Nike and Adidas are two of the largest sportswear brands in the world, and they have both come up against criticism over the years for their ethicality. It’s a close call, but let’s take a closer look and answer that burning question: is Adidas better than Nike?

The battle of the sportswear giants

Nike and Adidas are two of the biggest brands in the world, so chances are you’ve considered investing in some kit from each of them at some point. New running trainers, perhaps? Some stylish yoga leggings, or a decent sports bra? These brands offer it all. Because when it comes to sportswear, most people see Nike and Adidas as their first port of call. So, we crunched the ethics and sustainability numbers to find out which company treats people, the planet, and animals better than the other.

Let’s answer once and for all: is Adidas better than Nike? Long story short: Adidas falls just behind Nike, but neither brand is a shining star. Read on for a deeper dive into both brands’ track records on the issues that matter most.

Nike—on again, off again

In the 90s, Nike became notorious for its terrible human rights record. The brand says it has changed, but can it outrun the past?

It’s generally agreed Nike has improved, but there is still a way to go. The activewear giant has been criticised for allowing its suppliers to exploit workers by paying below the minimum wage, enforcing excessive working hours, and failing to provide safe working conditions. Nike also hasn’t signed the Bangladesh Fire & Safety Accord, an important initiative to improve factory safety that came into play after the death of over 1,000 garment workers in the Rana Plaza factory collapse. On the plus side, Nike has committed to not knowingly using Uzbek cotton—where forced labour and child labour have been rife—after being called out for it in early 2020. The brand also now ensures payment of a living wage in a small proportion of its supply chain.

Nike hasn't signed the Bangladesh Fire & Safety Accord, an important initiative to improve factory safety that came into play after the death of over 1,000 garment workers in the Rana Plaza factory collapse.

In March 2017, Nike took a big step backward when it ceased allowing the NGO Workers Rights Consortium access to factories to check on labour standards. In 2021 and 2022, Nike received a score of 51-60% in the Fashion Transparency Index, showing it had started going in the right direction again, then its score dropped back down to 41-50% in the 2023 report. It’s like Nike is in an on-again-off-again relationship with doing the right thing.

But in May 2023, Nike was hit with a class action lawsuit over “greenwashed” sustainability claims. ClassAction.org reports that: “The 47-page ‘greenwashing’ lawsuit charges broadly that Nike has illegally attempted to capitalise on consumers’ preference for ‘green’ products by falsely claiming that certain apparel tagged with ‘sustainable’ claims and marketed as supporting the retailer’s waste- and carbon-reducing ‘Move to Zero’ initiative are, unbeknownst to the public, made from non-biodegradable plastic-based materials.”

All things considered, Nike scores a middling “It’s a Start” for people. Thanks to its use of some lower-impact materials and setting of science-based targets, it also rated “It’s a Start” for the planet. But for animals, Nike’s use of various cruel animal-based fabrics like down and exotic animal skin, as well as its lack of traceability here, means it is rated “Not Good Enough”.

Nike prides itself on making comfortable footwear, but we think some of the brand’s big-time execs should try walking in their workers’ shoes for a while and see how comfy things feel then.

We hope to see continual improvements from a big brand that can certainly afford to make them.

Nike gets an “It’s a Start” rating overall.

Adidas—losing its lead

Adidas has been subject to many of the same criticisms as Nike concerning worker exploitation, including in a report by War on Want on conditions in Bangladesh in 2012.

More recently, both brands have been strongly criticised for failing to take concrete steps towards paying a living wage to workers across their supply chain despite increasing profits and sponsorship payments to sports stars and teams. The 2018 Foul Play report by the Clean Clothes Campaign and Collectif Ethique sur l’Etiquette highlights the difference between the ever-increasing amount of money paid on sponsorships to sports stars and other marketing expenses, compared with the reduced share of the final price tag of sports gear that’s paid to workers in the supply chain.

The report calls on the brands to commit to paying living wages across their supply chain by a specific date, and other supporting actions. Adidas now has a project to improve wages in part of its supply chain and has made a public commitment to improve wages overall, which is a good step, and following up the promise with tangible results would be a big tick for the brand. But right now, it still doesn’t pay a living wage. Commitments are good, but we’re more concerned with actions the brand is taking right now.

Adidas received a score of 51-60% in the 2021, 2022, and 2023 Fashion Transparency Index, down from 61-70% a few years ago but higher than Nike’s most recent result. This score reflects the brand disclosing its suppliers and subcontractors (a win for transparency), supporting freedom of association, and signing the Bangladesh Fire & Safety Accord. Moreover, in June 2017, Adidas was singled out for praise in a report on forced labour by Know the Chain. It noted that Adidas has strong disclosure throughout its supply chain. In particular, it was the only one of five major footwear brands to disclose activities to address forced labour in specific countries.

What sets Adidas apart on the labour front is its leadership with crucial inclusivity and culture strategies and policies. Its approach includes auditing suppliers on a Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) level. Adidas is responsive and happy to be held accountable in this area, which is essential for global brands to set the stage for a more transparent, ethical, and sustainable fashion industry going forward.

In February 2022, Adidas’ rating dropped from “Good” to “It’s a Start”, then down to “Not Good Enough” in November 2023 owing in part to recent human rights violations in its supply chain, including ongoing cases of wage theft in Cambodia. Our mission at Good On You is to provide consumers with the most reliable, accurate, and up-to-date information and recommendations across fashion, which means our comprehensive ratings methodology evolves to accommodate crucial movements in issues across ethics and sustainability in the industry. What we see reflected in Adidas’ rating drop is a brand not making good on its existing promises and not keeping pace with industry-wide actions for people, the planet, and animals.

Adidas still has plenty of work to do in crucial areas like biodiversity and transparency, too. It was also caught up in a greenwashing scandal in late 2021 when it was found to be misleading consumers with its wording around recycled content in a new pair of Stan Smith sneakers. This is a prime example of a slew of recent greenwashing fast fashion claims and campaigns, for which brands must be held accountable.

Take a closer look at the reasons behind the change in our deep dive into Adidas’ rating, noting that Adidas scores “It’s a Start” for the planet, and “Not Good Enough” for both people and animals.

Adidas gets a “Not Good Enough” rating overall.

The verdict

So, it seems that both companies have a trek in front of them—we hope they don’t get too many blisters along the way. Is Adidas better than Nike? Overall, Nike comes out slightly ahead of Adidas with a better score for workers, but it’s certainly not perfect.

Step up your ethics

As ever, the most sustainable item is the one in your closet. If you own a pair of Nike or Adidas sneakers but would rather not support the brands in the future, the best option is to use them until they’re worn out and then thoughtfully dispose of them. If you’re in the US or Europe, you can drop off old sneakers from any brand to a participating Nike store for recycling.

In need of new sneakers or activewear that better match your values? Check out these more ethical alternatives below, beating both Adidas and Nike at their own game, with more solid results for people, the planet, and animals. Or simply opt for second-hand Adidas or Nike products, prolonging the life of items already in circulation.

The post Nike v Adidas: Who’s More Ethical and Sustainable? appeared first on Good On You.

Temu’s lack of transparency is a big red flag. Here’s why we rate the brand “We Avoid”, our lowest rating. This article is based on the Temu rating published in February 2024 and may not reflect claims the brand has made since then. Our ratings analysts are constantly rerating the thousands of brands you can check on our directory.

Why is Temu so bad?

The growth of Temu—a marketplace founded by Chinese company PDD Holdings—has snowballed since its US launch in 2022 and subsequent expansion to Australia, New Zealand, and Europe in 2023. How? “Its appeal is clear. In the midst of rising inflation around the world, Temu has attracted customers through its seemingly limitless range and incredibly low prices,” explains the Guardian.

In an effort to connect with customers in the United States, the brand invested in commercial air time during the 2024 Super Bowl, buying three ads, which Business Insider estimates cost $7m each.

Temu might be a new name for many people in the fashion space, so here’s what you need to know: Temu sells everything from clothes to electronics and car parts. It says it’s “committed to offering the most affordable quality products to enable consumers and merchandise partners to fulfil their dreams in an inclusive environment.” It also says it’s dedicated to helping consumers “live their best lives” by connecting them with “millions of merchandise partners, manufacturers and brands.”

Everything about this and Temu raises a red flag. We must question the brand’s impact on the environment and animals, not to mention the people creating these products. In short, how ethical is Temu?

Millions of merchandise partners? Affordable products? An inclusive environment? Temu’s business model sounds similar to SHEIN’s (with which it’s currently in a legal battle)—the brand sells vast quantities of cheap products that are the opposite of sustainable.

And if you’re looking for information on the brand’s practices? Good luck, because they’re nowhere to be found. Temu doesn’t provide enough information about its business, impact, or sustainability efforts for our analysts to award it any points against our ratings methodology.

Environmental impact

On its very brief sustainability page, Temu says it has an “ongoing commitment to environmental sustainability”. Its proof? The brand is partnering with Trees for the Future to “plant trees across sub-Saharan Africa”, a project that has had “a transformative effect on the land and local communities, while also addressing global environmental concerns,” according to Temu. Not only does this sound like greenwashing, but it’s also very unlikely this sole strategy has any significant impact, especially as the responsibility falls to the shopper to choose to plant a tree at checkout.

And as we mentioned earlier, Temu is also responsible for promoting overconsumption and overproduction.

A congressional report estimated that packages from Temu and competitor Shein are likely responsible for roughly 600,000 packages shipped to the US on a daily basis under the de minis provision (a rule that means packages of $800 or less won’t be subject to import duties or required to provide information about the contents).

Temu has also been criticised for its constant discounting, promotional offers, referral schemes, and gamification of the shopping experience through its app, which all encourage users to keep purchasing and have been likened to online gambling.

Labour conditions

Temu does not share information about its labour practices, so it’s impossible to know if workers employed by its suppliers are treated and paid fairly. However, it is safe to assume that $5 garments aren’t priced high enough to cover the cost of living wages for the garment workers who made the item.

The brand says it prohibits forced labour, but there’s no explanation of how it enforces this across its thousands of suppliers. And in May 2023, a US congressional committee wrote to Temu requesting information about its compliance with the US anti-forced labour laws, after an investigation found that the company’s business model allowed it to avoid complying with US regulations blocking imports from China’s Xinjiang region, where there is a significant risk of human rights abuses. The report noted that Temu doesn’t have any audit processes in place to assess that risk.

Animal welfare

Like the rest of Temu’s practices, animal welfare is a similarly shady subject with little evidence of any policies to ensure the protection of creatures in and around Temu’s sellers’ supply chains.

Why ‘We Avoid’ Temu

It should come as no surprise that Temu received our lowest score of “We Avoid,” making it one of the worst-rated brands of 2023. The brand’s excessive product range and the potential for labour rights abuses in its supply chain are particularly concerning.

Temu’s lack of transparency means no one can know what is going on behind the scenes of the ultra fast fashion brand, and that’s bad news. Transparency—and publicly available information—are essential in holding brands accountable for their actions and helping consumers make more informed choices about which brands they buy from.

You have a right to know how the products you buy affect the issues you care about, so our recommendation is to steer clear of Temu.

Note that Good On You ratings consider hundreds of issues, and it is not possible to list every relevant issue in a summary of the brand’s performance. For more information, see our How We Rate page and our FAQs.

See the rating.

Good swaps

In these articles we usually give you a handful of “Good” and “Great” alternatives. However, in the case of Temu, there isn’t really an alternative that we can recommend, because it’s simply not possible to find an ethically made t-shirt for $5. And few retailers offer as many products with as many discounts as Temu does.

However, there are some marketplaces and multi-brand e-commerce websites that specialise in more sustainable brands and products by carefully selecting what is featured, so you can still find what you need in one place, without the unethical practices of Temu.

Made Trade

Made Trade has a carefully curated collection that is categorised into one or more values—from Fair Trade to vegan, and People of Colour-owned to sustainable.

Shop the collection @ Made Trade.

Rêve en Vert

Rêve en Vert is a luxury retail platform for more sustainable and ethical goods—the plaftorm says it offers an invitation to engage in creating a better world, and to make choices that are in harmony with its natural balance.

Shop the collection @ Rêve en Vert.

Urbankissed

Urbankissed is a “slow and ethical marketplace”, featuring a range of clothing, jewellery, menswear, homeware, and beauty products selected for their sustainability.

Shop the collection @ Urbankissed.

Immaculate Vegan

Immaculate Vegan is a lifestyle platform and curated shop for conscious consumers seeking a more ethical and planet-friendly way of living. As its name suggests, the company specialises in vegan and cruelty-free products that are certified as such.

Shop the collection @ Immaculate Vegan.

wearwell

Wearwell was founded by two friends with a mission to revolutionise the fashion industry to work better for people and the planet. The marketplace makes it easy to find more ethical and sustainable clothes, shoes, accessories, and homewares, and support some of the brands making a positive impact on garment workers and the environment.

Shop the collection @ wearwell.

Earthkind

Earthkind is a multi-brand platform offering a one-stop destination for more sustainably made clothes and accessories. “We exist to introduce, support, and celebrate ethical labels, creators, and designers who share the same vision and are paving the way for the slow fashion movement,” it says.

Shop the collection @ Earthkind.

Cerqular

Cerqular’s mission is to make responsible shopping easily accessible and more affordable for all—on a single platform. To give everyone peace of mind, the retailer verifies every brand for their values, such as more sustainable, organic, recycled, carbon neutral, vegan, eco-friendly, or circular.

Start the collection @ Cerqular.

Vestiaire Collective

A peer-to-peer platform for buying and selling luxury items, Vestiaire Collective is a great place to discover second-hand fashion. Items are independently authenticated to ensure the described condition matches the actual item you receive.

Shop pre-owned fashion @ Vestiaire Collective.

The post How Ethical Is Temu? Why We Rate the Brand ‘We Avoid’ appeared first on Good On You.

Calvin Klein is an iconic American brand. Sadly, it still isn’t doing enough for people, the planet, and animals, and has received an overall score of “Not Good Enough”, falling from our middling “It’s a Start” to our second-lowest rating. Keep reading to learn more about the details of Calvin Klein’s rating.

This article is based on the Calvin Klein rating published in February 2024 and may not reflect claims the brand has made since then. Our ratings analysts are constantly rerating the thousands of brands you can check on our directory.

Calvin Klein’s ethics aren’t as crisp and clean as its boxer briefs

Calvin Klein was founded by its namesake in 1968 with a line of refined womenswear, later branching out into jeans, menswear, fragrances, jewellery and more. Before it made its iconic underwear, the brand was most loved for its denim and logo-print jersey items, and it is often noted as a leader in the minimalistic design that defined the 1990s. While it has appointed notable fashion designers to its creative helm in recent years, much of Calvin Klein’s success in the last two decades has come as a result of licensing agreements for its various product lines, notably fragrances.

Today, Calvin Klein is owned by PVH (which is also the parent company of Tommy Hilfiger), and is considered an iconic all-American brand, with sales of $9.3bn in 2022. It’s known for its coveted logo-detailed underwear, denim jeans, and highly influential—sometimes controversial—advertising (it recently broke the Internet with its campaign featuring The Bear’s Jeremy Allen White). In fact, its marketing campaigns have regularly caused contention through the years. Elsewhere, the brand’s sustainability credentials don’t look great, as its rating has fallen from “It’s a Start”—an indication of progress, to “Not Good Enough”, in our recent review.

So we had to know: how does Calvin Klein—one of the most recognisable brands in the United States, if not the world—impact people, the planet, and animals? If we care about the planet and all its inhabitants, should we shop Calvin Klein or look for alternatives? Let’s find out once and for all: how ethical is Calvin Klein?

Environmental impact

Calvin Klein is rated “Not Good Enough” for the planet. First the good news: it uses some lower-impact materials in its line, including organic cotton. It has set a science-based target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from both its direct operations and supply chain.

And the not-so-good news? While a climate target is great, there is sadly no evidence the brand is on track to meet said target, nor does it appear to minimise any textile waste when manufacturing its products or to take actions to protect biodiversity in its supply chain.

Labour conditions

Calvin Klein isn’t making enough progress on improving labour conditions, and its score here has dropped from “It’s a Start” to “Not Good Enough”.

Some of its supply chain is certified by labour standards that help ensure worker health and safety, living wages, and other rights, and it received a score of 41–50% in the Fashion Transparency Index (a lower score compared to previous years), and the brand’s parent company PVH has signed the International Accord, which works to ensure workplace safety in the garment industry.

While the brand claims to have a program to improve wages, there’s no evidence it ensures its workers are paid living wages in most of its supply chain or that it supports diversity and inclusion in its supply chain.

Calvin Klein has also been linked to sourcing cotton from the Xinjiang region in China, which is at risk of using Uyghur forced labour, and while it claims to have taken insufficient steps to remediate, as recently as December 2023 there were reports that the brand may have inadvertently sourced from the region through subsidiary companies. You can do better for people, CK.

Animal welfare

Calvin Klein is simply “Not Good Enough” for the animals. While it does have a formal animal welfare policy aligned with Five Domains and traces some animal products to the first stage of production, it still uses leather, wool (some of it certified by the Responsible Wool Standard), down (some of it also certified by the Responsible Down Standard), shearling, silk, and exotic animal hair.

The brand doesn’t appear to use fur, angora, or exotic animal skin in its designs.

There are so many cruelty-free alternatives out there, so improving the score here is as easy as opting out of animal-derived fabrics.

Overall rating: ‘Not Good Enough’

Overall, we’ve rated Calvin Klein as “Not Good Enough” based on our own research. It falls from our middling “It’s a Start” rating in this most recent review. The brand had been making a start for people and the planet when we had previously rated it, but it still needs to address its waste and emissions issues and, at the very least, ensure payment of a living wage across its supply chain. It should also work to remove animal-derived fabrics from its products and opt for more lower-impact, cruelty-free alternatives.

Rick Relinger, PVH’s chief sustainability officer, said in its most recent corporate sustainability report (2022): “Ultimately, actions speak louder than words, so we remain committed to transparency and continue to enhance our capability to report increasingly more data on our impacts.” But this doesn’t align with the drop in Calvin Klein’s Good On You rating from its most recent review, nor does it match up with the brand’s decreased transparency, or the lack of evidence about whether it’s on track to meet its environmental targets. In 1980, Brooke Shields controversially asked “You wanna know what comes between me and my Calvins? Nothing.” But in 2024, the answer ought to be: “Ethics”.

Note that Good On You ratings consider hundreds of issues, and it is not possible to list every relevant issue in a summary of the brand’s performance. For more information, see our How We Rate page and our FAQs.

See the rating.

Good swaps

“Good” and “Great” alternatives to Calvin Klein

The post How Ethical Is Calvin Klein? appeared first on Good On You.

Adidas is the second largest activewear brand in the world after competitor Nike. But how ethical is Adidas when it comes to sustainability, labour rights, and animal welfare? This article is based on Adidas’ “Not Good Enough” rating published in November 2023. It may not reflect claims the brand has made since then. Our ratings analysts are constantly rerating the thousands of brands you can check on our directory.

How does Adidas rate on Good On You in 2024?

The fashion industry is always changing, and our ratings are evolving with it. We regularly update our methodology to stay on top of emerging issues, ensuring our ratings are relevant, useful, and timely, so that you can always make the best choices for yourself.

Adidas has also evolved over the years. From humble beginnings in 1949 in Bavaria, Germany, the sportswear giant (founded by Adolf Dassler, the brother of Puma founder Rudolf Dassler) has grown into the second-largest activewear brand in the world after Nike. It is known and loved for its iconic Stan Smith sneakers, logo sweatshirts, tees, and sportswear, worn by athletes all over the world.

How does Adidas rate on Good On You in 2024? How ethical is Adidas?

Environmental impact

One change in our methodology has been to allocate extra points for the setting of science-based carbon emission reduction targets, and while Adidas has set a target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions generated from its own operations and supply chain, it’s not on track to meet this target.

Science-based targets currently represent the highest standard when setting a greenhouse gas emissions target. To set them, Adidas and other brands will have allocated a large amount of resources, data collection, and time to provide the relevant information to demonstrate said target is aligned with a 1.5 or 2 degree global temperature reduction pathway. However, it is also important for brands to demonstrate how they intend to meet the targets and their current tangible progress.

Speaking of targets, Adidas has set a target to eliminate hazardous chemicals by 2025 and claims it’s on track. Adidas also scored a B for its Carbon Disclosure Project climate and water questionnaires. Brands that we have rated “Good” this year for the environment tend to be scoring A or A-, so there’s a clear discrepancy here, and Adidas needs to put in the work to raise its score.

While the brand does take some (limited) steps to prevent deforestation by avoiding raw materials listed on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, it falls short of publishing its own policies, particularly on materials linked to deforestation, such as leather. We also found no evidence Adidas has policies to protect biodiversity in its supply chain—another key issue in our methodology.

We found no evidence Adidas has policies to protect biodiversity in its supply chain—a key issue in our methodology.

Adidas was also penalised for misleading consumers over environmental claims in 2021. ​​According to the French Jury de Déontologie Publicitaire (JDP), Adidas’ “Stan Smith Forever. 100% iconic, 50% recycled” campaign broke advertising rules and misled consumers. The brand didn’t inform consumers of the total proportion of the shoe that is recycled and was misleading in its use of the “End plastic waste” logo. The JDP also noted that the claim of “50% recycled” gives shoppers the impression that 50% of the total material used in the trainer is made of recycled materials, which isn’t true. The message is ultimately confusing to consumers and makes it hard to determine what’s legit and what’s not. A clear case of greenwashing.

As a result, Adidas’ environmental rating has stayed “It’s a Start”. The brand’s use of some lower-impact materials—including recycled materials—and its research with industry bodies on the impact of microplastics are not enough to compensate for the lost points discussed above.

Labour conditions

Adidas’s labour rating has unfortunately dropped from “It’s a Start” to “Not Good Enough” in its most recent rerate, indicating it’s falling behind on critical industry issues. People are the backbone of the fashion industry, and brands need to take tangible actions to protect workers. Our methodology rewards brands that provide fair and safe working conditions over the brands that simply audit suppliers.

Adidas received a score of 51-60% in the Fashion Transparency Index, which is okay, but lower than its previous score of 61-70%. Adidas’ social auditing program has been accredited by the FLA Workplace Code of Conduct including all of the final stage of production. The brand also disclosed policies to protect workers in its supply chain from the impacts of COVID-19 during the height of the pandemic.

Worryingly, the area where Adidas has still a long way to go is ensuring workers in its supply chain are paid a living wage. The Foul Play report by the Clean Clothes Campaign and Collectif Ethique sur l’Etiquette highlight the difference between the ever-increasing amount of money paid for sponsorships to sports stars and other marketing expenses, compared to the reduction of the share of the final price of your sports gear paid to workers in the supply chain. Adidas does have a project to improve wages in a part of its supply chain, and has made a public commitment to improve wages in its supply chain, however, we found no evidence the brand ensures payment of a living wage in most of its supply chain.

Adidas still has a long way to go in ensuring workers throughout its supply chain are paid a living wage.

Since 2020, we’ve been noting allegations of brands’ involvement in the human rights abuses taking place against Uighur people in China’s Xinjiang Province. We take them into account in our ratings and have penalised brands named in reports by various human rights and news organisations. While Adidas has made moves away from production in the region, and pledged to boycott cotton from Xinjiang, there’s a lot more to the issue. We know this is an important question for many of you and we’ll keep an eye on Adidas and other brands as the situation evolves. The brand was also linked to human rights violations in Cambodia in 2020, though in November 2023, the brand’s supplier in the country agreed to reinstate and backpay workers who had previously been sacked for forming a union and campaigning for better working conditions.

Animal welfare

Adidas’ animal rating remains “Not Good Enough”. It now has a formal animal welfare policy (an improvement from its last rating) aligned with Five Freedoms, but has no clear mechanisms to implement it. It does not use fur, exotic animal hair, or angora, but it is still using down. Adidas also still uses exotic animal skin and leather, including kangaroo leather—an emerging animal welfare issue, which has led the brand to be condemned by some activists in the US as a new bill was introduced in 2021 to outlaw the sale of kangaroo body parts in the country (which ultimately did not make it through congress to be enacted).

Adidas states that it has a policy to source wool from non-mulesed sheep but does not provide evidence to verify its claims. Although the brand traces some animal-derived materials to the first production stage, that doesn’t compensate for its ongoing use of controversial materials in its products.

Overall rating: ‘Not Good Enough’

So, how ethical is Adidas in 2024? Adidas’ overall rating is “Not Good Enough”.

While Adidas has shown that it is making progress in terms of sustainability and labour rights, at the end of the day the brand is still very much a part of the fast fashion industry. Producing huge quantities of garments (most of which are not made from preferred materials) has disastrous effects not only on the environment, but also on workers who often have to work long hours for very little pay in order to reach production targets.

Adidas still has a way to go before it can be considered a responsible brand. It could start by ensuring its suppliers are paying living wages to workers. With €22.5 billion net sales in 2022, this should not be a problem.

It’s worth noting that of the thousands of brands that Good On You has rated, only a handful of large brands have achieved an overall rating of “Good”. For those who have previously purchased Adidas based on our ratings, note that it still remains one of the higher-scoring large brands and is in the top 10%—particularly on environmental issues—though we acknowledge it still has a long way to go.

So this score doesn’t mean you should get rid of your Adidas clothes and kicks. On the contrary, cherish what you already own: as we know, keeping our clothes for longer is one of the most sustainable things we can do.

Note that Good On You ratings consider hundreds of issues and it is not possible to list every relevant issue in a summary of the brand’s performance. For more information see our How We Rate page and our FAQs.

See the rating.

If you want to shop more in line with your values, Good On You recommends you support brands that embrace a slow fashion model. We’ve rounded up a few of our favourite similar brands to Adidas.

Good swaps

Here’s our list of “Good” and “Great” alternatives to Adidas.

The post How Ethical Is Adidas? appeared first on Good On You.

Fashion e-commerce leader REVOLVE claims it’s creating “meaningful change in the way [it does] things today to ensure a better tomorrow”. But how ethical is REVOLVE, really? Sadly, the brand is doing very little for people, the planet, and animals. REVOLVE’s lack of transparency and tangible initiatives is worrying. Read the article to learn more about REVOLVE’s “We Avoid” rating. This article is based on the REVOLVE rating published in February 2024.

REVOLVE, e-commerce and sustainability leader?

Founded more than 20 years ago, REVOLVE has grown rapidly to become a fashion e-commerce leader, going public in 2019 and now boasting almost 6 million followers on Instagram.

But growth isn’t a smooth process and the brand has known ups and downs. In 2018, REVOLVE had to remove a fat-phobic sweatshirt from its platform. And in 2022, it received backlash on social media after its Coachella-like, influencer-only festival failed. Despite this, the brand continues to host the annual festival, which is saturated with influencer brands and celebrity endorsements that drive overconsumption.

When it comes to sustainability, REVOLVE says: “We understand the importance of using our platform to create meaningful change in the way we do things today to ensure a better tomorrow,” and that “we are committed to [doing] our part to help protect the resources that we all share and depend on for our future.” But is that really the case? How is REVOLVE really impacting people, the planet, and animals?

Environmental impact

In 2021 we rated REVOLVE “Very Poor” for its impact on the environment and unfortunately, three years on in our most recent review, this rating still hasn’t changed. REVOLVE uses few lower-impact materials, and we found no evidence that the brand reduces its carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions in its supply chain, nor that it has taken meaningful action to reduce or eliminate hazardous chemicals, or to protect biodiversity.

“We believe investing in carbon offsetting projects may present an economically effective means for us to reduce our environmental impact. As a result, we are exploring a variety of carbon-offset opportunities to help offset the impact of our customer deliveries and returns,” says the brand. But unfortunately, carbon offsets are flawed and are distracting brands like REVOLVE from the harder work of decarbonisation. Newly revealed data from Good On You’s ratings of the largest fashion brands paints a concerning picture: overall, brands purchasing offsets aren’t making much progress on actual emissions reduction activities, which is a pattern REVOLVE seems to be following, too.

Labour conditions

REVOLVE also rates “Very Poor” for people—a score that’s remained the same over the years. None of the brand’s supply chain is certified by crucial labour standards that help ensure worker health and safety, living wages, and other rights.

More importantly, we found no evidence REVOLVE ensures payment of a living wage in its supply chain. A living wage is the bare minimum wage required for workers to live a decent life. It’s different from the legal minimum wage, which is usually far below the living wage. Garment workers need to be protected and treated fairly.

Given all this, REVOLVE’s claim that “we have committed to stand up and make a substantial and long-lasting impact to fight inequality,” doesn’t ring true.

Animal welfare

Finally, REVOLVE’s animal rating is “Not Good Enough”. Despite not using fur, down, angora, or exotic animal skin, the brand still uses leather, wool, exotic animal hair, and decorative feathers. We found also no evidence the brand has an animal welfare policy or that it traces any animal product to the first stage of production.

Overall rating: ‘We Avoid’

REVOLVE isn’t creating positive change through its operations as it claims, and the brand’s sustainability statement smells of greenwashing—particularly as the statement is illustrated using pretty pictures of models posing in fields and on lakes to represent sustainability, rather than, say, the inside of the factories that its garments are made in, or the places where its cotton is grown.

REVOLVE is clearly not doing enough to reduce its impact on the planet and its inhabitants. It needs to start with being more transparent about its practices, increasing its use of lower-impact materials, ditching the harmful animal-based ones, actively reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and ensuring its workers are paid a living wage and treated fairly.

Note that Good On You ratings consider hundreds of issues, and it is not possible to list every relevant issue in a summary of the brand’s performance. For more information, see our How We Rate page and our FAQs.

See the rating.

Good swaps

Our favourite “Good” and “Great” alternatives to REVOLVE

The post How Ethical Is REVOLVE? appeared first on Good On You.

Did you hear the good news? Good On You recently reached a milestone of 6,000 brands rated. It almost goes without saying that we’re as committed as ever to championing more sustainable brands from around the world, and we’re pleased to bring you six of the newest rated ones from the last month.

Six of the best newly rated brands from March

Brand ratings are the backbone of our mission at Good On You: to make shopping your values simpler. Since 2015, we’ve been uncovering brands doing harm and highlighting those doing good for people, the planet, and animals. You can download our app or check out the directory to discover the best brands for you.

This month, we’ve got six newly rated brands that all received our “Good” rating. There’s some beautiful knitwear, underwear, pyjamas and loungewear in the list, and some brilliant examples of low waste garment design from Jaipur and Japan. Read on to discover them all.

The post 6 Newly Rated Brands to Discover in March appeared first on Good On You.

Fashion’s water impacts: the industry is thirsty

The fashion industry is a massive consumer and polluter of our fresh water. As is the case for a lot of fashion sustainability data, getting accurate and updated information for the industry’s water consumption is challenging, but according to the Ellen MacArthur Foundation’s 2017 report, A New Textiles Economy: Redesigning Fashion’s Future, the industry is said to use around 93 billion cubic metres of water per year—enough to meet the needs of 5 million people. Worryingly, this amount is expected to double by 2030.

Water is used throughout the garment production process, starting with growing the plants and raising the animals needed to make fabrics. For instance, the cotton needed to produce a single garment can require thousands of litres, as well as large quantities of pesticides and insecticides, which then wash into waterways and enter the ecosystems.

The fashion industry is said to use around 93 billion cubic metres of water per year—enough to meet the needs of 5 million people.

The manufacturing stage also contributes to fashion’s water footprint. Fabric dyeing and treatment are responsible for wastewater—which is often untreated—being pumped back into our water systems and contaminating them with toxins and heavy metals. And the groundbreaking documentary RIVERBLUE highlighted that each year, textile companies not only consume water but also discharge millions of gallons of chemicals into our waterways, causing both environmental damage and diseases. Denim, in particular, is very water intensive: it’s heavily dependent on cotton fibres, and it requires water-intensive dyeing and finishing processes, although the industry is working to pioneer a new dyeing method that reduce the amount of water required.

Sadly, garments keep polluting waters long after they’ve left the shelves. Polyester (polyethylene terephthalate, abbreviated to PET) is one of the world’s most common materials, and is made from the same polymer used to manufacture plastic bottles. So, when we wash our polyester clothes, thousands of plastic microfibres are passed into the waterways. These microfibres make their way to our oceans, where they threaten ecosystems and eventually end up in our food chain, too.

Water management isn’t just about the quantity of water used—there’s a real risk in geographical location, too. Thirsty crops are often located in water-stressed basins where the resource is in short supply, polluted, or required for vulnerable local communities. Being water-efficient is not enough—brands need to make sure their products aren’t made in water-stressed areas, either.

How Good On You rates brands for water

Good On You analyses brands on three key areas of concern to consumers: the environment, labour, and animals. Water is one of the elements we consider when looking at how a brand impacts the environment.

And as we mentioned, it is important not just to consider how much water is used in the supply, but also where the water is being used. Kristian Hardiman, Good On You’s head of ratings, explains: “Unlike climate change, where one tonne of CO2 has a similar impact wherever it is released in the world, the value of one megalitre varies.” Water impact is a complex issue that needs to be considered at the local level.

The Good On You approach for rating large brands’ water impact is to first map their traced suppliers to determine whether they are operating in water-stressed basins. Based on this, we’ll look at whether the brand engages with local stakeholders in that basin to assure strong water management and set targets and goals. Often, the actions with suppliers involve implementing water reduction initiatives and wastewater treatment and discharge.

Unlike climate change, where one tonne of CO2 has a similar impact wherever it is released in the world, the value of one megalitre varies.

Kristian Hardiman – Good On You’s Head of Ratings

Because smaller brands have less influence, we focus less on stakeholder engagement and more on whether the brands have water reduction and wastewater treatment initiatives. Often, smaller brands meet this by sourcing certified materials, which ensure lower consumption of water.

Certifications like Cradle to Cradle Platinum and Gold, Bluesign, GOTS, STeP by Oeko-Tex, and the Global Recycled Standard (GRS) often provide evidence that a brand is working towards reducing its water footprint. If a brand discloses information to the Carbon Disclosure Project’s (CDP) Water questionnaire, we will incorporate that score into the rating.

The sad truth: most brands do very little for water

Over the years, we’ve analysed thousands of brands, and sadly, very few of them have implemented water reduction and wastewater management initiatives. This is partly because many brands are still unaware of how to manage water properly.

Digging into the data of brands we’ve rated, we found that a staggering 77% of large brands get zero points in our methodology for their water management and reduction initiatives—meaning they either share no information at all about water practices or have received a score of F by CDP Water. 84% of these large brands do not set any water targets or goals, meaning they don’t have any specific plans to reduce their water usage or improve their water management practices. And 94% of large brands do not track their water impact at a local level, which, as highlighted above, is crucial. Finally, 87% of these large brands do not measure their wastewater—another critical aspect of proper water management. The reality is clear: most large brands do very little for water, which is deeply problematic given the scarcity of this precious resource.

Another issue we’ve faced is brands’ lack of transparency regarding their environmental policies in general, which means we don’t know exactly how these brands impact our waterways. CIDER, SHEIN, Temu, and SKIMS are examples of such brands.

66% of the large brands we've rated share no information at all about their water initiatives.

Here, we’ve analysed all the brands in our database to find the worst water use offenders—the ones that don’t disclose any information about, receive a poor score from CDP Water, do not track and measure their water impact and use, don’t set water targets or goals, and don’t measure the wastewater they produce.

These brands are amongst the worst water use offenders

The post Fashion’s Water Impacts: The Largest Brands Are Doing the Least appeared first on Good On You.

Romwe is a SHEIN-owned, ultra fast-fashion retailer that thrives on overconsumption, a lack of transparency and social media influence for its global success. But how successful is it in protecting people, the planet, and animals involved in its manufacturing? How ethical is Romwe?

This article is based on the Romwe rating published in February 2024 and may not reflect claims the brand has made since then. Our ratings analysts are constantly rerating the thousands of brands you can check on our directory.

We need to talk about Romwe

Launched in 2010, Romwe describes itself as the “one-stop shop for all things cool” and “your social-inspired style obsession”. The brand relies on overconsumption by its customers, dubbing its range of clothes, accessories, and gadgets “endless” and encouraging shoppers to “discover new things [they] didn’t know [they] needed”.

Romwe is a prime example of ultra fast fashion—a new business model for fashion retailers that allows them to churn out clothes even more speedily than the already unsustainable fast fashion business, and in who-knows-what working conditions for those making the garments. This purveyor of cheap clothing was acquired by fast fashion giant SHEIN (rated “We Avoid”) in 2014.

In recent years, Romwe has been called out for producing poorly made garments, using deceptive advertising, taking weeks to ship clothes, manipulating reviews, failing to safeguard its customers’ data (and then lying about it), and even shipping clothes with fleas. Yikes.

As you can likely tell, this is a brand to be wary of. But how is Romwe really impacting the planet, people, and animals? How sustainable is Romwe?

The truth is, there isn’t much to say about the brand because it discloses so little about its practices, and that’s a major red flag. It claims to be committed to making positive actions in the fashion industry, but how can we know—or hold Romwe accountable—if it won’t detail what those actions are? More on this abysmal transparency later.

Read on to find out what our analysts did discover when they rated Romwe.

Environmental impact

Romwe rates “Very Poor” for the planet. Our ratings analysts couldn’t find any evidence that Romwe is taking meaningful action to address textile waste or protect biodiversity in its supply chain, or to reduce its climate impacts. What’s more, the brand uses very few lower-impact materials.

Romwe prides itself on “only [producing] 50-100 pieces per new product to ensure that no raw materials are wasted”, but it still launches new collections at lightning speed and implements high-scale production as soon as it confirms that a product is in demand. Perpetuating this fast-fashion system of quickly changing trends—even if the brand claims to only be manufacturing small batches—is severely damaging the industry and the planet.

Labour conditions

Once again, we found very little publicly available information about Romwe’s practices for the people in its supply chain, so we’ve rated it “Very Poor” in this area, too.

There’s no evidence that its supply chain is certified by important labour standards that help secure workers’ rights, including their health and safety, and living wages. Speaking of which—there’s also no evidence it ensures workers are paid living wages, or that it supports diversity and inclusion throughout its supply chain.

Animal welfare

Romwe rates “Not Good Enough” for our animal pillar, because while it does have a formal policy aligned with the Five Freedoms of animal welfare, there is no evidence of any clear implementation mechanisms in place.

There’s also nothing to show that Romwe traces animal-derived materials to the first production stage—an issue highlighted when, in 2020, Romwe was found to be selling real fur as faux fur in the UK, suggesting it either doesn’t know what’s really going on throughout its supply chain, or it simply doesn’t care.

Good swaps

More sustainable alternatives to Romwe

The post How Ethical Is Romwe? appeared first on Good On You.

Why is denim unsustainable?

Before we get to which brands are doing the best (and worst), it’s important to understand the biggest sustainability challenges facing the denim world today.

As an industry rooted in making durable garments, denim ought to have some good sustainability credentials, right? Unfortunately, factors such as fast fashion and overconsumption have led to denim having an appalling track record for its impact on the environment, the workers in its supply chain, and on animals, too.

Some of the most common sustainability issues within the modern denim industry are water usage—the exact statistics for this vary depending on the source, but back in 2015, Levi’s noted that 3,781 litres of water were used in the production of a single pair of its 501 jeans. There is also the use and mismanagement of chemical dyes for achieving the fabric’s signature indigo colour (or, for natural indigo dye, the resources involved in growing the plant at scale); challenges in recycling blended yarns used to make denim; and a take-make-waste business model that deprioritises the repairs and garment care that would extend the life of many denim items.

Are denim brands actually doing anything about these issues? We’ve reviewed Good On You’s ratings of the largest denim brands today to find out and, well, the answers aren’t pretty.

The largest denim brands are (mostly) the worst

At the time of writing, most of the world’s largest denim producers—which dominate a significant portion of the industry’s supply chains—are still failing people, the planet, and animals. Our ratings are scored across a five-point scale, ranging from “We Avoid” through to “Great”, and unfortunately almost all of these denim brands received our two lowest ratings. Take a look below:

• Wrangler—“Not Good Enough”
• Lee—“Not Good Enough”
• Diesel—“Not Good Enough”
• Calvin Klein—“Not Good Enough”
• Tommy Hilfiger—“Not Good Enough”
• AG Jeans—“Not Good Enough”
• True Religion—“We Avoid”
• A.P.C—“We Avoid”
• Pepe Jeans—“We Avoid”

And when you consider just how many people on the planet wear jeans on a daily basis—and how many of those might’ve been made by the companies listed above—it’s not hard to understand how the industry has ended up in such a sorry state.

The exception to this is Levi’s, which receives our middling “It’s A Start” rating. But is Levi’s sustainable? In our most recent rating review, we found that the brand is taking some positive steps. It has implemented a biodiversity policy, and recycles fabric offcuts, but despite calls, it still hasn’t joined the Pakistan Safety Accord, and it still uses leather and wool in its clothes. This rating signifies a step in the right direction, but there is still work to be done.

Levi’s is perhaps the best known denim company in the world, and to see that is moving forward—albeit slowly—could help to encourage other brands to do the same.

What are the best sustainable denim brands?

The reality is that those with the most power to change the denim industry aren’t pulling their weight, and while that might seem a little bleak, there is hope. Below, we’ve listed some of the denim brands rated “Good” and “Great” against our world-leading methodology, that are doing the work to foster a more sustainable denim industry.

The post Are the Biggest Denim Brands Sustainable? We Rated Them All to Find Out appeared first on Good On You.

Levi’s has been at the forefront of the denim industry for 170 years, and gets our middling score of “It’s a Start” for its sustainability efforts, but there is still work to do. This article is based on the Levi’s rating published in February 2024. 

Cool and comfy, but not quite there

In 2023, Levi’s was the world’s top-selling denim brand, and it has been synonymous with counterculture and effortless style for over 70 years (and a workwear staple long before that). But is this household name doing anything to ensure its jeans are not just on trend but responsibly made, too? How ethical is Levi’s?

With a reported revenue of US$6.2bn in 2022 by parent company Levi Strauss & Co, it’s easy to imagine the vast, global production machine behind these huge profits. Manufacturing on such a large scale is bound to have far-reaching consequences.

In 1991, Levi’s developed Living Our Values—a Code of Conduct to guide responsible production throughout the denim giant’s supply chain. Levi’s claims the original document was landmark in the fashion industry, and has influenced many other apparel companies to adopt similar codes.

So, does it work? Let’s compare principles with practice.

Environmental impact

A product life cycle study commissioned by Levi’s showed that for one of its core products—the 501 Medium Stonewash jeans—37% of their climate impact and 23% of water consumption occurred during the consumer care phase. Levi’s took this as a call to action to shift consumer attitudes away from fast fashion-based consumption and encourage customers to treat its jeans as a long-term investment. But what actions is Levi’s taking to mitigate the environmental impact of its own operations?

Levi’s has made commitments to responsible denim production, including incorporating lower-impact materials like reconstituted cotton, and significantly reducing water use, saying in its 2025 Water Action Strategy report “we commit to reducing the amount of water we use for manufacturing in areas of high water stress by 50 percent by 2025 against a 2018 baseline.” It has also set a science-based target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions generated from its own operations and supply chain and it is on track to meet its target.

In 2012, Greenpeace named and shamed Levi’s for connections to dangerous water pollution in Mexico in their Toxic Threads report. Levi’s then pledged to reduce the hazardous chemicals used to dye and treat its clothing, and aimed for the elimination of hazardous chemicals by 2020, which it achieved with Zero Discharge of Hazardous Chemicals Group (ZDHC) across most of its supply chain. Thanks to all of this effort, we have given Levi’s a “Good” rating for the environment.

Labour conditions

Levi’s rates “It’s a Start” for labour—an improvement from “Not Good Enough” in its most recent rating review. It scored a 60% in Fashion Revolution’s Transparency Index, as it traces most of its supply chain including all of the final stage of production. It also implements gender equality and empowerment initiatives in its supply chain. Most recently, the brand has made its diversity and inclusion policy for its direct operations more comprehensive.

Despite these positive steps, there’s an area of the Levi’s supply chain that requires attention. Almost none of its supply chain is certified by labour standards which ensure worker health and safety, and Levi’s has made little progress towards ensuring the payment of a living wage for its workers across the supply chain. And despite calls for it to join the Pakistan Accord, Levi’s still hasn’t done so. Given its huge profits, we think the brand could be doing far better on this front.

Animal welfare

Levi’s animal welfare is “Not Good Enough”. It does not use fur, angora, or other exotic animal skin or hair. Its current Animal Welfare Policy insists that the supply chains for the sourcing of all animal products must be traceable where practicable to ensure humane practices. Despite this, it does still use leather, down feather, and wool without stating their sources, but states it supports wool from non-mulesed sheep and will work to “consolidate its wool sourcing accordingly, as it becomes commercially viable.”

Overall rating

We rate Levi’s as “It’s a Start” overall based on our own research. Our rating reflects the company’s ambition and ingenuity, particularly the continued headway it’s making with regards to environmentally responsible production methods. Levi’s is committed to producing quality, hard-wearing products. That said, in February 2024, the company’s new CEO expressed intentions to scale up the business and its production of other non-denim items—a worrying sign in an industry already saturated with clothes. We hope to see the brand taking a responsible approach to its production in this area.

And while a timeless pair of Levi’s jeans can be a worthy investment in combination with long-term care and repair, if you want to support a brand that is more ethical and sustainable on all fronts, then we have picked some alternatives for you.

Note that Good On You ratings consider hundreds of issues, and it is not possible to list every relevant issue in a summary of the brand’s performance. For more information, see our How We Rate page and our FAQs.

See the rating.

Shop Levi’s Pre-Owned @ Vestiaire Collective.

The post How Ethical Is Levi’s? appeared first on Good On You.

What’s beneath the surface of the H&M Group-owned brand? Is COS treating people, the planet, and animals as well as it first appears? This article is based on the COS rating published in December 2023 and may not reflect claims the brand has made since then. Our ratings analysts are constantly rerating the thousands of brands you can check on our directory.

Is COS doing the right thing?

You’d be forgiven for thinking you had stumbled upon a small eco-conscious label on COS’ website, thanks to the timeless vibe of its clothes and prominent sustainability section. But this is a global brand with more than 250 stores that’s owned by the H&M Group—a behemoth that helped to shape the destructive fast fashion industry as it is today. So does that make COS unethical, too?

The Swedish retailer’s longstanding contemporary and minimalistic style has been compared with luxury label The Row and has garnered a committed following amongst fashion world figures, not to mention a legion of shoppers on the quest for items that are a step up from the low bars of brands like SHEIN. And while it does have a resale scheme, and the aforementioned classic design—which should in theory encourage customers to buy less—our ratings analysts found little evidence that it’s doing enough for people, the planet and animals to truly be sustainable. Plus, its business model of mass production and frequently changing collections leans towards a fast fashion ethos. So while COS might score slightly better in our ratings than sister brand H&M, it still has a long way to go in making improvements across the board. Read on to discover how it can do better.

Environmental Impact

In the midst of a climate crisis, paying attention to environmental impact is crucial for brands that want to stay relevant. COS recognises this and has been increasingly used lower-impact materials in recent years. It breaks down its progress on its Sustainability page, with a goal to “use only 100% sustainably sourced or recycled materials by 2025.”

This is all well and good, but the trouble is setting—and, ideally, meeting—concrete goals for the planet. For example, it has set a science-based target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions generated from its operations and supply chain, but there is no evidence it is on track to meet its target. And the biggest roadblock? With fast fashion traits such as on-trend styles and regular new arrivals, COS is still perpetuating mass consumption. All things considered, though, COS scores “It’s A Start” for the environment.

Labour Conditions

Transparency is a crucial first step to a more ethical and sustainable fashion industry for all. COS scored 71-80% in the Fashion Transparency Index and publishes detailed information about various levels of its supply chain. But almost none of its supply chain is certified by labour standards, ensuring worker health and safety, living wages, or other labour rights. It says it has a project to improve wages, but so far, evidence of any progress is lacking. And as a subsidiary of global behemoth the H&M Group, COS has significant power to influence its suppliers and engage them to do better, yet the brand still scores “Not Good Enough” when it comes to workers.

Animal Welfare

COS is making some efforts to improve animal welfare. It has a formal animal welfare policy aligned with Five Freedoms, uses down accredited by the Responsible Down Standard and some recycled down, and states that it sources wool from non-mulesed sheep. It doesn’t use fur, angora, or exotic animal skin, and it traces some animal products, but only to the first stage of production. Leather and exotic animal hair are also still present in some of its designs. But this is still “Not Good Enough” for animals.

Overall Rating: It’s A Start

So, how ethical is COS? Overall, we’ve rated COS as “It’s A Start” based on our own research—you can read more in our post about what our ‘It’s A Start’ rating really means. While there is some progress being made for people, the planet, and animals, COS still has a way to go before it can achieve a higher rating. It should focus on setting and achieving concrete goals to reduce its climate impact, ensuring payment of a living wage across its supply chain, and ensuring all animal products are recycled or replaced with more ethical alternatives.

See the rating.

Note that Good On You ratings consider hundreds of issues, and it is not possible to list every relevant issue in a summary of the brand’s performance. For more information, see our How We Rate page and our FAQs.

If COS’ rating doesn’t cut it for you, but you love the clothes, why not buy COS second hand? Otherwise, we’ve found some “Good” and “Great” alternatives to meet your needs.

Good Swaps

More sustainable alternatives to COS

The post How Ethical Is COS? appeared first on Good On You.

Our ratings team has scored 168 brands in the latest batch of brand ratings and uncovered some new, more sustainable brands worth checking out, as well as a selection of those to avoid.

Why do we rate brands?

Brand ratings are the backbone of our mission at Good On You: to help you discover the very best sustainable fashion brands from around the world. Since 2015, we have been reading between the seams for you, uncovering brands doing harm, calling out greenwashing, and highlighting the sustainable brands doing good for people, the planet, and animals. Download our app or check out the directory to easily shop your values.

This month, we’re sharing four brands doing “Good” (including a more sustainable jewellery brand from Canada, a German brand creating minimalist backpacks and accessories, and bamboo basics from the UK), and five with our lowest score of “We Avoid” that conscious shoppers should steer clear of.

4 newly rated ‘Good’ brands

The post The 9 Best and Worst Newly Rated Brands of February appeared first on Good On You.

‘It’s a Start’—the middle ground

Good On You’s mission is to help change the fashion industry for the better. We’ve done the research and spoken to the experts to come up with robust but easy to use ratings for how each label impacts people, the planet, and animals.

We score brands on hundreds of issues and then give an overall rating from “We Avoid” and “Not Good Enough”, through “It’s a Start”, to “Good” and “Great”, which you can find in our directory or the app.

Brands rated “Good” and “Great” are doing enough for us to celebrate their progress. But if your options are limited amongst this selection? Maybe you can’t see your size, or perhaps you have specific needs, such as technical running shoes, a work uniform or maternity wear.

This is when you might find yourself looking at a brand rated “It’s a Start”. And it certainly makes sense to buy from “the best of the rest”—decisions in the real world are often about trade-offs, and buying sustainably is no exception. We want to help you make a better choice, even if it’s not a perfect one.

What determines the ‘It’s a Start’ rating?

Simply put: “It’s a Start” gives us a way to distinguish the brands that are doing some good, from those doing no good.

Our team of world-leading sustainability analysts continually reviews and refines Good On You’s ratings methodology to ensure that it aligns with the fashion industry’s evolution, its emerging issues, and the developments in legislation around sustainability, too.

Back in 2020, we increased our focus on modern slavery, supply chain transparency, gender equality, climate change, deforestation, microplastics, and animal welfare in fashion—more on that here.

More recently, our ratings methodology has evolved to ensure the impacts of destructive fast fashion business models are given the appropriate weight, and to reduce credit given to those brands that implement loose or “easy” sustainability initiatives (such as take-back schemes) that aren’t sufficient to offset their harmful fast fashion practices.

It’s fantastic to see how many brands have made progress since we began rating fashion in 2015, but we want the industry to keep on getting better—which means a brand should truly deserve a “Good” or “Great” rating. We’ve raised the bar to recognise developments in best practice, and brands that haven’t improved their sustainability efforts over time will likely have a lower score and may have moved down a level.

Why do some small brands rate the same as big brands?

Comparing a tiny fashion brand to a behemoth like Gucci is a bit like comparing an orange to the Eiffel Tower. Their impact is different, as is their capacity to influence production systems.

That’s why there are two iterations of our ratings methodology—one for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), and one for large brands (defined by the European Commission), which covers more data points (close to 1000, in fact). “It’s important that we differentiate between SMEs and large brands when we carry out ratings,” explains fashion ratings manager Kate Hobson-Lloyd. “Large brands have more resources available to them, particularly financially, and typically have much more influence over their suppliers compared with SMEs due to their order volumes.”

“While our methodologies for SMEs and large brands cover the same key themes, we expect large brands to be doing more to engage with their suppliers and minimise their environmental and social impacts. This is particularly important in supporting suppliers with key issues such as using renewable energy, water use, providing training and benefits to supply chain workers, and paying living wages,” Hobson-Lloyd says. Good On You’s recent data shows that only 8% of large brands score more highly than “It’s a Start”.

Why do some fast fashion brands rate ‘It’s a Start’?

We rate brands by looking at everything that’s on the public record because as consumers, we have the right to know how fashion brands impact the issues we care about. In some cases that’s nothing at all, and we mark them right down accordingly.

In other cases, a large brand might have adopted a living wage definition in line with best practice, but not necessarily be paying a living wage to a significant proportion of its supply chain workers—this is an example of when our ratings analysts would score the brand “It’s a Start” for labour practices.

A minority of fast fashion brands have set climate change targets, responded to labour union calls for action, and introduced more sustainable fabrics—these are steps in the right direction (although varying in significance), and so we take notice of them in their rating.

Make no mistake, the fast fashion business model is not sustainable, and brands with fast fashion characteristics are specifically marked down in our rating system. Many people will never be comfortable buying fast fashion for this reason, but for others, it’s important to know which of those brands are making positive changes and which are not.

Navigating brands rated “It’s a Start”

Aligning with your own values

Our ratings cover three areas: people, planet, and animals, to give you a fuller picture of how a brand is impacting the issues that are important to you. Brands rated “It’s a Start” might be doing all the right things in just one area, and it is up to you to decide how that aligns with your values.

For people passionate about mitigating climate change, finding a brand with science-based environmental targets might be their number one priority, and they may opt for an “It’s a Start” brand that has nailed this area, but pays less attention to labour issues, for example.

Finding clothes that meet your needs

Choosing what’s right for your style and values is one of the biggest hurdles facing shoppers. Accessibility comes in many shapes and forms, but a few of the most common aspects in fashion are price, sizing, and specific needs.

There’s a lively discussion about whether ethical clothing is really expensive, and there are ethical fashion tips to look great and save money worth considering, but upfront price remains a real issue—especially for those of us living paycheck to paycheck. That’s one reason you may need to explore affordable options nestled amongst the “It’s a Start” brands.

Sizing is also an ongoing challenge. While we are starting to see a shift towards more inclusive sizing in sustainable fashion, it is still limited. Considering brands rated “It’s a Start” means you have more options to choose from when searching for the perfect fit.

And if you’re looking for something that isn’t universally available, such as maternity clothing or sports gear, then there simply might not be an option that works among “Good” and “Great” brands.

Tips for finding brands

At this point, you might be thinking, “How do I actually find the brands that best meet my needs?” Here are four things you can do:

1. Try our “similar brands” recommendations
   Scroll to the end of a brand listing in our directory or on the app, and you’ll see a list of highly rated brands that stock products in a similar style, category, and even price point.
2. Use our “category search” function
   Use the drop-down menu in the top-right of our directory, or tap “Browse by category” on the app home screen, to find brands listed in ratings order that could stock the products you need, from Activewear to Suits to Maternity.
3. Subscribe to our weekly newsletter
   We share our latest articles, good offers from our favourite brands, news, and much more. It’s a great way to stay on top of what’s happening in sustainable fashion, and showcases brands that cater to your needs and deserve your support.

“Any brand—large or small—that achieves an overall score of ‘It’s a Start’ is certainly on the right track, but has plenty of room for improvement,” says Hobson-Lloyd. “This might sound harsh, but it’s important to remember that the fashion industry as a whole is very much ‘Not Good Enough’.”

Remember: the power to make positive change is in your hands. If we all show our support for those “Good” and “Great” brands whenever we can—and turn to “It’s a Start” options when we can’t—the quicker the industry will shift until treating the planet and all of its inhabitants with respect is the norm.

The post Navigating Ethical Fashion: Our ‘It’s A Start’ Rating Explained appeared first on Good On You.

Global fast fashion chain H&M has made some progress on the sustainability front in recent years, but is it doing enough? This article is based on the H&M rating published in November 2023 and may not reflect claims the brand has made since then. Our ratings analysts are constantly rerating the thousands of brands you can check on our directory.

H&M isn’t doing enough across the board

Swedish shopping centre staple H&M is one of the world’s largest and most recognisable fast fashion brands, operating in 74 countries. H&M has long been the target of widespread concern about the impact of fast fashion on the environment and the workers who make our clothes.

The brand claims to be moving towards more sustainable practices, but our analysts’ latest rating review found it’s not doing enough to address its fast fashion business model.

So, just how sustainable and ethical is H&M? Spoiler alert: “Not Good Enough.” Based on our latest rating review, the brand has fallen even further from our middling “It’s a Start” to our second-lowest rating.

While we are constantly rerating brands and it’s expected for their ratings to rise and fall, this drop for H&M is significant for a few reasons: despite all the brand’s claims about its focus on circular innovation, there’s no getting around the fact that H&M hasn’t taken meaningful steps to address its wasteful and exploitative fast fashion business model.

One of the biggest issues right now in fashion is the runaway growth of large fast fashion brands making clothes that are then often wasted. Another factor is the targeted updates we’ve made to our ratings methodology, which is based solely on publicly available information. While we’ve always rated fast fashion brands poorly, due to the facts and the persistent greenwashing, Good On You is now more stringent than ever for fast fashion brands to account for the impacts of their destructive business models.

The methodology also ensures that brands don’t get much credit when they adopt minor sustainability initiatives—such as buy-back schemes—that bring little positive change. It also considers the resources available to large brands (as defined by the European Commission), which have the greatest resources and finances to influence vast changes to the industry.

“We only use publicly available data in brand ratings because it promotes greater transparency and accountability,” says Kristian Hardiman, head of ratings at Good on You. “As one of the largest and most profitable brands, H&M has a responsibility to take action. But as with many fast fashion brands, its take-make-waste business model is still not aligned with the kind of transformation needed to make the fashion industry fairer for people and the planet.”

One step forward

H&M has set a science-based target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions generated from its own operations and supply chain by 2030, but there is no evidence it is on track to meet its target. The retailer uses some lower-impact materials, and it has also published a biodiversity protection policy that applies to some of its supply chain.

While these pledges indicate some promising improvements if they are delivered upon, 2030 is still some time away. On top of that, the fast fashion business model that H&M operates under is inherently unsustainable, so until that changes, the brand’s impact on the planet will always be questionable.

One step back

While the company has made small progress for the environment, things aren’t looking so good on the labour rights front. Following the Rana Plaza disaster in 2013, H&M joined the Bangladesh Fire Safety Accord, successfully working with other brands and labour unions to address health and safety issues in 100s of factories. But they also promised to pay 850,000 workers a living wage by 2018, a promise they spectacularly failed to meet.

Also in 2018, factories that supply H&M were named in reports by Global Labour Justice detailing abuse of female garment workers, and more recently in 2023, workers’ rights abuses from the brand’s suppliers in Myanmar came to light. Clearly, there is still a long way to go.

So how does H&M rate on each of the three key areas of environmental impact, labour conditions, and animal welfare?

Environmental impact

H&M has taken some steps to reduce its environmental impact and has set some positive targets in its Sustainability Report. It uses renewable energy for part of its supply chain and has a policy to prevent deforestation of ancient and endangered forests. And while it has set a science-based target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions generated from its own operations and supply chain, there is no evidence it is on track to meet its target.

The brand was among the first to stock a “Conscious” sustainable fashion collection in its stores, and it offers a recycling program where you can return clothes from any brand in-store, but this is not at all sufficient to offset the unsustainable business model it’s operating.

H&M incorporates some lower-impact materials like organic cotton and recycled polyester in some products, but the majority of the materials it uses are not eco-friendly. For these reasons, we give H&M a score of “Not Good Enough” for the environment—downgraded from “It’s a Start” in our November 2023 review.

Labour conditions

While H&M made some improvements on its labour policies in recent years, it has fallen from “It’s a Start” to “Not Good Enough” in our most recent review because the company consistently finds itself embroiled in labour scandals.

H&M received a score of 71% in the Fashion Transparency Index, and it publishes detailed information about its supplier policies, audits, and remediation processes. It also publishes a detailed list of suppliers in the final stage of production, as well as information about forced labour, gender equality, or freedom of association.

While the brand does have a project to improve wages, there is no evidence it ensures payment of a living wage across its entire supply chain, despite promises to the contrary. On another note, almost none of H&M’s supply chain is certified by labour standards which ensure worker health and safety, living wages, or other labour rights. That means not enough of its facilities have collective bargaining or the right for workers to make a complaint. During the pandemic, we learned that H&M disclosed some policies to protect suppliers and workers in its supply chain from the impacts of COVID-19, but implementation was uncertain. Overall, its workers are not treated ethically enough for it to receive a higher score here.

Animal welfare

H&M is heading in the right direction for animals, but it needs to do more, which is why we’ve rated it “Not Good Enough” for animal welfare. The positive news is that H&M does have an animal welfare policy aligned with Five Freedoms, and it traces some animal products to the first stage of production. It also uses wool from non-mulesed sheep, down and feathers accredited by the Responsible Down Standard, and it banned the use of fur, angora, and exotic animal skins several years ago.

It does, however, use leather and exotic animal hair. The brand claims that all of its animal fibres will be certified to a credible standard by 2025.

Overall rating: “Not Good Enough”

Despite the fact that H&M is setting sustainability targets and has adopted some positive practices and policies across the board, it’s still one of the world’s biggest producers of fashion products designed to be worn just a few times and then discarded.

As we’ve discussed, H&M is at the heart of the unsustainable fast fashion industry. Its promotion of “disposable” fashion and constant rotations of new trends and products has a huge environmental impact. An increasing amount of cheap clothing ends up in landfill after a few wears due to these reasons.

The clothing manufacturing process regularly involves the use of toxic dyes, solvents, and pesticides, is responsible for significant carbon emissions, and uses much of the world’s fresh water and land resources. While this is an industry-wide problem, there are more clothes pumped through the system by the fast fashion brands like H&M.

So, while those cheap price tags may be tempting, they are often a good indicator of the poor quality of the materials. They also highlight that the people making those clothes are working in conditions that, while improving in some cases, are not where they should be.

See the rating. Also note that Good On You ratings consider hundreds of issues and it is not possible to list every relevant issue in a summary of the brand’s performance. For more information see our How We Rate page and our FAQs.

H&M offers a “Conscious” collection, but we recommend investing your hard-earned dollars in clothes that are not only more ethical and sustainable, but are also timeless in style, will last you a lifetime, and are made by brands that are designed to leave a light footprint on the earth from the very beginning. Here are some brands rated “Good” or “Great” by us.

Good swaps

“Good” and “Great” alternatives to H&M

The post How Ethical Is H&M? appeared first on Good On You.

Is Lululemon as dedicated to “active sustainability” as it says? How ethical is Lululemon, really? Sadly calling Lululemon “ethical” is a bit of a stretch, and we rate the brand “Not Good Enough”. This article is based on the Lululemon rating published in January 2024 and may not reflect claims the brand has made since then. Our ratings analysts are constantly rerating the thousands of brands you can check on our directory.

Is Lululemon ethical or sustainable? That’s a bit of a stretch

Lululemon is a high-end activewear chain that offers yoga-inspired athletic apparel for most sweaty pursuits. While the brand claims to be dedicated to “sustainable practice”, does it really put its best foot forward for people, the planet, and animals? Or is it a s-t-r-e-t-c-h to call it ethical? Read on to find out what its impact is really like as we answer the question: how ethical is Lululemon?

Environmental impact

Lululemon claims sustainability as one of its core principles, but its environmental impact is “Not Good Enough”, and it hasn’t changed since our previous analysis of the brand in January 2022.

Lululemon only uses some lower-impact materials, including recycled materials. While it has set a science-based target to make a 60% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions generated from its owned operations and supply chain by 2030, it is unclear whether it’s on track to meet its target. There is no evidence it has taken meaningful action to protect biodiversity in its supply chain or to minimise microplastic impacts, either. This last part is especially worrying as nylon and polyester, two non-biodegradable, fossil fuel-derived materials that have the potential to release harmful microfibres that pollute the environment, are Lululemon’s largest procured materials by weight. In the Arctic, studies have found that nearly three-quarters of microplastic pollution comes from polyester, and these big brands that still rely heavily on polyester while claiming to be sustainable have a huge responsibility to address their usage. And while Lululemon is working towards switching to recycled nylon and polyester, which are better alternatives to virgin materials, it still isn’t enough.

On the sustainability section of its website, Lululemon talks about ways to improve environmental impact. Although this is positive, it doesn’t reflect any meaningful action. For a global brand such as Lululemon, there is no excuse not to do its part for the environment.

Labour conditions

Regarding workers, Lululemon falls short again, with a “Not Good Enough” rating. Some of Lululemon’s final production stage is certified by Fair Labor Association (FLA), which is an improvement from past ratings where none of the brand’s supply chain was certified, but the “good” news ends here.

There is no evidence the brand implements practices to support diversity and inclusion in its supply chain, and while it claims to have a program to improve wages, we found no evidence that workers are paid a living wage. It received a score of 51-60% in the Fashion Transparency Index, and to top it all off, the brand sources its final stage of production from countries with extreme risk of labour abuse. It has also been linked with cotton sourcing from the Xinjiang region in China, where there is a risk of using Uyghur forced labour. The brand has taken insufficient steps to remediate.

Animal welfare

Lululemon’s score for animals now “Not Good Enough”, a drop from its previous score of “It’s a Start”. While it does not use fur, angora, leather, or exotic animal skin, there is no evidence that it has a policy in place to minimise the suffering of animals. It uses down feathers accredited by the Responsible Down Standard, which is a plus, but it also uses wool, silk, and exotic animal hair. It traces some animal products to the first stage of production, but still has a long way to go in this area.

Overall rating: ‘Not Good Enough’

So, how ethical is Lululemon? Based on information from our research in January 2024, we’ve given Lululemon an overall rating of “Not Good Enough”. When it comes to labour, we’re glad to see some level of transparency in the supply chain, but it still falls short. If the brand’s employees aren’t being paid a living wage, it’s simply not good enough to be considered truly ethical conduct. On the environment front, we’d like to see less talk and more action, especially when it comes to managing the impacts of microplastics.

Note that Good On You ratings consider hundreds of issues, and it is not possible to list every relevant issue in a summary of the brand’s performance. For more information, see our How We Rate page and our FAQs.

See the rating.

Luckily there are numerous more ethical activewear brands that have our full support, which you can see below.

Good swaps

“Good” and “Great” alternatives to Lululemon

The post How Ethical Is Lululemon? appeared first on Good On You.

Brand ratings are the backbone of our mission at Good On You: to make shopping your values simpler. Since 2015, we have been uncovering brands doing harm and highlighting those doing good for people, the planet, and animals. You can download our app or check out the directory to discover the best brands for you. If you’re all about discovering new “Good” and “Great” brands from around the world to support, this roundup is for you.

This month, we’ve got six newly rated brands for you coming out on top with “Good” and “Great” ratings. There’s upcycled kimonos, cosy organic knitwear, award-winning circular fashion, Scandinavian handbags, to name a few. Let’s take a look.

The post 6 Newly Rated Brands We’re Loving to Kick off the New Year appeared first on Good On You.

If you’re on TikTok, you might have come across a mysterious brand from Hong Kong: CIDER. But how ethical is CIDER? Here we dive into the brand’s “We Avoid” rating, which was published in November 2023 and may not reflect claims the brand has made since then. Our ratings analysts are constantly rerating the thousands of brands you can check on our directory.

CIDER is viral, but for the right reasons?

CIDER has taken social media platforms by storm since launching in late 2020, with some of its products going viral (like this cute orange sweater), and it now boasts an immense community of 4.1 million followers on Instagram.

Digitally-native CIDER describes itself as “a globally-minded, social-first fashion brand” that makes “clothes for a new generation”. On paper, the brand functions similarly to SHEIN, listing small batches of items for specific moods and occasions every week and functioning as a direct-from-factory marketplace. CIDER also prides itself in being “an innovator”, using data to only produce what they know will sell, which allegedly enables them to keep costs low and reduce the unsold stock.

We’re getting a whiff of greenwashing here, so we thought it was high time we took a look and figured out: is CIDER a good clothing brand? And more importantly, is CIDER ethical?

Environmental impact

CIDER receives our lowest possible score of “Very Poor” for its impact on the environment.

It uses few lower-impact materials, producing scores of clothes overwhelmingly made from harmful fabrics like virgin polyester and spandex.

There’s no evidence CIDER is taking actions to protect biodiversity in its supply chain, nor does it appear to have taken meaningful action to reduce or eliminate hazardous chemicals. Toxic chemicals in fast fashion is a serious issue in today’s shopping landscape, and worth researching before purchasing from this and similar stores.

Finally, CIDER follows an unsustainable fast fashion model with quickly changing trends and regular new styles. All in all, this is one brand to avoid if you care about the impact of your closet on the planet.

Labour conditions

The results aren’t any better for CIDER’s reputation surrounding working conditions in its supply chain, coming out with another “Very Poor” score.

While CIDER is more transparent than it was in previous ratings, when there was no discernible public information for our analysts to include here, the results are still extremely lacking.

There’s no evidence CIDER supports diversity and inclusion in its supply chain, nor that is provides financial security to its suppliers, which can result in poor working conditions and wages. While it does audit some of its suppliers, the fact that it doesn’t appear to pay a living wage across any of its supply chain is a huge red flag and a crucial step for a more ethical fashion industry. CIDER has a long way to go for its workers.

Animal welfare

One area where CIDER is making some effort is animal welfare, receiving a middling score of “It’s a Start” here.

While the brand doesn’t use leather, down, fur, angora, or exotic animal skin across its collections, it does use wool and exotic animal hair without stating sources. There is no evidence of an animal welfare policy, nor does the brand appear to trace any animal products even to the first stage of production. There is certainly room for improvement here, too.

Overall rating

Overall, CIDER receives our lowest score of “We Avoid” owing to its lack of action across the board. Ultimately, the brand can make piecemeal improvements and increase transparency, but as an ultra fast fashion brand rooted in overconsumption and mass production, it cannot be a responsible brand worth supporting without a deeper shift in its business as usual.

Note that Good On You ratings consider hundreds of issues, and it is not possible to list every relevant issue in a summary of the brand’s performance. For more information, see our How We Rate page and our FAQs.

See the rating.

Luckily, the Good On You team found a few “Good” and “Great” brands that we’d love to see go viral for all the right reasons. They are fantastic options to choose from if you want to break your fast fashion addiction and support the planet and all of its inhabitants with your purchases.

Good swaps

More sustainable alternatives to Cider, all rated “Good” and “Great” in the directory

The post How Ethical Is CIDER? appeared first on Good On You.

The darling of the sustainable fashion world, Girlfriend Collective makes size-inclusive activewear and essentials from recycled materials. But just how sustainable and ethical is Girlfriend Collective? This article is based on the Girlfriend Collective rating published in November 2023 and may not reflect claims the brand has made since then. Our ratings analysts are constantly rerating the thousands of brands you can check on our directory.

Is Girlfriend Collective a more sustainable brand?

Landing on Girlfriend Collective’s homepage is like stepping into a candy store, but the candy is a collection of colourful, purportedly planet and people-friendly tights, sports bras, puffer jackets, and sleepwear. With size-inclusive ranges for everything from chilling on the couch to hitting the gym, US-based Girlfriend has hit a sweet spot in the conscious fashion movement that places it as one of the most beloved brands out there. But just how ethical is Girlfriend Collective? Is it doing as well for people, the planet, and animals as it claims? Let’s take a look.

Environmental impact

According to its about page, Girlfriend Collective is “like the earth’s number one fan”. Transparency and more responsible apparel are a top priority for the brand, which is reflected in its “Good” score here.

The brand uses a medium proportion of lower-impact materials, including recycled PET plastic and ECONYL. Its designs are coloured with lower-impact dyes, and it ensures wastewater in its supply chain is treated and discharged properly. While there is no evidence Girlfriend is taking specific steps to reduce energy use and greenhouse gas emissions, its use of better materials reduces its climate impact and limits the amount of chemicals, water, and wastewater used in production.

Girlfriend also tackles an important and often overlooked part of a garment’s lifecycle: the end-of-life. Through its ReGirlfriend program, you can send back any old torn, worn, or stained Girlfriend pieces to be upcycled into new ones. In a world where the fashion industry creates 92m tons of textile waste annually, this is a crucial step towards circularity.

What about microfibres? If the garments are all made of plastic-based fabrics, they’ll shed tiny bits into our waterways whether they’re recycled or not, right? Girlfriend thought of that, too, and encourages you to wash all your GC pieces in wash bags or install their filter in your washing machine.

Labour conditions

It’s clear that Girlfriend prioritises people in its marketing and making, with diverse models of all shapes, sizes, colours, genders, and abilities splashed across the screen for every popping product listing. With an inclusive size range of 2XS-6XL and even a crucial accessibility option on its website, Girlfriend does for its customers what all brands should do but often don’t bother to.

So all is well for those who wear the clothes—but what about those who make them? Girlfriend rates “It’s a Start” for workers, a lower score than in previous ratings. Some of its supply chain is certified by Social Accountability International – SA8000, and it has a Code of Conduct that covers all of the ILO Four Fundamental Freedoms principles.

Unfortunately, while Girlfriend Collective partly traces its supply chain, including the final and some of the second production stages, it is unclear whether it ensures payment of a living wage in its supply chain. While the brand is certainly ahead of the curve on inclusivity on the front lines, the murkiness of wages deeper into the supply chain is a worry. Living wages are crucial for a more ethical and sustainable fashion industry, and should be a top priority for the brand to regain ground in this area.

Animal welfare

This brand makes products generally free of animal materials, so it’s not applicable to rate its impact on animals. We calculate the overall rating from environment and labour scores only. But, psst, vegan fashion lovers unite: there’s no animal-derived fabric in sight.

Overall rating: ‘Good’

So, how ethical is Girlfriend Collective? We’re happy to say the brand practices what it preaches and takes a score of “Good” overall for its efforts. The brand really needs to be more transparent around its labour conditions, and especially whether or not it ensures payment of a living wage, but overall, Girlfriend Collective is one brand tackling fashion more sustainably and inclusively that deserves your support when you’re in need of something new.

See the rating.

Shop Girlfriend Collective.

Shop Girlfriend Collective @ LVR Sustainable.

Note that Good On You ratings consider hundreds of issues, and it is not possible to list every relevant issue in a summary of the brand’s performance. For more information, see our How We Rate page and our FAQs.

The post How Ethical Is Girlfriend Collective? appeared first on Good On You.

2023 in fashion news: wrapped

2023 has been a turbulent year in fashion and beyond, with stark economic uncertainty, the rapid growth of AI tech, and the ongoing wars in Gaza and Ukraine. This November also saw garment workers in Bangladesh fighting for fair wages and facing police brutality, fines, and layoffs if they continue to protest. The undercurrent of it all, of course, is the climate crisis, which is driven in part by fashion’s energy-intense and fossil-fuel guzzling supply chains.

One thing’s loud and clear in 2023: fashion needs dramatic systems change from the bottom up. But once again, it’s the most profitable and powerful brands that seem to be doing the least.

Unfortunately, as highlighted in our COP28 report, little has changed for the better in the industry since last year. In reviewing over 5,900 brands with our world-leading methodology, we found that most of the biggest brands aren’t taking urgent action to address their environmental impacts. In fact, it seems the biggest brands with the most opportunities to transform the industry for the better are just as lacking in transparency as ever. While more are setting climate change targets, the vast majority—a shocking 81%—of large brands with greenhouse gas emissions targets do not state whether they are on track to meet them. Despite the promises, we still don’t know whether brands are actually keeping them. And we, as consumers and as citizens, have a right to know that information to be able to support brands making an effort.

That’s only one of many examples where, when we survey the lists of top and bottom rated brands, we see a familiar trend: the brands that need to be taking action on the climate, on living wages, on supply chain transparency, and so on simply are not.

So, what has that looked like on the ground level? As ever, notorious ultra fast fashion brands have been raking in the cash while making headlines for all the wrong and predictable reasons. Meanwhile, a still relatively small but fast growing movement of consumers are starting to reject fast fashion’s business-as-usual—a model that can’t exist in a sustainable future, full stop.

Fashion’s climate inaction is in its cynical era

“The era of global boiling has arrived,” said António Guterres, the UN secretary general, during 2023’s summer of widespread wildfires and extreme heat. “Climate change is here. It is terrifying. And it is just the beginning.” Despite such stark warnings, everywhere you look, from political slogans to fashion campaigns, we often hear greenwashing more than we see meaningful action, as journalist Sophie Benson reported in our annual deep dive into brands’ climate inaction.

Crucially, for the first time since the 2015 Paris Agreement, there will be an assessment of the progress made towards mitigating global warming. Early reporting from the UN suggests the global community is still “not on track” to meet the goals set in 2015 despite a “rapidly narrowing window” of opportunity.

On an individual brand level, things aren’t looking much better. Ultra fast fashion brand SHEIN came under fire (yet again) when it sent a group of influencers on an “educational” SHEIN 101 trip to its new “innovation centre” and one of its factories in June this year. The trip rubbed many the wrong way, including our head of ratings, who observed, “there are many allegations of SHEIN’s labour practices suggesting the brand is likely to be contracting with manufacturers that may be grossly exploiting, overworking, and underpaying their garment workers.” SHEIN is still one of the most opaque brands in the industry, and this SHEIN 101 trip was just another attempt to further hide what’s really going on behind the scenes. SHEIN is also prepping for a US IPO in a major test for investor appetite in 2024, so the timing of this trip does not go unnoticed by those in the know here as the brand would appear to be trying to set itself up for success in an industry increasingly pushing for innovation and conscious consumerism.

More recently, Kim Kardashian’s brand SKIMS made headlines with a tongue-in-cheek marketing campaign mimicking a climate science lesson. The video promotion for its new Ultimate Nipple Bra quipped that “unlike the icebergs, these [faux nipples] aren’t going anywhere.” Consumers and climate activists alike were shocked by the campaign, flagging it as done in poor taste at best and spreading harmful misinformation at worst, considering the bra is made from nylon and spandex. Despite donating 10% of profits from the bra sales to climate organisation 1% for the Planet, SKIMS still rates “We Avoid” owing to a lack of information about its production processes and supply chain and continued use of harmful synthetic fossil fuel-derived fibres, a key contributor to global warming.

SKIMS is certainly not alone in its lack of transparency, a trend in fashion and beyond this year that sees brands now simply saying nothing at all rather than risking being called out for greenwashing, a practice dubbed “greenhushing“, as Good On You’s co-founder Sandra Capponi wrote in a clear-voiced demand for brands to do the bare minimum: be transparent. This act to avoid scrutiny on green claims made is incredibly harmful because scrutiny is precisely what’s needed for consumers and regulators to ensure action is meaningful and aligned with broader industry and global targets.

A few positive moves in the right direction

It’s not all doom and gloom—there are some positive signs to come out of our data this year. More brands are signing up to the Science Based Targets initiative, for instance, and more small brands are committing to measuring greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions—and actually be transparent about their progress.

This year has seen an impressive push for transparency, especially in Europe, something which is echoed globally in other policy and legislation proposals such as the New York Fashion Act, which calls for fashion retailers and manufacturers that do business in New York and have global revenues exceeding $100m to disclose, among other things, supply chain details, environmental due diligence policies, the annual volume of materials produced, and impact reduction targets (which they would be required to meet and report compliance on annually). If passed, these proposed laws and regulations could mean brands face fines, sanctions, denial of government aid, and the embarrassment of having to make public retractions and corrections when they’re found in violation.

Later in 2023, the EU reached a provisional agreement on new rules to ban misleading advertisements and provide customers with better product information. Generic environmental claims such as “environmentally friendly” and “eco” will be banned “without proof of recognised excellent environmental performance relevant to the claim.” This push for honesty in sustainability marketing goes hand in hand with its updated Ecodesign Directive, which establishes frameworks for making products more durable, reliable, reusable, upgradable, repairable, recyclable, and easier to maintain. Also among the Ecodesign Directive requirements is a Digital Product Passport, a concept that would allow environmental information such as product provenance and options for repair to be easily accessed by scanning a QR code or a chip.

This year also saw the conclusion of the crucial Fashion Revolution-supported campaign Good Clothes, Fair Pay, which demanded a living wage for the people who make our clothes and aimed for 1m signatures from EU citizens to help push for legislation. Although the campaign ended with 240,000 signatures, it’s part of a broader, international push to pass regulation that holds fashion brands to account, and the organisers will continue their efforts in the field with other initiatives soon.

Finally, this year has shown glimmers of progress in the realm of innovations in the fashion industry. Everything from AI-powered recycling solutions to a circular platform connecting refugees to preloved clothes to crucial work in upskilling and reskilling garment workers—these are all key examples of people working tirelessly to create real and lasting change. Of course, no single innovation can transform fashion and solve the myriad problems we face, but when considered together, we can start to see a roadmap for what could be next.

The role of Good On You’s ratings

A growing number of shoppers are better than ever at seeing through shallow and untrue claims in the industry and are using their voice to demand positive change. As fashion’s leading source of brand ratings, we’ve observed more and more consumers checking the big brands’ records and opting to go second hand or support more sustainable, independent designers.

In furthering our mission, 2023 saw Good On You reach some exciting milestones, which you can read all about in our Year In Review roundup.

With over 6,000 fashion brand ratings now live on the directory and in the app, and more coming every day, it’s easier than ever to compare brands’ impacts on the issues that matter most. But for those wondering who the standouts are on both ends of the spectrum, this survey highlights the brands that score the lowest and the highest based on our world-leading methodology.

And finally, onto the list—here is our roundup of the best and worst fashion brands of 2023.

10 of the worst rated brands “We Avoid”

In our brand directory of over 6,000 brands, of those rated in 2023, there are 100 that score 0. Unfortunately, many brands aren’t transparent and are scoring the lowest possible since we have little to no information about their impacts. These brands get no points, and they’re sitting below brands that are also bad, even if they receive a small amount of points for disclosing some information. These 100 brands also include luxury brands, which by their nature may not have the same issues in their supply chain, but have the same responsibility to be transparent. And unfortunately, many are not. The following brands, then, are the ones we get the most questions about from users and are highly searched across our platforms.

These well-known brands are mostly ultra fast fashion brands that create cheap clothing at breakneck speeds, and they’re all rated “We Avoid”, our lowest score. They are making no headway or concrete effort for people, the planet, or animals across the supply chain and are notorious for poor quality clothing that often ends up in landfill after just a few wears.

• TEMU
• ZAFUL
• CIDER
• TOM FORD
• Edikted
• SHEIN
• Forever 21
• SPANX
• MeUndies
• The Athlete’s Foot

10 of the highest rated brands doing “Great”

While it’s important to call out those poorly-rated brands that are harming the planet and its inhabitants, the best part about what we do at Good On You is discovering and sharing “Good” and “Great” fashion brands that care about reducing their impact. These are 10 of the highest rated brands of 2023 that deserve your support, all scoring highly across the board for their efforts.

While a “Great” rated brand isn’t perfect, and there are countless micro brands out there we haven’t rated yet that are undoubtedly ahead of the curve, too, the brands rating at the high end of our rating system, like those listed below, are making solid progress.

The post The Best and Worst Rated Brands of 2023 appeared first on Good On You.

Jordan, the Nike brand synonymous with basketball culture, falls short in addressing its impact on people, the planet, and animals. Let’s look at Jordan’s “It’s a Start” rating. This article is based on the Jordan rating published in May 2023 and may not reflect claims the brand has made since then. Our ratings analysts are constantly rerating the thousands of brands you can check on our directory.

Jordan’s taking steps in the right direction

Step into the world of Jordan, a renowned brand under the Nike umbrella, catapulted to stardom by its iconic Air Jordan line of basketball shoes, originally designed in the late 1980s for basketball legend Michael Jordan. Fast forward to today, Jordan’s legacy remains strong, with Air Jordan dominating the trainer market with sales surpassing $5bn last year. Dubbed by TIME as “the sneakers of a generation,” Jordans have transcended sportswear to become a cultural phenomenon.

But what lies behind the iconic Jumpman logo? How does the brand fare when it comes to the environment, labour conditions, and animal welfare? How is Jordan impacting people, the planet, and animals? In short, how ethical is Jordan?

Environmental impact

Jordan’s environmental efforts are promising, but there’s room for improvement.

Jordan has incorporated a few lower-impact materials into its product lineup, and in a positive move to minimise waste, the brand reuses some of its textile offcuts. Jordan has also committed to eliminating hazardous chemicals by 2025, claiming it’s on track to meet its target. But while the brand has set a science-based target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in both its direct operations and supply chain, we found no evidence the brand is on track to meet this target.

One thing that’s missing for us to give a higher rating is the lack of evidence regarding actions taken to protect biodiversity in the brand’s supply chain. “It’s a Start.”

Labour conditions

Jordan also rates “It’s a Start” for people.

The brand has a certified social auditing program through the Fair Labor Association (FLA) and scored 51-60% in the 2022 Fashion Transparency Index, showcasing a decent level of transparency in its operations.

But while Jordan set up a foundational policy supporting diversity and inclusion within its supply chain, we still need concrete evidence that the brand ensures that workers are paid a living wage across its supply chain. As Jordan progresses, focusing on ensuring fair wages and worker wellbeing will be pivotal in improving its labour rating.

Animal welfare

When it comes to animal welfare, Jordan faces some challenges that contribute to its “Not Good Enough” rating. The brand has a basic policy covering animal welfare, but the lack of clear implementation mechanisms raises concerns about the actual execution of these policies.

Jordan has stopped using fur, angora, exotic animal skin, or exotic animal hair, but it still uses leather, wool, down, and shearling in its products.

Unfortunately, there’s no evidence that Jordan traces any animal-derived materials to the first production stage, making it challenging to ensure the ethical sourcing of these components.

Jordan’s “Not Good Enough” rating in animal welfare underscores the importance of refining and implementing clear policies to protect and uphold the wellbeing of animals throughout its supply chain.

Overall rating: ‘It’s a Start’

Overall, we rate Jordan “It’s a Start.” The brand is making strides but still has significant ground to cover for a higher rating. The brand needs to be more transparent, particularly in environmental impact tracking, and ensure workers throughout its supply chain are paid a living wage. Jordan must ensure it communicates its progress and stays on track for reduced emissions and hazardous chemical elimination targets.

Note that Good On You ratings consider hundreds of issues, and it is not possible to list every relevant issue in a summary of the brand’s performance. For more information, see our How We Rate page and our FAQs.

See the rating.

Looking for more ethical alternatives to Jordan? We listed some “Good” and “Great” brands below to consider when shopping for products similar to Jordan’s offerings. These alternatives prioritise sustainability, more responsible labour practices, and animal welfare.

Note that while our editors are fans of the more sustainable brands listed below, we recognise they may not meet your current needs. They may be out of your price range or don’t stock your size. If you really need something and a product from a brand rated “It’s a Start”, like Jordan, seems the best option, then you might have questions about the “It’s a Start” rating.

In short, “It’s a Start” means just that—the brand is making a start. Good On You’s middling rating indicates that the brand has a long way to go but is also doing more than its competitors. Jordan is already ahead of comparable brands. And if your options are Jordan or, say, New Balance (“Not Good Enough”), which is making little to no effort for people, the planet, and animals, Jordan is a clear winner—progress over perfection.

You can also reach out to brands that need a little nudge in the right direction. If enough customers demand change, brands that truly care about their impact will have no choice but to respond in kind. Check out the “Your Voice” function on the app or slide into their DMs on social media to let them know what you think.

The post How Ethical Is Jordan? appeared first on Good On You.

What are the most searched brands on Good On You?

Over the years, Good On You has become the go-to platform for conscious consumers and citizens looking to inform their choices. In 2023, the demand for transparency in the fashion industry is louder than ever; with more than 4m Good On You users and 40m searches on our platforms, it’s clear shoppers are keen to understand how the brands they used to buy from, currently buy from, or are planning to buy from, are impacting people, the planet, and animals.

Amongst the most searched brands on Good On You are, of course, the titans of fast fashion—Zara, H&M, SHEIN, and Uniqlo—whose practices are increasingly under the microscope. Joining them are activewear giants Nike and Adidas, the trailblazing Patagonia, and high-end fashion purveyor Gucci.

But before we dive into how each of these brands rates, let’s have a look at

How does Good On You rate and re-rate brands?

Good On You is the most comprehensive and widely trusted brand ratings system for fashion. Our mission is to help you make better choices.

Since 2015, we’ve built a database of over 5,000 fashion brands, all assessed against our world-leading ratings system for their impact on people, the planet, and animals.

Behind the scenes, the Good On You ratings system captures the complexity of sustainability, aggregating up to 1,000 data points across 100 key issues for each brand. Our team of analysts use their industry-leading expertise and ratings tech to efficiently assess fashion brands’ impacts across the entire supply chain.

Brands receive an overall rating on a clear and comparable five-point scale, from “We Avoid” all the way up to “Great”. Ratings are reviewed regularly—annually for large brands and every 18 months for smaller brands. More frequent reviews are also initiated when there is a significant change in a brand’s public disclosure or significant public or stakeholder concern about changes in the brand’s practices. You can download our app or check out the directory to discover the best brands for you.

How do the ten most searched brands on Good On You rate?

The post We Re-Rated the 10 Most Searched Brands, and Here’s What We Found appeared first on Good On You.

Is all that glitters green? Not necessarily. Our comprehensive data on fashion brands reveals a mixed reality for the luxury sector. The gist? Despite their high price tags, many big and popular luxury brands still fall short on sustainability. The trend is more positive among smaller luxury labels, where a significant number are making commendable progress. Let’s take a closer look at the true cost of couture.

The rise of conscious luxury

In a world marked by a cost-of-living crisis and persisting inflation, the luxury fashion industry seems to stand resilient, charting its course despite the economic turbulence. In fact, McKinsey and Business of Fashion’s State of Fashion 2023 reported that while the broader fashion industry was set to grapple with uncertainty last year, the luxury sector expected a 5-10% growth, fueled primarily by the unyielding spending habits of “wealthy shoppers [who] continue to travel and spend, and thus remain more insulated from the effects of hyperinflation,” particularly in China and the United States.

As the luxury market keeps expanding, so does the call for a more conscious fashion industry. A recent report from FARFETCH underscored this shift, demonstrating a significant rise in global demand for conscious fashion and beauty products, with searches for “Conscious” product terms on FARFETCH have surged by an impressive 78% year-on-year.

Now, the big question: does shelling out big bucks for luxury labels mean you’re supporting more ethical practices? Not necessarily. Good On You’s recent assessment of 30 large luxury brands found only one scoring a “Good” overall rating. It’s time to uncover the truth behind the shimmering facade.

Here we’re taking a close look at how the most popular luxury brands measure up when it comes to their impacts on people, the planet, and animals. But before we dive in, let’s check out what Good On You’s data tells us about the sustainable landscape of the luxury fashion sector.

Luxury brands are still not doing enough

Looking at our data on luxury brands, the conclusion is pretty clear: most luxury fashion brands aren’t doing enough to improve or reduce their impact on people, the planet, and animals:

• Only 11% of large luxury brands managed to secure a “Good” or “Great” overall rating. And among the 30 most popular luxury brands we assessed for this article, only one out of 30 achieved a “Good” rating.
• A mere 12% of luxury brands manage rate “Good” or “Great” for the planet. Digging deeper, just 26% of large luxury brands have set science-based greenhouse gas emissions targets. What’s more concerning is that of those with targets, only 29% disclose whether they’re on track to meet them. When it comes to lessening their environmental footprint, large luxury fashion brands are, by and large, missing the mark.
• Most luxury brands are doing very little for people, with 75% of these brands scoring “Not Good Enough” or below. The exploitation of workers within luxury supply chains remains a pressing concern.
• According to a report by Four Paws in partnership with Good On You, the luxury sector averages a meagre 23% in commitment to animal welfare. Even with exceptions like Stella McCartney, the sector as a whole falls short.

This being said, it’s worth noting that the luxury sector operates on a different scale from fast fashion, producing less but at higher price points. While this may imply less waste and environmental pollution, it doesn’t absolve luxury brands of responsibility. In fact, it emphasises their obligation to care for workers within their supply chains. But while acknowledging differences, we firmly believe that accountability applies to all brands, irrespective of their position within the industry or price point.

The top rated luxury fashion brand on Good On You

Most of the popular luxury fashion brands we looked at score “It’s a Start” or below. Only one brand is standing out from the pack and is leading the way in luxury fashion, making substantial strides in improving conditions for people, the planet, and animals.

The post How Do the Most Popular Luxury Fashion Brands Rate? appeared first on Good On You.

US label Hollister has made a name as a top teen fashion destination over the years, but unfortunately, the brand isn’t doing enough to manage its impact on people, the planet, and animals, and rates “Not Good Enough”. This article is based on the Hollister rating published in November 2023 and may not reflect claims the brand has made since then. Our ratings analysts are constantly rerating the thousands of brands you can check on our directory.

Hollister has a long way to go

If you were born in the noughties, chances are you have Hollister in your wardrobe right now. Considered one of the top five clothing brands for teens, this Abercrombie & Fitch subsidiary was launched in the year 2000 in the US and has been pumping out trend-led styles ever since. Wading through Hollister’s website presents a throwback array of band tees, flared jeans, and pleated skirts we could’ve sworn went out of fashion a decade or two ago. Y2K resurgence, we see you.

In any case, with 5m followers, a loyal fanbase, and no signs of slowing, we thought it was about time to dig a bit deeper into this youth-led brand that claims to be “For you, for the community, and for the planet” right on its homepage. Is Hollister really about “leaving the world a little better”, or is there a bit of greenwashing going on? How ethical is Hollister?

Environmental impact

Off the bat, Hollister’s environment rating is “Not Good Enough”. Despite its claims of planetary care on its website, where it states it is doing its part for the planet, it currently uses few lower-impact materials, and there is no evidence that it has taken meaningful action to reduce or eliminate hazardous chemicals or taking steps to protect biodiversity—you know, some of the most crucial steps towards caring for the Earth.

While it has set an absolute target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in its direct operations, its supply chain misses out on the commitment. While this initiative is certainly better than nothing, it covers a fraction of the brand’s overall footprint, and there’s a long way to go before it can call itself a responsible brand.

Labour conditions

Hollister is also “Not Good Enough” for its workers. None of its supply chain is certified by labour standards which ensure worker health and safety or other labour rights. It received a score of 31-40% in the 2023 Fashion Transparency Index, which is slightly up from the previous score, though there is certainly still room for improvement.

There’s no evidence Hollister supports diversity and inclusion in its supply chain, and perhaps most worryingly, it doesn’t appear to pay a living wage in its supply chain, either. Do better, Hollister.

Animal welfare

Speaking of trends—Hollister seems to be trending towards a low overall score at this rate. And—yep. Also “Not Good Enough” for animals.

While the brand now has a formal policy aligned with the Five Freedoms of animal welfare—which is an improvement from the last time we rated them when they didn’t have one—there are no clear implementation mechanisms in place. There’s no evidence it traces any animal-derived materials even to the first stage of production, and its leather products have no clear origins.

Its wool is supposedly mulesing-free, but there’s no evidence to verify that claim. It doesn’t appear to use down, fur, angora, exotic animal skin, or exotic animal hair, which is good—but more needs to be done to ensure the brand is treating the non-human animals in its supply chain better.

Overall rating: ‘Not Good Enough’

So, how ethical is Hollister? Overall, we rated Hollister “Not Good Enough” based on our own research. From a lack of robust policies for the planet to no sign of a living wage for people to little effort for animals, it’s clear this brand has a long way to go to achieve a higher rating. As more and more young people are tapping into the trend the world really needs right now—the sustainability trend—we hope to see the brand making more effort across the board to stay relevant and true to its word of leaving the world a little better off.

Note that Good On You ratings consider 100s of issues, and it is not possible to list every relevant issue in a summary of the brand’s performance. For more information, see our How We Rate page and our FAQs.

See the rating.

Tackling responsible fashion as a teen is tough. But before you get too disheartened, check out these more sustainable alternatives to Hollister below. You might just find something that ticks all your boxes.

Good swaps

“Good” and “Great” alternatives to Hollister.

The post How Ethical Is Hollister? appeared first on Good On You.

Discover November’s top newly rated brands, courtesy of the expert analysts behind our world-leading ratings methodology.

Discover the top rated brands from November

Brand ratings are the backbone of our mission at Good On You: to make shopping your values simpler. Since 2015, we have been uncovering brands doing harm and highlighting those doing good for people, the planet, and animals. You can download our app or check out the directory to discover the best brands for you. If you’re all about discovering new “Good” and “Great” brands from around the world to support, this roundup is for you.

This month, we’ve got six newly rated and rerated brands for you coming out on top with “Good” and “Great” ratings. There’s organic lingerie from Australia, Ethiopian recycled tyre shoes, and New Zealand-made streetwear, to name a few. Let’s take a look.

The post 6 Newly Rated Brands We’re Loving This November appeared first on Good On You.

Hermès is known and celebrated for its timeless creations, including the iconic Birkin bag. But how ethical is Hermès? Unfortunately, the brand is not doing enough and falls short in prioritising workers’ rights, transparency, and ethical treatment of animals. Let’s look at Hermès’ “Not Good Enough” rating, which was published in November 2023 and may not reflect claims the brand has made since then. Our ratings analysts are constantly rerating the thousands of brands you can check on our directory.

Hermès is not doing enough to reduce its impact

Founded in 1837 by Thierry Hermès in Paris, Hermès is known for its iconic silk scarves and handcrafted leather goods, including the highly coveted Birkin bag. But luxury isn’t always synonymous with sustainability. So, how is Hermès impacting people, the planet, and animals? In short, how ethical is Hermès? Let’s have a look.

Environmental impact

When it comes to its impact on the planet, Hermès rates “It’s a Start”. One of the positive aspects contributing to this rating is the brand’s use of lower-impact materials, including organic cotton. This decision represents a step in the right direction toward reducing the environmental footprint of its products.

Additionally, Hermès has set science-based targets to decrease greenhouse gas emissions, not only in its direct operations but also throughout its supply chain. The brand also claims to be on track to meet these targets, showing dedication to reducing carbon emissions

Hermès, like other luxury brands, is known for crafting long-lasting products, often with lower production volume, which may imply less waste and environmental pollution compared to their fast fashion counterparts. However, this doesn’t absolve Hermès’ (and all of the luxury fashion industry’s) responsibility, and while the brand’s made a promising start, there’s still room for improvement.

Labour conditions

With Hermès products commanding premium prices, such as the iconic Birkin bag retailing at around $10,000, it’s natural to expect that these expenditures ensure a commitment to ethically sound practices. However, our comprehensive data on luxury brands paints a different picture. It’s a sobering truth: only 11% of luxury brands score as “Good” or “Great” overall, and an alarming 75% of luxury brands, including Hermès, fall into the category of “Not Good Enough” or below concerning labour conditions.

While Hermès ensures that some workers in the final production stage receive living wages, this practice does not extend throughout its entire supply chain. The Fashion Transparency Index awarded Hermès a 21-30% score, indicating limited transparency about its behind-the-scenes practices.

None of the brand’s supply chain is certified by crucial labour standards that help ensure worker health and safety, living wages, and other rights. There’s also no substantial evidence that Hermès actively supports diversity and inclusion within its supply chain. This absence points to a broader industry trend wherein many luxury brands often fail to champion labour rights despite their extravagant price points.

Hermès, with its “Not Good Enough” rating for people, and much like many of its luxury counterparts, needs to take significant strides to ensure better labour conditions throughout its supply chain.

Animal welfare

Hermès’ “Very Poor” rating in the animal welfare category raises considerable concerns about the brand’s sourcing practices and commitment to the wellbeing of animals involved in its supply chain. While Hermès does have a formal policy aligned with the Five Freedoms of animal welfare, the lack of clear implementation mechanisms raises questions about the effectiveness of these policies in practice. The use of leather, wool, down, fur, exotic animal skin, shearling, exotic animal hair, horn, and silk by Hermès further contributes to its rating.

Hermès also traces some animal-derived materials to the first production stage, but not all materials. This is problematic for both our furry and feathery friends and factory workers, as their wellbeing cannot be guaranteed.

What’s more, an investigation by PETA into crocodile and alligator farms, specifically for Hermès goods, made some shocking discoveries. From Texas to Zimbabwe, the investigation documented the distressing environments in which animals are raised and killed for their skins to be used to make Birkin bags, belts, and watchbands. “Alligators are packed in dank pools, and crocodiles are crowded in barren concrete pits for months or even years before finally being slaughtered for their skins,” reported PETA.

In December 2021, global animal welfare organisation Four Paws released a report in partnership with Good On You assessing 111 brands across different markets on their commitment to animal welfare and sourcing transparency. As noted by journalist Lucianne Tonti for The Guardian, “While LVMH-owned Stella McCartney achieved the report’s highest score of 90%, the luxury sector fared the worst overall, receiving an average score of just 23% (lower than fast fashion at 53%).” Unfortunately, Hermès was identified as the lowest performer. Compared to the animal welfare standards set by leading brands, Hermès’ practices fall notably short.

Overall rating: ‘Not Good Enough’

In summary, Hermès receives an overall rating of “Not Good Enough” on Good On You. The brand demonstrates commendable efforts in improving its impact on the planet, using lower-impact materials and setting science-based targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. However, significant shortcomings persist, particularly for labour, where crucial certifications are lacking, and transparency remains subpar. Hermès’ “Very Poor” animal welfare rating and PETA’s distressing revelations underscore major concerns about the brand’s treatment of animals. There is substantial room for improvement.

Note that Good On You ratings consider hundreds of issues, and it is not possible to list every relevant issue in a summary of the brand’s performance. For more information, see our How We Rate page and our FAQs.

See the rating.

Good swaps

“Good” and “Great” alternatives to Hermès

The post How Ethical Is Hermès? appeared first on Good On You.