Tommy Hilfiger

The Clean Clothes Campaign report, Tailored Wages 2019 analyses responses from 32 top clothing brands about their progress in implementing a living wage for the workers who produce their clothes. This company received the lowest possible grade in the report, meaning they produced no evidence that any worker making their clothes was paid a living wage anywhere in the world.
Source: Clean Clothes Campaign (2019)

Female migrants employed in garment factories in Bangalore, India are recruited with false promises about wages and benefits, and are subjected to conditions of modern slavery. They work under high-pressure for low wages, and live in hostels with poor living conditions while their freedom of movement is severely restricted. This company was identified in the 2018 report "Labour Without Liberty" as sourcing garments from these factories.
Source: Clean Clothes Campaign (2018)

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)

This company received a score of 38/100 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)

In 2019 the median pay for a worker at this company was US$19,472. The CEO was paid 897 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 11.6/100 (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)

This 2016 investigative report by the India Committee of the Netherlands (ICN) reveals how migrant garment workers in Bangalore, South India endure appalling living conditions, low wages and restricted freedom of movement. This company pledged to take serious action after being named in the report as sourcing from Bangalore.
Source: ICN (2016)

This company sources garments from Ethiopia, where workers are paid an average of the equivalent of US$26 per month, the lowest in the world, according to a 2019 report from New York University Stern Center for Business and Human Rights. Based on that amount, "Workers, mostly young women from poor farming families, cannot afford decent housing, food, and transportation."
Source: The Fashion Law (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 1.75/19.5, making it one of the weaker performing companies.
Source: Rank a Brand (2016)

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 20-30 band range. The overall average score was a disappointing 24%.
Source: CHRB (2019)

This company received an S&P Global ESG Score of 36/100 in the Textiles, Apparel & Luxury Goods category of the 2019 SAM Corporate Sustainability Assessment, an annual evaluation of companies' sustainability practices. 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 (2019)