Normally for the sake of harmony in the community I wouldn't respond to your post (it's not addressed to me anyway so apologies if you think it untoward of me to respond).
Firstly a, a month isn't very long and PP are aware of your question, as marc says it's been passed to the team to look at.
I have real issues with ethicalconsumer.org and the way they operate.
I would go as far as to say that I fundamentally disagree with their stance on a number of issues and their boycotts.
So even if a glowing positive audit was produced for PP (which no doubt will be the case in fullness of time) I'd still take it with a pinch of salt.
My personal audit of PP is based on my real interaction with the company, and while there is still room for ethical improvement as there is in every company, and it's work in progress, I have no doubt in my mind that PP, as far as my ethical stance is concerned, PP surpass my expectations (especially given the strangulating regulatory framework in which they have to work)
I think the real question you should be asking on here is Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Or to put it another way who is giving ethicalconsumer their moral authority?
To be blunt I don't really care what they have to say about PP and publishing that PP have a negative rating when they haven't had time to be properly audited is as far as I'm concerned akin to blackmailing companies by leaving a negative review on tripadvisor when you've never been there..not really ethical is it?
Originally Posted by AlBrew