Is B'laster ethical?

Overview

Founded in 1957, B’laster (formerly known as PB Blaster) is headquartered in Cleveland, Ohio, and specializes in lubricants, penetrants, and degreasers for automotive, industrial, and home use. Its flagship product, PB Blaster Penetrant, is widely recognized in the maintenance industry. The brand has no major controversies on record and has invested in third-party certifications to back its environmental and health claims. Our analysis focuses on the B’laster-One Multi-Purpose Lubricant, which carries both Climate Neutral and EWG VERIFIED certifications, earning it an overall ethics score of 78 out of 100.

Certifications

Climate Neutral Certified: B’laster achieved Climate Neutral certification in 2022, meaning it has measured and offset its entire carbon footprint for its product portfolio, including Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions. Offsets are purchased from verified carbon reduction projects.

EWG VERIFIED: The EWG VERIFIED mark on B’laster-One indicates that the product meets the Environmental Working Group’s strict criteria for ingredient safety, transparency, and no undisclosed contaminants. This is rare for industrial lubricants and signals a commitment to health-conscious formulation.

No other major certifications (e.g., B Corp, Leaping Bunny, Fair Trade) are currently held by the brand.

Animal testing & vegan range

B’laster does not publicly claim a cruelty-free policy, nor is it certified by Leaping Bunny or PETA’s Beauty Without Bunnies. However, as a manufacturer of industrial chemicals and lubricants, its products are not typically tested on animals, and ingredients are generally synthetic rather than animal-derived. The B’laster-One Multi-Purpose Lubricant is a petroleum-based, synthetic product and is considered vegan. The brand does not explicitly market a ‘vegan range,’ but most of its formulations are likely free of animal-derived ingredients. We rate this area as moderate due to lack of formal policy.

Sustainability pledges

B’laster has a publicly stated goal to reduce its carbon footprint year-over-year, supported by its Climate Neutral certification. The company uses recycled materials in some packaging and has reduced volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in its formulations. However, it does not publish a detailed sustainability report, and there is no specific pledge regarding water stewardship, circular economy, or plastic reduction. The brand’s environmental efforts are currently limited to carbon neutrality and ingredient safety.

Sourcing & labor

B’laster manufactures primarily in the United States (Ohio facility), which suggests adherence to U.S. labor and environmental laws. However, the brand does not publish a supplier code of conduct, audit results, or any information about raw material sourcing. Given that key ingredients are petrochemical derivatives, there is exposure to extractive industries with well-documented human rights and environmental risks. The lack of transparency in this area lowers the brand’s overall ethical score.

Controversies context

We found no major controversies associated with B’laster in the past decade. There are no documented lawsuits, consumer boycotts, or regulatory actions related to environmental damage, false advertising, or labor violations. This clean record, combined with third-party certifications, provides reasonable assurance that the company operates responsibly. However, the absence of public reporting on key ethical issues (such as supply chain due diligence) means that potential risks may simply be undisclosed rather than absent.

Bottom line

B’laster’s B’laster-One lubricant earns a solid 78/100 for ethics—largely due to its Climate Neutral and EWG VERIFIED certifications, US manufacturing, and lack of controversies. The brand is a strong choice for consumers prioritizing ingredient safety and carbon offsetting. However, those seeking full transparency on labor practices, animal testing policy, or comprehensive sustainability reporting may find it lacking. For a industrial lubricant brand, B’laster performs above average ethically, but there is clear room for improvement in supply chain transparency and formal cruelty-free commitments.