of California that some of their products contain a known carcinogen or reproductive toxin, but they have requested trade secret status for these ingredients so that they are not publicly revealed.
Workers rights in China
A 2014 report by China Labour Watch found poor working conditions in a Chinese factory that mainly manufactures cosmetic brushes for multinational beauty companies, including this one. Labor abuses include excessive overtime and poor worker safety measures. Also, the factory has not purchased social insurance for workers as required by law. Hundreds of workers went on strike in Jan 2014 after a female team leader was slapped by a male manager. [Listed under Information due to age of report]
Source: China Labor Watch
(2014)
Price fixing in France
In Jan 2012 a Paris appeals court upheld a 40 million euro fine imposed in 2006 by the French competition watchdog, which said the companies involved had reached illicit agreements on price fixing, enforced by procedures to monitor prices in outlets and backed up by commercial threats for non-compliance. Thirteen leading perfume and luxury goods companies were fined.
Source: news article
(2012)
Microbeads scorecard
In 2016 Greenpeace East Asia ranked the world's 30 biggest personal care companies on their commitment to eliminating microbeads from their personal care products. The scorecard was based on four main criteria: commitment & transparency, definition, deadline and global application. This company ranked joint second. Microbeads are not retained by wastewater treatment and end up in the ocean where they are a threat to the marine environment.
Source: Greenpeace
(2016)
Climate action commitments
As listed on the We Mean Business website, this company has committed to the following climate action initiatives: adopt a science-based emissions reduction target.
Source: We Mean Business
(2021)
Responsible Mica Initiative member
This company is a member of the Responsible Mica Initiative, a Do-Tank which aims to eradicate child labour and unacceptable working conditions in the Indian mica supply chain by joining forces across industries.
Responsible Beauty Initiative member
This company is a member of the Responsible Beauty Initiative, an industry initiative focused on sustainable procurement. It was founded in 2017 to improve sustainability throughout the entire beauty supply chain, through sharing best practices and processes, driving a common understanding across the industry, and to use and share common tools, creating efficiencies.
Source: Ecovadis
(2023)
Skin Deep hazard scores
Skin Deep is an online safety guide to cosmetics and personal care products and their potential hazards and health concerns, with over 75,000 products rated from 1 (low hazard) to 10 (high hazard).
Modern Slavery statement
California, the UK and Australia have all enacted legislation requiring companies operating within their borders to disclose their efforts to eradicate modern slavery from their operations and supply chains. Follow the link to see this company's disclosure statement.
Source: company website
(2017)
Company Details
Type:
Wholly-owned subsidiary
Revenue:
42 million AUD
(2008)
Employees:
257
(2008)
Contact Details
Address:
Locked Bag 3277, Rhodes, NSW, 2138, Australia
Phone:
02 8762 8888
Website: