Tiffany & Co
OVERALL |
|
Owned |
FRA |
Rating |
 |
Luxury goods, especially jewellery
Founded in 1837 in Brooklyn, USA. Known for its diamond and sterling silver jewelry. Acquired by French luxury giant LVMH in 2021 for US$15.8 billion.
Company Ownership
| Tiffany & Co | USA | website | ||||
LVMH Moet Hennessy Louis Vuitton SA 
owns 100% of Tiffany & Co |
FRA | website | ||||
Luxury goods World's largest luxury goods company. Wines and spirits, perfumes, cosmetics, fashion and leather goods, watches and jewellery, plus a retail division. Chairman Bernard Arnault and his family, through Groupe Arnault, own about 47% of LVMH. | ||||||
Company Assessment
| PRAISE | CRITICISM | INFORMATION | ||
| Tiffany & Co | ||||
|
In 2020, the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) asked companies to provide data about their efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and mitigate climate change risk. Responding companies are scored across four key areas: disclosure; awareness; management; and leadership. This company received a CDP Climate Change Score of A-.
Source: CDP (2020)
Human Rights Watch's 2020 report, "Sparkling Jewels, Opaque Supply Chains" scrutinizes and ranks 15 major jewelry companies for their efforts to prevent and address human rights abuses in their gold and diamond supply chains between 2018 and 2020. This company was ranked 'Strong': has taken significant steps towards responsible sourcing.
Source: Human Rights Watch (2020)
This company is listed as having best practice on a report card on lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender equality in corporate America.
Source: Human Rights Campaign (2020) |
This company received a score of 6.2/100 (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)
In 2019 the median pay for a worker at this company was US$35,743. The CEO was paid 378 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)
This company received a score of 42.2/100 in the Newsweek Green Rankings 2016, 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 (2016)
This company received an S&P Global ESG Score of 28/100 in the Retailing 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) |
As You Sow's 2019 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, Alessandro Bogliolocame in at number 100 on the list, having been paid US$13,976,418 in 2018. 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: As You Sow (2019)
In 2007 WWF-UK analysed and ranked the 10 largest publicly-traded luxury brand-owners on their environmental, social and governance (ESG) performance. (Listed under information due to age of report)
Source: WWF UK (2007)
As listed on the We Mean Business website, this company has committed to the following climate action initiatives: responsible corporate engagement in climate policy; remove commodity-driven deforestation from all supply chains by 2020.
Source: We Mean Business (2017)
Following a campaign by the Rainforest Action Network in 2009, this company pledged to take concrete action to clean their supply chains of rainforest paper and sever relationships with companies (like Asia Pulp and Paper) who continue to destroy high conservation and endangered forests in Indonesia and elsewhere.
Source: RAN (2010)
This company is a member of the Leather Working Group, a multi-stakeholder group who's objective is to develop and maintain a protocol that assesses the compliance and environmental performance of tanners and promotes sustainable and appropriate environmental business practices within the leather industry.
Source: Leather Working Group (2019)
This company is a certified member of the Responsible Jewellery Council (RJC). Certification under the RJC system demonstrates that the Member's business practices conform to RJC's Code of Practices for business ethics, human rights, social and environmental performance.
Source: Responsible Jewellery Council (2019)
This company is a member of the Responsible Minerals Initiative (formerly the Conflict-Free Sourcing Initiative), which helps companies address conflict minerals issues in their supply chains. The RMI provides information on conflict-free smelters and refiners, common tools to gather sourcing information, and forums for exchanging best practices on addressing conflict minerals. Membership is open to companies that use or transact in tantalum, tin, tungsten or gold (3TG). Founded in 2008 by members of the Electronic Industry Citizenship Coalition and the Global e-Sustainability Initiative.
Source: RMI (2019)
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 52.7% (Adequate).
Source: As You Sow (2019)
In November 2017 the Enough Project published Demand the Supply, which ranked consumer electronics and jewelry retail companies on their efforts to develop conflict-free minerals supply chains from Congo. Companies were ranked on reporting; sourcing conflict-free minerals from Congo; supporting the artisanal mining communities in Eastern Congo; and conflict-free minerals advocacy. This company received a score of 60/120.
Source: Enough Project (2017)
California, the UK and Australia have all enacted legislation requiring companies operating within their borders to disclose their efforts to eradicate modern slavery from their operations and supply chains. Follow the link to see this company's disclosure statement.
Source: Modern Slavery Registry (2018)
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.
Source: Open Secrets (2014)
JUST Capital polls Americans every year to identify the issues that matter most in defining just business behaviour. For their 2021 rankings the public identified 19 issues, which are organised under the headings Workers, Communities, Customers, Shareholders and Environment. JUST Capital then define metrics that map to those issues and track and analyse the largest, publicly traded U.S. companies. This analysis powers their rankings, in which this company ranked 286th of 928 companies, and 17th of 48 Retail companies.
Source: JUST Capital (2020) |
||
| LVMH Moet Hennessy Louis Vuitton SA | ||||
|
In 2020, the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) asked companies to provide data about their efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and mitigate climate change risk. Responding companies are scored across four key areas: disclosure; awareness; management; and leadership. This company received a CDP Climate Change Score of B.
Source: CDP (2020)
In 2020, the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) asked companies to provide data about their efforts towards removing commodity-driven deforestation and forest degradation from its direct operations and supply chains. Responding companies are scored across four key areas: disclosure; awareness; management; and leadership. This company received a CDP Forests Score of B.
Source: CDP (2020)
In 2020, the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) asked companies to provide data about their efforts to manage and govern freshwater resources. Responding companies are scored on six key metrics: transparency; governance & strategy; measuring & monitoring; risk assessment; targets & goals; and value chain engagement. This company received a CDP Water Security Score of B.
Source: CDP (2020)
This company received an S&P Global ESG Score of 69/100 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) |
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 0.75/19.5, making it one of the weakest performing companies.
Source: Rank a Brand (2016)
In 2018 KnowTheChain benchmarked 120 large global companies in the ICT, Food & Beverage, and Apparel & Footwear sectors on their efforts to address forced labour and human trafficking in their supply chains. This company received a score of 14/100.
Source: KnowTheChain (2018)
LVMH is being pressured by PETA to end its use of animal skins after an expose of crocodile farms in Vietnam. "PETA is calling on LVMH to stop supporting the torment and killing of ostriches, crocodiles, and other beautiful wild animals for bags, watchbands, and shoes."
Source: PETA (2019)
A number of this company's fragrance and cosmetics brands appear 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: PETA (2020)
The Forest 500 identifies, ranks, and tracks the governments, companies and financial institutions worldwide that together could virtually eradicate tropical deforestation. Rankings are based on their public policies and commitments and potential impacts on tropical forests in the context of forest risk commodities (palm oil, soy, beef, leather, timber and paper). This company received a score of 37%.
Source: Forest 500 (2020)
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)
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 towards the bottom of the scorecard. Microbeads are not retained by wastewater treatment and end up in the ocean where they are a threat to the marine environment.
Source: Greenpeace (2016)
Several brands owned by this company are listed on the Humane Society website as designers who still use fur. Namely Fendi, Dior, Louis Vuitton and Marc Jacobs.
Source: Humane Society (2019)
This company scores Ethical Consumer's worst rating for the likely use of tax avoidance strategies, and has at least two high risk subsidiaries in tax havens.
Source: Ethical Consumer (2018)
In 2019 LVMH subsidiary Sephora paid out US$159,349 to the State of Indiana in order to settle a dispute over tax fraud. The retailer stood accused of making false statements regarding its failure to collect gross retail taxes on shipping and handling fees for online sales to shoppers based in the state, in violation of the Indiana False Claims Act.
Source: The Indiana Lawyer (2019) |
Greenpeace launched their Detox 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 have joined Greenpeace's Detox Program, which requires companies to adopt a credible, individual and public commitment to phase out the use and release of all toxic chemicals from their global supply chain and products, by 1 January 2020. This company is yet to make a commitment despite pressure from Greenpeace.
Source: Greenpeace (2016)
In Jan 2012 a Paris appeals court upheld a 40 million euro fine imposed in 2006 by the French competition watchdog, which said the companies involved had reached illicit agreements on price fixing, enforced by procedures to monitor prices in outlets and backed up by commercial threats for non-compliance. Thirteen leading perfume and luxury goods companies were fined.
Source: news article (2012)
This company owns brands which have been awarded Positive Luxury's Trust Mark. To be accredited brands are assessed in the following areas: philanthropy, environmental, social, innovation, community and governance.
Source: Positive Luxury (2015)
This company is a member of the Better Cotton Initiative, a voluntary initiative which encourages the adoption of better management practices in cotton cultivation to achieve measurable reductions in key environmental impacts, while improving social and economic benefits for cotton farmers, small and large, worldwide.
Source: Better Cotton Initiative (2019)
This company is a member of the Leather Working Group, a multi-stakeholder group who's objective is to develop and maintain a protocol that assesses the compliance and environmental performance of tanners and promotes sustainable and appropriate environmental business practices within the leather industry.
Source: Leather Working Group (2019)
This company is a member of Guidance, a pre-competitive global initiative, convened by Quantis, which aims to provide a methodological guide with credible references that companies can use to account for the climate change impacts of their efforts on sustainable forests and agriculture in an accurate and credible manner.
Source: Quantis (2016)
This company is a member of the Responsible Mica Initiative, a Do-Tank which aims to eradicate child labour and unacceptable working conditions in the Indian mica supply chain by joining forces across industries.
Source: Responsible Mica Initiative (2020)
This company is a member of the Supplier Ethical Data Exchange (Sedex), a not-for-profit, membership organisation that leads work with buyers and suppliers to deliver improvements in responsible and ethical business practices in global supply chains. Tens of thousands of companies use Sedex to manage their performance around labour rights, health & safety, the environment and business ethics.
Source: Sedex (2018)
This company is a member of the Sustainable Apparel Coalition, a multi-stakeholder initiative launched in March 2011 by a group of global apparel and footwear companies and non-profit organizations (representing nearly one third of the global market share for apparel and footwear). The Coalition's goals are to reduce the apparel industry's environmental and social impact, and to develop a universal index to measure environmental and social performance of apparel products.
Source: Sustainable Apparel Coalition (2020)
This company is a member of the Textile Exchange, a global non-profit that works closely with its members to drive textile industry transformation in preferred fibres, integrity and standards and responsible supply networks. They identify and share best practices regarding farming, materials, processing, traceability and product end-of-life in order to reduce the textile industry's impact on the world's water, soil and air, and the human population.
Source: Textile Exchange (2019)
In 2007 WWF-UK analysed and ranked the 10 largest publicly-traded luxury brand-owners on their environmental, social and governance (ESG) performance. (Listed under information due to age of report)
Source: WWF UK (2007)
The 2020 Fashion Transparency Index reviewed 250 of the world's largest fashion brands and retailers and ranked them according to how much they disclose about their social and environmental policies, practices and impacts. Brands owned by this company scored 26%, signifying it is doing a bit more than the others when it comes to having policies and commitments in place and auditing and reporting activities, but could be doing more. The average score was 23% and the highest score was 73%.
Source: Fashion Revolution (2020)
This company received a score of 59/100 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) |
||
Company Details
| Type | Wholly-owned subsidiary |
| Revenue | 4 billion USD (2017) |
| Employees | 13,100 (2018) |
Contact Details
| Address | New York, New York, USA |
| Website | www.tiffany.com |
Products / Brands
Tiffany & Co|
Tiffany Luxury Brands |