Women's wear, lingerie and beauty products
Founded in 1977, today this company is USA's largest retailer of lingerie, and the largest segment of L Brands.
| L Brands Inc
owns 100% of Victoria's Secret
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 green mark, and no red marks, indicating good performance in one or more of these areas.
[Source 2013][More on Human Rights]
This company received a score of 4.5/100 (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]
This company appears on PETA's (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, USA) 'Companies That Do Test On Animals' list, signifying that they manufacture products that are tested on animals at some stage of development.
[Source 2018][More on Animal Testing]
The 2018 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 19%, 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. The average score was 21% and the highest score was 58%.
[Source 2018][More on Sustainability Reporting]
This 2007 investigative report into a sewing factory in Jordan reveals how workers are: paid well below living wage, illegally forced to work overtime, denied necessary residency permits, housed in freezing unheated dorms, and set impossible production goals. Their customers include Victoria's Secret. [Listed under information due to age of report]
[Source 2007][More on Workers Rights]
Major corporations, including this one, use prison labour in the USA, where prisoners are paid slave wages as low as 23 cents an hour doing work which is often dangerous, toxic and unprotected. While much of the work done by prisoners is for the military, other major corporations are taking advantage of the cheap labour in both federal and state US prisons.
[Source 2013][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]
'Nice' rating on the 2009 Naughty/Nice List, the Scorecard on the Catalog and Direct Mail Industry by Forest Ethics. [Listed under information due to age of report]
[Source 2009][More on Forests]
This company has taken angora items off the shelves and promised not to use angora again, following a PETA campaign launched in Dec 2013 which revealed the cruelty inflicted on angora rabbits in Chinese factory farms, where 90% of the world's angora is produced.
[Source 2018][More on Animal Rights]
|L Brands Inc|
In 2016 Greenpeace East Asia ranked the world's 30 biggest personal care companies on their commitment to eliminating microbeads from their personal care products. The scorecard was based on four main criteria: commitment & transparency, definition, deadline and global application. This company ranked joint first. Microbeads are not retained by wastewater treatment and end up in the ocean where they are a threat to the marine environment.
[Source 2016][More on Oceans]
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. Although this company scored under 50 points, it was given a special mention in the report for its efforts to address the issue of Uzbek cotton.
[Source 2014][More on Human 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]
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 0.5/19.5, making it one of the weakest performing companies.
[Source 2016][More on Human Rights]
This company received a score of 16.5/100 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 2017][More on Sustainability Reporting]
D+ grade in the Baptist World Aid Australia's 'Ethical Fashion Report 2018', which grades companies, from A to F, on the strength of their systems to mitigate against the risks of forced labour, child labour, and exploitation in their supply chains. Assessment criteria fall into four main categories: policies, knowing suppliers, auditing and supplier relationships, and worker empowerment.
[Source 2018][More on Workers Rights]
As You Sow's 2018 report, Mining the Disclosures, is a deep analysis of 206 companies' human rights performance in relation to sourcing conflict minerals from the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). This company's score was above 40% (Minimal).
[Source 2018][More on Human Rights]
The 2017 Corporate Human Rights Benchmark assessed 98 of the largest publicly traded companies in the world from the Agricultural Products, Apparel and Extractives sectors on 100 human rights indicators. This company's score was in the 20-29 band range. The overall average score was 28.7%.
[Source 2017][More on Human 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 2016][More on Sustainability Reporting]
Greenpeace launched its "Detox My Fashion" campaign in 2011 to expose the direct links between global clothing brands, their suppliers and toxic water pollution around the world. As a result, many companies, including this one, committed to Greenpeace's Detox Program. The 2016 Detox Catwalk report focused on implementation, assessing the steps taken by fashion brands to fulfil their commitments using three criteria: Detox 2020 plan, PFC elimination and Transparency. This company "originally made a Detox commitment but is currently heading in the wrong direction, failing to take individual responsibility for its supply chain's hazardous chemical pollution."
[Source 2016][More on Habitats]
This 2011 report by the Clean Clothes Campaign grades companies on their efforts to ensure workers in its supply chain receive a living wage. It states "This company has a sourcing and labour standards policy which it displays on its website, but it is not developed enough to have considered living wages." [Listed under Information due to age of report]
[Source 2011][More on Workers Rights]
As You Sow's 2017 report, 'The 100 Most Overpaid CEOs', reveals the 100 most overpaid CEOs from USA's 500 largest public companies (as determined by the S&P 500 list). This company's CEO, Leslie H. Wexner came in at number 27 on the list, having been paid US$27,168,100 in 2015. According to the report, "Most CEOs have come to be grossly overpaid, and that overpayment is harmful to the companies, the shareholders, the customers, the other employees, the economy, and society as a whole."
[Source 2017][More on Finance]
In 2011, a group of major apparel and footwear brands and retailers, including this company, made a shared commitment to help lead the industry towards zero discharge of hazardous chemicals by 2020. It includes specific commitments and timelines to realize this shared goal.
[Source 2017][More on Habitats]
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]
Since its inception in 1993, the L Brands Foundation has contributed more than $160 million to support non-profit organizations, and is committed to supporting community programs that focus on empowering women, nurturing and mentoring children and improving education.
[Source 2012][More on Finance]
|Company Structure||Wholly-owned subsidiary|
|Revenue||US$6.12 billion in 2014|
|Address||Columbus, Ohio, USA|