Capri

This company received a score of 5.6/100 (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)

A 2018 report by China Labour Watch found numerous labor law violations in a Chinese factory which is one of this company's main suppliers. Female workers at the factory went on strike after trying to negotiate with factory management in an effort to defend the basic rights granted to them by Chinese labor laws as well as receive compensation for their owed wages.
Source: China Labor Watch (2018)

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: World Benchmarking Alliance (2019)

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 international brands. The 2021 Laundering Cotton report investigates how forced-labour-produced cotton and cotton-based goods from the Uyghur Region wend their way into international supply chains of well-known international clothing brands, including brands owned by this company.
Source: Sheffield Hallam University (2021)

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: PETA (2022)

The 2022 Nature Benchmark ranks 400 companies across eight industries on their efforts to protect our environment and its biodiversity. The companies were assessed using three measurement areas: governance and strategy; social inclusion and community impact; and ecosystems and biodiversity. This company ranked #285/400, with a total score of 8/100.
Source: World Benchmarking Alliance (2022)

JUST Capital polls Americans every year to identify the issues that matter most in defining just business behaviour. For their 2023 rankings JUST Capital asked a representative sample of 3,002 Americans to compare 20 different business Issues on a head-to-head basis, producing a reliable hierarchy of Issues ranked in order of priority. Issues are organised under the headings Workers, Customers, Communities, the Environment, or Shareholders & Governance. 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 in the Bottom 10% of 951 companies, and 13th of 13 Clothing & Accessories companies.
Source: JUST Capital (2023)

Forest 500 identifies the 350 companies and 150 financial institutions with the greatest exposure to tropical deforestation risk, and annually assesses them on the strength and implementation of their deforestation and human rights commitments. This company received a score of 23%.
Source: Forest 500 (2022)

In 2020/21 KnowTheChain benchmarked over 180 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 20/100.
Source: KnowTheChain (2021)

In 2019 the median pay for a worker at this company was US$25,700. The CEO was paid 558 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 an S&P Global ESG Score of 33/100 in the Textiles, Apparel & Luxury Goods category of the S&P Global Corporate Sustainability Assessment, an annual evaluation of companies' sustainability practices (last updated 23 Sep 2022). 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 (2022)