Capri

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 13%.
Source: Forest 500 (2021)

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)

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 early 2017, China's Communist Party began a new incarceration campaign, rounding up, detaining and forcibly indoctrinating over 1 million Uyghurs and other Muslim minority ethnic groups in the far-western region. A coalition of more than 180 human rights groups is calling on apparel brands and retailers to stop using forced labour in the Uyghur Region and end their complicity in the Chinese government's human rights abuses. This company is amongst those being targeted by coalition members for not doing enough to identify and disengage from business relationships with Uyghur Region-linked forced labour.
Source: End Uyghur Forced Labour (2021)

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)

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)

JUST Capital polls Americans every year to identify the issues that matter most in defining just business behaviour. For their 2022 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 Bottom 10% of 954 companies, and 34th of 36 Household Goods & Apparel companies.
Source: JUST Capital (2022)

In 2021, 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 D.
Source: CDP (2021)

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)

The 2021 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 16%, signifying it makes some efforts to manage and improve their supply chains but make little supply chain information publicly available. The average score was 23% and the highest score was 78%.
Source: Fashion Revolution (2021)

This company received an S&P Global ESG Score of 35/100 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)