Ralph Lauren

This company received a score of 3.2/100 (retrieved 10-Oct-2020) 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: IPE (2020)

The Chinese government has facilitated the mass transfer of Uyghur and other ethnic minority citizens from the far west region of Xinjiang to factories across the country. Under conditions that strongly suggest forced labour, Uyghurs are working in factories that are in the supply chains of at least 83 well-known global brands in the technology, clothing and automotive sectors, including brands owned by this company. The Australian Strategic Policy Institute's 2020 report estimates (somewhat conservatively) that more than 80,000 Uyghurs were transferred out of Xinjiang to work in factories across China between 2017 and 2019, and some of them were sent directly from detention camps.
Source: ASPI (2020)

The 2019 Corporate Human Rights Benchmark assessed 200 of the largest publicly traded companies in the world from the Agricultural Products, Apparel, Extractives and ICT Manufacturing sectors on 100 human rights indicators. This company's score was in the 10-20 band range. The overall average score was a disappointing 24%.
Source: CHRB (2019)

In 2016 Rank a Brand assessed 37 major cotton-using companies on their commitment and performance with regard to sustainable cotton by looking at each company's cotton sourcing policies, use of sustainable cotton, and traceability. This company scored 0/19.5, making it one of the worst performing companies.
Source: Rank a Brand (2016)

A 2020 BBC investigation has found that Indian workers in factories supplying the supermarket chains Marks and Spencer, Tesco and Sainsbury's, and the fashion brand Ralph Lauren are being subjected to exploitative conditions. Forced overtime, verbal abuse and poor working conditions were routine at the factories in question, which are rarely held to account for breaking the law.
Source: BBC (2020)

This company received a score of 6.2/100 in the Newsweek Green Ranking 2017, which ranks the world's largest publicly traded companies on eight indicators covering energy, greenhouse gases, water, waste, fines and penalties, linking executive pay to sustainability targets, board-level committee oversight of environmental issues and third-party audits. Ranking methodology by Corporate Knights and HIP Investor.
Source: Newsweek (2017)

This company received an S&P Global ESG Score of 17/100 in the Textiles, Apparel & Luxury Goods category of the S&P Global Corporate Sustainability Assessment, an annual evaluation of companies' sustainability practices (last updated 7 Feb 2021). The rankings are based on an analysis of corporate economic, environmental and social performance, assessing issues such as corporate governance, risk management, environmental reporting, climate strategy, human rights and labour practices.
Source: S&P Global (2021)

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: RAN (2015)

As You Sow's 2019 report, Mining the Disclosures, is a deep analysis of 215 companies' human rights performance in relation to sourcing conflict minerals from the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). This company's score was 43.1% (Minimal).
Source: As You Sow (2019)

In 2019 the median pay for a worker at this company was US$21,358. The CEO was paid 570 times this amount. Exorbitant CEO pay is a major contributor to rising inequality. CEOs are getting more because of their power to set pay, not because they are increasing productivity or possess specific, high-demand skills. The economy would suffer no harm if CEOs were paid less (or taxed more). In contrast, the CEO-to-typical-worker compensation ratio was 20-to-1 in 1965 and 58-to-1 in 1989.
Source: AFL-CIO (2020)