Is Clean & Clear a good brand for the Environment, for Animals and for People?
Clean & Clear is a skincare brand, originally developed by Revlon in the late 1950s and sold to Johnson & Johnson in 1991. Johnson & Johnson re-marketed and rebranded Clean & Clear to focus on acne in young people. Since then, Clean & Clear has remained popular anti-acne line with young British and American customers.
Unfortunately, due to the unethical activity of Clean & Clear’s parent corporation, Johnson & Johnson, this skincare brand has received a low Good Shopping Guide score, and appears very low on our Ethical Skincare Ratings Table!
We encourage all skincare brands to keep pushing for ethical excellence, always considering the Environment, Animals and People when making business decisions and creating, sourcing and selling beauty products. Beauty is a luxury, and therefore, there is no reason why beauty brands cannot strive for better standards of sustainability and ethics.
Where does Clean & Clear score well?
Despite its low score, Clean & Clear does score well in a minority of categories. For instance, Clean & Clear receives a top rating in the Fossil Fuels, Nuclear Power and Armaments categories, as neither Clear & Clear or Johnson & Johnson are involved in these controversial industries.
Where does Clean & Clear score poorly?
Unfortunately, due to Johnson & Johnson’s poor ethics, Clean & Clear receives a low rating in most criteria. Firstly, as the brand is neither organic or plant-based, it has a bottom rating in both the Organic and Vegetarian/Vegan categories.
Johnson & Johnson also publicly admits that it allows animal testing on its products when required by law (such as when they are sold in the Chinese market), so Clean & Clear receives a bottom rating for Animal Welfare.
Moreover, Clean & Clear receives the lowest rating for Public Record Criticisms+, a category that is only given to brands which have received several serious criticisms for unethical activities. This is due to the fact that Johnson & Johnson is regularly criticised for its poor practices, such as allegations of greenwashing, workers’ exploitation and abuse, plastic pollution and more.
Ethical performance in category
GSG score
GSG category benchmark
Ethical Rating
Environment
-
Environmental Report
Acceptable
-
Genetic Modification
Good
-
Organic
Poor
-
Nuclear Power
Good
-
Fossil Fuels
Good
Animal
-
Animal Welfare
Poor
-
Vegetarian/Vegan Verified
Poor
People
-
Armaments
Good
-
Irresponsible Marketing
Poor
-
Political Donations
Poor
Other
-
Ethical Accreditation
Poor
-
Public Record Criticisms
Poor
-
Public Record Criticisms+
Poor
= GSG Top Rating = GSG Middle Rating = GSG Bottom Rating