Procter & Gamble vs Colgate: Ethics, Animals and Sourcing

Colgate-Palmolive has the higher average in this comparison: −9 versus Procter & Gamble's −11, across the same ten scored dimensions. Colgate leads on five dimensions, P&G on one, and four are tied. The two-point average difference is small and should not be treated as proof that every Colgate product is the more ethical choice.

The clearest trade-off is sourcing versus several other concerns. P&G scores higher on ethical sourcing, while Colgate scores higher on animals, climate, communities, technology and health. Neither company has a positive overall average.

P&G vs Colgate-Palmolive: all eleven dimensions

These are the latest stored company assessments, dated 26 April 2026, checked on 8 October 2026. They are not product safety tests or new October assessments of every brand.

Higher is better on the −100 to +100 scale. “Not scored” means no numeric assessment in this snapshot; it is excluded from the averages. Zero is a numeric score, not missing data or an assurance that a company has no adverse record.

The totals are P&G −110 and Colgate −90, each divided by ten scored dimensions. Economic opportunity has no numeric result for either company. The previous averages of −2 and −7, and the conclusion that P&G was better overall, did not match the listed scores.

Explore P&G's evidence, Colgate-Palmolive's evidence and Mashinii's methodology before deciding which differences matter most to you.

Which household brands belong to each company?

P&G's official brand directory includes Crest, Oral-B and Tide. Colgate-Palmolive's directory includes Colgate, Palmolive and Tom's of Maine. These are parent-company relationships; the products are not interchangeable just because they share an owner.

For a toothpaste decision, compare toothpaste with toothpaste. A parent's laundry products, pet-food business or other categories can influence its overall footprint without telling you which particular oral-care product meets your needs. Brand availability and formulations also vary by market.

Ownership is useful when deciding which business a purchase supports. Product claims still need to be checked at the brand and product level, especially when a certification applies to only part of a parent's portfolio.

Animal testing: policy exceptions and brand certification matter

Both animal scores are negative: P&G −30 and Colgate −20. Colgate's relative lead is not a blanket cruelty-free certification.

Colgate's published animal-welfare policy says testing occurs where regulators specifically require it or where alternative methods are unavailable to establish product safety. It also describes efforts to develop and secure acceptance of alternatives. Those are the company's stated rules, not independent proof of every supplier's conduct.

P&G's July 2025 supplier expectations for cruelty-free brands identify a specific group of certified beauty and grooming brands, including Herbal Essences and Aussie. The document sets expectations concerning animal testing of products, materials and ingredients for those listed brands. It does not certify every P&G brand, including every toothpaste, by association.

If cruelty-free status drives your purchase, check the current certifier's listing for the exact brand and the scope of its standard. Decide separately whether parent-company practices affect your choice. A certified subsidiary and a parent with a negative animal score can coexist because they are different assessment units.

Sourcing: P&G leads, but a zero is not a guarantee

Ethical sourcing is the largest numerical gap: P&G 0 versus Colgate −40. This is P&G's only outright lead among the scored dimensions here.

The scorecard does not establish that every Colgate ingredient has the same problem or that every P&G supplier meets every labour and environmental standard. Follow the sourcing evidence in the company records and check which supplier, commodity, place and time period it concerns.

A supplier code sets expectations. An audit, documented grievance or remediation report offers different evidence about implementation. Treating a policy statement alone as proof that sourcing problems have been resolved would overstate what it demonstrates.

Climate, packaging and workers: the comparison is mixed

Colgate leads on climate at −10 versus P&G −20. Both score −20 on waste and sustainable products. That does not support a broad claim that one company's environmental programmes are superior in every respect.

For a product-level decision, look for comparable evidence: the same functional use, packaging quantity, refill options and local collection arrangements. A recycling claim about one product format should not become a claim about an entire company's footprint. Likewise, a regional subsidiary's report is not automatically a global group result.

Workers are tied at 0, and business conduct is tied at −10. Communities favour Colgate at −10 versus −20. These are dimension-specific results; there is no need to force every finding into a single winner narrative.

Does P&G have the weapons exposure described previously?

Both companies score 0 on weapons in this snapshot. The old article simultaneously printed zero and claimed P&G scored −50 because of an industrial-chemicals division and military supply relationships. The cited sources did not adequately substantiate that explanation, so it has been removed.

A company selling commercial cleaning products does not, by itself, establish weapons manufacture or a particular military contract. A specific allegation needs evidence identifying the entity, product and relationship.

Which should an ethical shopper choose?

Colgate leads this company-level average; P&G leads on sourcing. If animal welfare is your main concern, neither negative parent score replaces a current brand-certification check. If you are choosing toothpaste, the health score of Colgate +20 versus P&G 0 is not a clinical comparison of two tubes or a reason to disregard product suitability.

Use the company score search to compare other parents, and our Nestlé vs Unilever comparison for another example of how priorities change the result. The useful outcome is a better-informed purchase, supported by evidence at the right level, rather than treating two large household-goods companies as ethical opposites in every category.

Reviewed and corrected 8 October 2026: corrected the averages and comparative winner, restored missing-value coverage, removed unsupported weapons claims and clarified animal-testing policy and certification scope. Misleading “opposite ethics” headline corrected; URL and publication date preserved.