R M Williams

This company is half owned by luxury goods giant LVMH, which has criticisms.
[More on Governance]

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 0.75/19.5, making it one of the weakest performing companies.
[Source 2016][More on Human Rights]

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 2018][More on Workers Rights]

LVMH subsidiary Donna Karan continues to use fur in her designs, despite previous promises to stop doing so.
[Source 2015][More on Animal Rights]

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 2018][More on Animal Testing]

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. Several brands owned by this company received an 'E'.
[Source 2018][More on Sustainability Reporting]

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, soya, beef, leather, timber, and pulp and paper). This company received a score of 2/5.
[Source 2018][More on Forests]

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 2016][More on Oceans]

Brands owned by this company are on RankaBrand's Greenwashing Alert list. These are companies that report in some way on sustainability, but the information they provide is either of marginal or no relevance and is not explicit about sustainability performance.
[Source 2014][More on Irresponsible Marketing]

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 2018][More on Finance]

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 20%, 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 64%.
[Source 2019][More on Sustainability Reporting]

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 2019][More on Finance]