Chanel Australia

This company received a score of 0/100 (retrieved 14-Feb-2018) 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 2018][More on Habitats]

The 2019 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. Brands owned by this company scored 10%, signifying it has little to no information about their supply chain practices or policies available to the public. The average score was 21% and the highest score was 64%.
[Source 2019][More on Sustainability Reporting]

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 2017][More on Sustainability Reporting]

A 2014 report by China Labour Watch found poor working conditions in a Chinese factory that mainly manufactures cosmetic brushes for multinational beauty companies, including this one. Labor abuses include excessive overtime and poor worker safety measures. Also, the factory has not purchased social insurance for workers as required by law. Hundreds of workers went on strike in Jan 2014 after a female team leader was slapped by a male manager.
[Source 2015][More on Workers Rights]

This company uses nanoscale materials in some of its personal care products.
[Source 2011][More on Product Safety]