One thing regarding animal testing: whilst a company might not test their finished products on animals, and have the right to claim this, it is probable that they use ingredients that have, at some time in the past, been tested on animals by other parties.
This is quite likely with ingredients that have a long history of usage in cosmetics, skincare or pharmaceutical products and whose safety and efficacy has been well established in past studies.
Also if the company's site claims they do not test on animals but the brand has a China website or is sold by a cosmetics site selling to citizens of mainland China, the brand should be considered as one that tests on animals. The Chinese government requires animal testing on all imported cosmetics. So, a brand that retails there (whether online or in an actual store) must agree to this testing even though they may not test on animals themselves or endorse this practice in any other country (source: Paula Begouin's Beautypedia).
I guess it's up to us to decide what practices we can accept and then choose accordingly.
Another ethical dilemmna is the use of certain plant ingredients, with popularity leading to unsustainable over-harvesting and illegal trade.
I know most of us are exasperated by industry regulations and restrictions (mostly regarding natural or traditional ingredients and their potential allergenic qualities) but it's worthwhile considering the legality of harvest and the sustainability of supply for some natural raw materials and also their sources. Inevitably, ecosystems are damaged and these plants become rare or endangered in their natural habitat.
Agarwood is one plant that has suffered from the dubious honour of becoming fashionable so I'm glad to be happy with the synthetic versions.
Mysore Sandalwood (Santalum album) has been harvested almost to extinction and some of the vacuum has now been replaced by Australian Sandalwood (Santalum spicatum). Both these tree species are hemi-parasites (requiring the roots of host plants to supply water and nutrients) and they are extremely slow growing and difficult to grow in plantations. It can take up to 40 years for a tree to be ready for harvest, whence the whole plant is dug up and destroyed.
Illegal trade in Australian Sandalwood (worth about $15,000 a tonne!) is now rife, with 170 tonnes of illegally harvested, non-plantation wood seized in 2012 alone.It is estimated that it will take wild populations up to 50 years to recover. Most plantations are too young to yield commercial quantities of oil yet tonnes of it appear on the market each year claiming to be "ethically harvested".
Sorry for the rant. My job involves protecting threatened Australian flora so the issues of commercial exploitation v sustainability are close to my heart. The news article below gives some good stats on the trade.
www.abc.net.au/news/2012-10-30/illegal-sandalw
ood-trade-in-wa/4342570The question is: how do you know what's sustainable when you buy your perfume and should the consumer, who is driving the popularity of certain materials used in fragrance, be held accountable for a poorly regulated industry?
It now takes me hours to do my shopping because I have to weigh up the politics of every purchase - local, imported, local company using poorly paid overseas labour, local company owned by big conglomerate, locally produced but damaging local ecology with agricultural practices, food miles, value for money, brand ethics, etc etc.