Abercrombie & Fitch
Casual wear for consumers aged 18 to 22.
|Abercrombie & Fitch Co||USA||website|
|Abercrombie & Fitch Co|
This company has either signed PETA's statement of assurance or provided a statement verifying that they do not conduct or commission any animal tests.
[Source 2016][More on Animal Testing]
This company has signed the 'Accord on Fire and Building Safety in Bangladesh', a program endorsed by Bangladeshi and international unions and labor rights organizations. The ground-breaking program includes independent safety inspections with public reports, mandatory factory building renovations, the obligation by brands and retailers to underwrite the cost of repairs, and a vital role for workers and their unions all in a legally-binding, enforceable agreement.
[Source 2014][More on Workers Rights]
In 2015 the Rainforest Action Network (RAN) released a report documenting the results of decades of irresponsible fabric sourcing including land grabbing, forest destruction and human rights abuse to forest-dependent communities caused by deforestation from tree-based fabric production companies. This company was one of the "Fashion Fifteen" implicated in the report for irresponsibly sourcing tree-based fabrics such as rayon and viscose.
[Source 2015][More on Forests]
According to a 2015 investigation from Al Jazeera, Chinese garment factories are continuing to use the potentially harmful sandblasting method for 'ageing' denim jeans, including jeans made for this company. Sandblasting is a dangerous and deadly process which involves workers firing sand at jeans under high pressure. It has been known to kill workers within months as the inhalation of large amounts of silica dust generated during sandblasting causes silicosis, a potentially lethal pulmonary disease.
[Source 2015][More on Workers Rights]
Rank a Brand searches the websites of brands for the answers to carefully targeted questions. From this they calculate sustainability scores based on the themes of environment, climate, labor issues, and transparency. Brands owned by this company received an 'E', the lowest possible score.
[Source 2014][More on Sustainability Reporting]
This company received a score of 16.5/100 (retrieved 13-Oct-2016) in the Corporate Information Transparency Index (CITI), a system for evaluating supply chain practices in China, particularly in regards to environmental management and water pollution. Scores are calculated using government compliance data, online monitoring data, and third-party environmental audits, as well as trends in the environmental performance of factories in the company's supply chains.
[Source 2016][More on Habitats]
This 2012 report by two Dutch NGOs (SOMO and ICN) reveals how workers in the South Indian garment and textile industry continue to suffer exploitative working conditions while making garments for Western brands. While some recent improvements have been made, thousands of girls work under recruitment and employment schemes that amount to bonded labour. This company was shown to be sourcing from one or more of the four garment manufacturers investigated. While they did respond to a review request, it is unclear whether they are taking sufficient actions to address the problems.
[Source 2012][More on Workers Rights]
This website by German NGO Earth Link rates companies on their corporate policies against child labour, production monitoring and accusations of child labour. This company received at least one red mark, indicating poor performance in one or more of these areas.
[Source 2013][More on Human Rights]
Brands owned by this company are on RankaBrand's Greenwashing Alert list. These are companies that report in some way on sustainability, but the information they provide is either of marginal or no relevance and is not explicit about sustainability performance.
[Source 2014][More on Irresponsible Marketing]
The 2016 Fashion Transparency Index looks at how much brands know about their supply chains, what kind of policies they have in place and importantly, how much information they share with the public about their practices and products. This company scored 45%, signifying it makes some efforts to manage and improve their supply chains but make little supply chain information publicly available. This company still has a long way to go towards supply chain transparency.
[Source 2016][More on Sustainability Reporting]
Named in the International Labor Rights Forum's "Sweatshop Hall of Shame 2010", which highlights apparel and textile companies that use sweatshops in their global production. [Listed under Information due to age or report]
[Source 2010][More on Workers Rights]
This 2011 report by the International Textile Garment and Leather Workers' Federation (ITGLWF) examined working conditions in 83 factories in Indonesia, Sri Lanka and the Philippines. Investigations found that widespread violations and abuses of workers' rights continue to be the norm, such as underpaying workers, long hours, forced overtime, and repression of the freedom of association. This company's brands were found to be made in one or more of the 83 factories covered in the research. [Listed under Information due to age of report]
[Source 2011][More on Workers rights]
This company has announced that they don't sell animal fur or are phasing in a fur-free policy.
[Source 2014][More on Animal Rights]
This company is a partner of Better Work, an initiative of the UN's International Labour Organization and the International Finance Corporation which brings diverse groups together - governments, global brands, factory owners, and unions and workers - to improve working conditions in the garment industry and make the sector more competitive.
[Source 2016][More on Multi-Stakeholder Initiatives]
C- grade in the Baptist World Aid Australia's Behind the Barcode 'Australian Fashion Report 2016', which grades companies on their efforts to mitigate the risks of forced labour, child labour and worker exploitation throughout their supply chains. Assessment criteria fall into four main categories: policies, knowing suppliers, auditing and supplier relationships, and worker empowerment.
[Source 2016][More on Workers Rights]
Responsible Sourcing Network's 2014 report Cotton Sourcing Snapshot: A Survey of Corporate Practices to End Forced Labor includes survey results and ratings of 49 companies reflecting actions they are taking to stop cotton from Uzbekistan picked with forced labor from entering their supply chains. The survey offered a maximum of 100 points across 11 indicators in the categories of Policy, Public Disclosure, Engagement, and Implementation & Auditing. Only five companies scored over 50 points, 19 companies scored under 25 points, and two companies scored zero. This company received a score of 34.
[Source 2014][More on Human Rights]
The California Transparency in Supply Chains Act of 2010 (SB 657) requires companies operating in California to disclose their efforts to eradicate slavery and human trafficking from their direct supply chains. KnowTheChain.org has examined this company's disclosure statement and concluded that it addresses the majority of SB 657 requirements. Follow the link to see this company's disclosure statement.
[Source 2013][More on Workers Rights]
A full profile on this US company can be seen at 'Responsible Shopper' website. Follow source link for details on company record and involvements.
A full profile on this US company can be seen at 'Knowmore' website. Follow source link for details on company record and involvements.
OpenSecrets.org tracks the influence of money on U.S. politics, and how that money affects policy and citizens' lives. Follow link to see this company's record of political donations, lobbying, outside spending and more.
Project JUST examines the manufacturing practices and ethics of fashion brands. Follow the link to see this company's profile.
|Company Structure||Public company|
|Revenue||US$4.5 billion in 2013|
|# Employees||98,000 in 2013|
|Address||New Albany, Ohio, USA|