Robinson

How ethical is Robinson?

Robinson is a packaging manufacturer which has fallen below The GOOD Shopping Guide’s ethical benchmark on our Ethical Packaging Ratings Table. Unlike many brands in this sector whose below-benchmark performance is driven by a single critical failing, Robinson’s position reflects a broader pattern of acceptable but insufficient performance across several criteria, none of which individually would bring the company below the threshold, but which collectively prevent it from meeting the standard required.

What does Robinson do?

Robinson plc was founded in Chesterfield in 1839 and floated on AIM in 2004. Headquartered in Chesterfield, the company manufactures custom plastic and rigid paperboard packaging across six sites in the UK, Poland, and Denmark, employing nearly 400 people. Robinson supplies injection and blow-moulded plastic packaging and luxury paperboard packaging to major FMCG brands including Unilever, Procter & Gamble, Reckitt Benckiser, and SC Johnson, across the food and beverage, personal care, homecare, and luxury gift sectors.

Why does Robinson fall below The GOOD Shopping Guide’s benchmark?

Robinson’s below-benchmark performance is notable for its profile. The company receives only two poor ratings – for vegan options and ethical accreditation – which alone would not bring it below the benchmark. What tips Robinson’s score below the threshold is the accumulation of four acceptable rather than good ratings across environmental report, toxic chemicals policy, fossil fuels, and eco certifications.

The environmental report rating of acceptable rather than good is the most significant of these. As an AIM-listed manufacturer with stated sustainability commitments and active recycled content targets, Robinson has the reporting infrastructure to produce a more comprehensive environmental report that would improve this rating. Moving this single criterion from acceptable to good would have a meaningful impact on the company’s overall score.

Similarly, the eco certifications rating of acceptable rather than good suggests that Robinson’s existing certifications, while present, do not yet meet the higher standard achieved by leading brands in the sector. Pursuing more rigorous environmental and circular economy certifications aligned with its sustainability commitments would strengthen this rating.

The acceptable ratings for toxic chemicals policy and fossil fuels indicate further room for improvement in chemical management and energy transition commitments across Robinson’s UK and European manufacturing operations.

Robinson also receives a poor rating for vegan options, indicating limited focus on plant-based or vegan-certified packaging solutions. As consumer demand for sustainable and plant-based alternatives grows across the FMCG sectors Robinson serves, addressing this gap would both improve the company’s ethical rating and align with its customers’ sustainability expectations.

It is worth noting that Robinson achieves good ratings across several criteria, including pollution prevention, animal welfare, responsible marketing, political donations, and armaments, and has no documented public record criticisms. The company’s long heritage, AIM-listed status, and stated purpose of creating a sustainable future for people and planet suggest the foundations for stronger ethical performance are in place. The below-benchmark position reflects a cluster of middle-ground ratings rather than fundamental ethical concerns, and targeted improvements across environmental reporting and certifications could realistically bring Robinson above the threshold.

Consumers seeking packaging solutions that meet The GOOD Shopping Guide’s ethical benchmark are encouraged to consult our Ethical Packaging Ratings Table and our guide to ethical packaging, and prioritise brands that hold Ethical Accreditation. Our how we rate page explains the criteria used to assess all brands in this sector.