This article is written by a student writer from the Her Campus at Emmanuel chapter.

Vote with your wallet, a term meant to empower consumers and show them that their buying habits hold power. Especially in American, as a Capitalist society,. mMarkets are based on supply and demand. For the past few decades technology has been advancing at an incredibly fast pace. While it has undoubtedly helped people across the globe, it has also created this need for immediate satisfaction. In 2019, almost anything is available with the touch of a finger. If we want something or if we want to know something, we are able to get the knowledge instantaneously. Some social scientists have found that this availability is correlated with shortening people’s attention spans.

In terms of the fashion industry, this need for immediate satisfaction can be seen with the rise of fast fashion businesses like Forever 21, Zara, H&M, Shein, Romwe, etc. Fast fashion businesses play off of quick changing fashion trends and sell clothes, shoes, and accessories for extremely cheap prices. This makes them incredibly popular, because who doesn’t like a good deal? These fast fashion brands are able to sell clothes for a low price because they’re low quality and usually, unethically produced. By outsourcing production to developing countries, paying workers low wages, and using cheap materials these companies can reduce the cost of production. The lower the production cost, the lower the good’s price can be. If a company has a high cost of production and they sell their clothes for cheap, they begin to lose money because they don’t get any returns on their product.

These cheap prices make it easier for consumers to go out and buy more clothing. We look into our closets and drawers full clothes and decide we have nothing to wear. I know that when this happens to me, it’s because I don’t like the clothes I have in my closet. So, any logical person might ask, “Meg, thean why do you have them?” Because they’re cheap. When I was younger I would go into a store, try on some clothes, and buy them. Previously, It didn’t matter to me that I didn’t love them, or that they didn’t fit perfectly because I was able to get a tee shirt for $6. This feeds into the process, because what does a person do when they don’t have any more space, they clean, reorganize, and throw things away. Fast fashion and buying clothes you like instead of clothes you love makes us more likely to not want to wear them, causing us to buy more clothes.

After learning what fast fashion companies were, and how they often have huge environmental impacts and abused their workers – forcing them to work long hours in terrible conditions for little pay – I began to get my clothes from other stores.

But then I learned that the problem isn’t just with fast fashion brands. The clothing industry in general is a huge environmental polluter. According to Business Insider, the fashion industry emites 10% of the world’s carbon emissions, is the second largest consumer of the world’s water supply, and causes major pollution of the ocean through microplastics. Microplastics are miniscule plastic fibers and particles that come from clothing when it’s washed. These particles then travel from you’re washing machine to the ocean polluting it and causing all sorts of problems for marine ecology.

In 2019, many brands are trying to become more sustainable. While they might not be fueled by altruism – instead being driven to appease the public and thus raise their profitability – a brand can be sustainable in many ways. From the materials they use, to their means of production, and ways of distribution companies have the power to help the environment. Or, at least try and negate the destruction they were previously causing.

Sorting through sustainability reports and news articles can take a lot of time, and it’s this effort that I think is driving people away from sustainable consumption. It’s this reason that led me to begin researching all different types of brands and their levels of sustainability. I have researched a little over 20 different fashion companies but will be spelling out my grading for five different ones in detail. The rest of the companies will be linked at the bottom with the excel sheet I used to research them. These five should serve as an example of how I am grading these fashion companies, but the rest of my research will be linked to that anyone who is interested can come to their own conclusions on the other brands. These brands will be graded on: sustainable materials, fair labor compensation, production methods and conditions, energy and emissions, toxicity of chemicals, environmental impact, and community impact. For each of these categories I will grade them, giving them a report of BAD, OKAY, PRETTY GOOD, GREAT, OR SUPER. In addition I will explain my reasoning for each of my ratings and provided information on each category so anyone reading is able to make their own assessments as well and vote-with-their-wallets in accordance to the issues that they think are most important.

1. Armani

Sustainable Materials:

Stopped using fur in 2016

Rating: BAD

Going fur free is not nearly enough, as a brand that markets themselves as high caring about the future and social responsibility Armani needs to make more of an effort in becoming sustainable. For instance, using recycled materials, virgin materials, or cotton that requires less water. However, I do give them credit for being one of the first high fashion brands to stop using fur.

Fair Labor Compensation:

Rating: BAD

I have found that this is the case with many brands but Armani is not transparent with the amount of money that they pay their factory workers. Similarly, not much is stated about factory conditions and policies. So, there is no way of knowing if these workers are being treated humanely and being paid adequate compensation for their work.

Production Methods/Conditions:

Claims to use factory auditors that are accredited by “major international organizations” but doesn’t list the auditors or the organization that it uses.
Their website says that the supply chain factories are audited to be in compliance with “ethical-social behavior, safety standards in the workplace and respect for the environment” but it doesn’t define these principles.

Rating: OKAY

While they’re factories are being audited they are not transparent with what organization is being used to audit their factories, what type of audits are being conducted (schedule or suprise), and how often these audits are being conducted. Furthermore, only basic information is given on their safety procedures so consumers have no way of knowing what level these safety standards are up to.

Energy and Emissions

Rating: BAD

They include no information of policies they have implemented or are working on implementing in the near future. This shows that the issue is not being addressed and a solution to this problem needs to be put in place.

Chemicals:

In 2013, Armani created and has been working towards the goal of Zero Discharge by 2020. This goal would ensure that by 2020 chemicals that are harmful to the environment will no longer be used to create Armani products. The Zero Discharge of Hazardous Chemicals, or ZDHC, was created in reference to Greenpeace, an organization that protests issues affecting the environment and promotes solutions.
Has a Product Safety and Control System which includes guidelines to control the chemicals used to produce Armani’s finished products.This is based on the Restricted Substances List,or RSL. This list is a safety management tool for suppliers, laboratories, and other technical departments to reduce and eventually eliminate chemicals like alkylphenols, chromium VI, perfluorinated chemicals (PFCs), phthalates, and dimethylformamide. These chemicals are determined through case studies and discussions with stakeholders. Reducing these chemicals and eliminating them will help the factory workers and the environment.
Armani’s chemical test management system is uniform and will be implemented in all industrial sites.

Rating: PRETTY GOOD

Armani has plans to lessen and eliminate the use of hazardous chemicals in their products. This is good, using sustainable materials and then using toxic chemicals negates any benefits from using sustainable materials. This will also increase the safety of worker conditions and their health concerns. These chemical projects are being assisted by third party unbiased groups like Greenpeace. However, they did not publish or set any checkpoints to make sure that they will meet their goal by 2020. So, as consumers we don’t know where they stand on this goal. This is a good start but Armani needs to be even more transparent on the issue.

Environmental Impact:

Rating: BAD

They have no information available on their environmental impact as a company. If a company was doing things to minimize their environmental impact they wouldn’t want to hide it but promote it. Armani needs more transparency and to address this issue. On their website their section on the environment is full of empty words and no qualifiers for any of the information, it’s greenbating. When a company seems to care about the environment to get customers but has no intention of helping the environment and becoming more sustainable.

Community Impact:

Armani has a joint program with UNICEF where if you buy: Acqua di Gioia, Acqua di Giò, or Acqua for life sport duffel and pouch $5 will be donated to UNICEF USA so they can provide a child with clean water.

Rating: PRETTY GOOD

This program of supplying children with clean drinking water without a doubt helps people. But, helping these children is stopping the root problem. The fashion industry is a huge user of the Earth’s clean water supply, the more these companies produce and the more clothing that is wasted the more water is then used. If this water is used to produce items for the fashion industry than it isn’t being used as clean drinking water in communities that need it. Armani needs to create other community projects and initiatives that help the company fix a problem that they, in part, helped to create. This means implementing community initiatives that help the brand become more sustainable, for example using materials that require less water to begin with.

2. Burberry

Sustainable Materials:

In 2018 Burberry committed banning rabbit, angora, fox, mink, and asian raccoon fur.
Shearling (short wool pulled from a sheep) and leather are still being used in their products but the CEO says they are being phased out, however no date from when they will completely stop has been given.
Has a better cotton initiative, or BCI, in place. BCI is an NGO that works to educate farmers on sustainably growing cotton. They have taught more than 2 million farmers in over 21 different countries on these practices. In 2017-2018, BCI farmers produced over 5 million metric tonnes of “Better Cotton”. Burberry is working towards sourcing and using 100% BCI cotton by 2022.
Partners with the Leather Working Group, an organization that works towards making the tanning industry more sustainable. Burberry encourages their tanneries to be audited by the Leather Working Group.
Partnering with another company to use recycled leather.
Burberry is a member of the Textile Exchange, an organization that works towards creating standards for sustainable materials. They are also a member of the Wool Working Group who, in 2016, published a protocol on how to promote animal welfare and sustainable management of the land they are raising the animals on.

Rating: PRETTY GOOD

This is a great start! Burberry needs to also publish smaller yearly goals to show that they are making progress on working towards sourcing 100% of their cotton from BCI. Additionally, Burberry should look into using other sustainable materials and recycled materials. For the sustainable groups they are a part of they need to publish more quantitative information on how they are using these sustainable materials (for example what percentage of the wool they used is sustainable and incompliance with the regulations).

Fair Labor Compensation:

SInce 2015, Burberry has been a part of the Living Wage Foundation. It has since become more involved with the organization. The Living Wage Foundation is an NGO that holds it’s members accountable for paying their workers a living wage. A living wage is the amount of money a person needs in order to live, sometimes minimum wage is not a living wage.

Rating: PRETTY GOOD

It does not outright say that Burberry requires their supplies to be paid a living wage. So while this is very helpful, if a living wage is only paid to those people working in your retail shops, than it needs to be expended to factory workers as well because those are the people who are abused and work inhumane hours for little pay.

Production Methods and Compensation:

Burberry is working with Elvis and Kresse to used recycled leather. Elvis and Kresse transforms 120 tonnes of leather scraps into accessories. For the past 15 years this business has been transforming unwanted materials like old fire hoses into luxury items.
Working with Natural Resource Defence Council, or NRDC, to create and implement energy and water efficiency programs.

Rating: OKAY

Where is the company of implementing their energy and water efficiency programs? They need to release dates that they will implement these programs by and detail what these programs are. This needs to be done in a timely manner.

Energy and Emissions:

Rating: BAD

Chemicals:

In the past, Burberry had burned 38 million dollars worth of unsold goods. Burning these clothes released toxic chemicals into the environment. As of 2018 they have announced that they are no longer burning unsold goods.
Now, Burberry is a member of Zero Discharge of Hazardous Chemicals

Rating: OKAY

While stopping the burning of their unsold clothing is definitely a step in the right direction, Burberry needs to have more programs that shows they are no longer using hazardous chemicals. Just joining the SDHC doesn’t show that they have a specific goal or deadline to stop using these hazardous chemicals. This brand needs to have more transparency on the matter.

Environmental Impact:

Rating: BAD

They have no information available on their environmental impact as a company. If a company was doing things to minimize their environmental impact they wouldn’t want to hide it but promote it. Burberry needs to be more transparent when it comes to their level of sustainability. So that any areas of sustainability which the company is struggling with isn’t being hidden from the public. On their website Burberry lists multiple organizations that have sustainable goals, but that’s all Burberry does. It does not say how they are implementing the policies and procedures these organizations are advocating for. Burberry needs to show that being a member of these organizations isn’t just a bunch of empty words. That it’s not greenbating. Greenbating is when a company seems to care about the environment to get customers attention and money but has no intention of helping the environment and becoming more sustainable.

Community Impact:

Half of the profits from Burberry’s campaign with Elvis and Kresse will be donated to charities and organizations that focus on renewable energy. One of these charities is the Barefoot College supports the education of female solar engineers.

Rating: PRETTY GOOD

The Barefoot College was created to help rural communities become educated with sustainable practices in order to empower their communities. This is an amazing holistic organization to donate to. As a large profitable company Burberry should create more of these initiatives that will help communities become more sustainable. Other communities it should focus on helping should be those of its factory workers. Basically, this is a good start and now Burberry create more similar initiatives.

3. Patigonia

Sustainable Materials:

Some of Patigonia’s clothing lines are made from 100% recycled down. They use 600 fill duck and goose down that’s recycled. This down is reclaimed from old cushions, bedding, and other down-goods that aren’t resold.
There down collectors and processors are “family-owned and share our same values for high quality and uncompromising performance”.
Using recycled materials helps not only reduce the number of discards but it also gives value to these recycled products. There is a market for recycled down in Europe, if more companies are to take up this practice a market can develop in the United States as well.
All of the virgin down that Patigonia uses, is certified under the Advanced Global Traceable Down Standard by NSF International. NSF International is an independent accredited organization that helps “protect the world’s food, water, consumer products and environment”. This standard covers both their distribution standards and internal traceability systems ensuring that animal welfare is taken care of stopping forced-feeding and live-plucking.
All the colors in their clothing Clean Color Collection (or line S17) are made using only natural dyes that are plant-based. Their color Mulberry uses silkworm excrement, Carmine is produced using cochineal beetles, Pomegranate uses pomegranate rinds and other byproducts, Citrus Brown uses residue from bitter orange peels, Palmetto Green byproducts of the herbal palmetto industry, and the Indigo color comes India. All of these dyes sources are 96% renewable resources.
In the fall of 2019, 69% of Patagonia’s materials used were made from recycled plastics. This helps reduce their carbon footprint by 13,000 tons of CO2. By 2025 their goal is to only use recycled materials.
Starting in 2011 until June of 2019 Patagonia has funded five projects looking into a solution stopping how microfibers are polluting the ocean
Patagonia conducts material assessments on all of their materials to determine the level of sustainability and figure out how to make different fabrics more sustainable. Additionally they have this information linked right on their webpage.
They use hemp, organic cotton, recycled/reclaimed cotton, 100% recycled down or ethically sourcing it, Refibra Lyocell (80% sustainably sourced wood cellulose and 20% recycled cotton scraps) which serves as a replacement to petroleum based materials, recycled nylon, recycled polyester, recycled wool or ethically sourced wool, Tencel Lyocell fibers (made from the pulp of trees on sustainable farms that are certified by the Forest Stewardship Council), Yulex (a neoprene replacement that reduces the use of CO2 in its production by about 80%), and denim made from 100% organic cotton.

Rating: GREAT

Not only is Patagonia very transparent with their level of sustainability, but they are also using multiple sustainable materials. Additionally, Patagonia uses recycled materials which helps cut down on expending more resources to create raw or virgin materials. However, even the virgin materials that Patagonia does use are sourced ethically, use less resources than the average fashion company, and are produced less toxically than what is common, meaning their materials have less of a negative impact on the environment.

Fair Labor Compensation:

In 2015, there were instances where auditors found that in material mills (places where Patagonia’s resources were turned into materials) there was human trafficking and exploitation. Most of these mills were in Taiwan, and the workers, many of which were immigrants, had to pay labor brokers to find them jobs. This fee was often thousands of dollars. To fix this Patagonia partnered with the NGO Verite which “focuses on securing fair working conditions for workers around the world”. Now, Patagonia’s taiwanese suppliers can’t use labor brokers to find employees and require them to pay a fee. The suppliers are also being made to repay the workers who previously had to pay fees.
Currently a member of the Fair Labor Association. This mans that Patagonia has to uphold themselves to a certain level of workplace code of conduct and principles of monitoring. This protects the workers against discrimination and unfair practices. The FLA has “compliance programs” which “have the systems and procedures in place needed to successfully uphold fair labor standards throughout [the participating companies] supply chains”.

Rating: PRETTY GOOD

The FLA is a good start, next Patagonia should implement a policy that ensures that their supplies pay workers a living wage. This will make sure that not only are working conditions human but they workers are being paid fairly.

Production Methods and Compensation:

The company accepts worn out products from customers so they can be repurposed or the materials can be recycled.
In one year, Patagonia has removed 20,000 tons of CO2 by using recycled materials in their clothing.
They partnered with Bluesign Technologies to improve their resource efficiency and avoid toxicity in their supply chains.
Patagonia’s supply companies are switching energy sources. The are converting from coal to solar power.
Besides having the Clean Color Collection, the normal synthetic dyes Patagonia uses require less water, energy, and CO2 to be used.

Rating: GREAT

Patagnoia’s sustainable production methods seem very sustainable, especially compared to other companies. Some improvements might be made by being more transparent and including quantifiable data on how the supply companies are switching to a more green energy source. When will they all be powered by renewable resources?

Energy and Emissions:

Patagonia is working towards becoming a carbon neutral business by 2025, this includes its supply chain. This means that everything from the growing the resources to it ending up on their “customer’s front porch” will be accounted for.
Some of Patagonia’s warehouses are LEED certified
They have 498 solar panels at their headquarters, this reduces their reliance on the power grid by 14%.

Rating: PRETTY GOOD

This is a good start, now Patagonia should just working on keeping up this level of sustainability. To do this, as it works towards becoming carbon neutral it should publish yearly goals and progress of them. After Patagonia becomes carbon neutral it should work towards becoming climate positive. So, having it’s products help the environment instead of just having no negative effect on it.

Chemicals:

One of Patagonia’s carbon neutral materials is their alternative to bamboo rayon. After conducting their textile material assessments Patagonia found that despite using bamboo (a sustainable material) to make rayon, using certain harsh chemicals to procure the final project negated any environmental benefit the original material contributed. Instead, Patagonia uses Tencel Lyocell Fibers that are process with a non toxic spinning solvent in a closed loop system.
Patagonia conducts similar material assessments on all of its materials. It is currently trying to see if it’s Durable Water Repellent coating can be made with less of an environmental impact.
It has a Clean Color Collection that uses natural dyes since most commonly used synthetic dyes contain harsh toxic chemicals that cause environmental problems and health problems for the factory workers coloring the fabrics.

Rating: PRETTY GOOD

Patagonia seems to be going in the right direction when creating new sustainable materials and making sure that the chemicals used don’t negate any environmental benefits the original materials had. This is a good holistic strategy other companies should use to improve their sustainability. While their normal synthetic dyes uses less resources they should conduct a material assessment of their synthetic dyes to see those are non-toxic for the workers dying fabric in their factories.

Environmental Impact:

Patagonia refuses to work with suppliers that deforest the Amazon biome to create livestock fields.
They also do not give business to farms on the IBAMA embargo list, this is a list of farms that improperly deforest the amazon.
Patagonia acknowledges the recycling market crisis (that the market for recycled plastic is no longer profitable for many companies because there is no longer a profit return. This crisis is caused by China’s economy growing to the point where they no longer make good business off of buying and sorting the worlds’ recyclables.) and how because of it compostable and biodegradable materials are no longer being disposed of properly. They realize that these materials, which would degrade in the proper environment are now being put in landfills. These landfills don’t have the proper microbes or elements to degrade these biodegradable products. For example, when paper packaging ends up in a landfill it is not able to degrade properly because there is no oxygen in a landfill, this means that when it decomposes methane is released. Methane is 84 times more destructive to the ozone than CO2. Due to this problem Patagonia is reducing its packaging materials. By reducing this they hope to reduce the amount of biodegradable and compostable material that ends up in landfills.

Rating: GREAT

Not only does Patigonia take into account the immediate effects of their products on the environment. But they also consider their products after effects on the environment. Looking at every aspect of a product from material , to how the material is transformed into the product, to how it’s given and sold to the customers allows Patagonia to sustainable in multiple fields. It seems very holistic to look at all these factors.

Community Impact:

Gives employees the day off so they can vote
Ran ads opposing the elimination of protected lands
Offer collection programs for recycling
Have an Action Works program which supports grassroots organizations in finding solutions to environmental problems

Rating: GREAT

Patagonia’s community impact goes beyond just helping communities be more sustainable and enters into the realm of social justice. The multiple different types of community programs Patagonia has cover multiple different problems. If anything Patagonia should advertise them more. Sustainability is an issue many people care about today and if they were to advertise them they could get a lot more support.

4. H&M

Sustainable Materials:

Have a goal that by 2030 they will only use recycled or sustainably sourced materials.
In 2018, 35% of H&M’s materials were recycled or from sustainable sources.
Previously, the company had burned 2 tonnes of clothing along with other recycled materials. Brand representative said that they don not resort to this often.

Rating: OKAY

While it is good that H&M wants to use only recycled or sustainable materials their goal is too far out. This change needs to happen quicker because each year fashion industries are coming releasing more and more clothing. This excess of clothing adds to the problem. With such a far out goal the use of recycled and sustainable materials in the face of releasing more and more clothing lines negates any benefit the materials would bring. Furthermore, the H&M brand representative did not say they had stopped burning clothing and other materials simply that they do not do it often, meaning that on occasion they still burn clothing. This is clothing that could be given to a charity, thrift store, or repurposed.

Fair Labor Compensation:

Rating: BAD

They have no information available on any fair labor compensation practices. If a company was partnered with an organization that ensured fair wages or if H&M itself guaranteed fair wages they would advertise this. The fact that there is no information of H&M supply chain wages shows that it is probably an issue the brand has not worked on yet. H&M needs to begin working on this issue and be more transparent.

Production Methods:

H&M by 2040 will have achieved carbon emissions of net zero (balancing out carbon emissions with carbon removal)
In 2018 there were many reported cases of female factory workers being abused. Between January and May over 540 cases were described incidents of abuse and threats
Now H&M is a member of the ILO, the International Labor Organization, which is a third party that conducts audits on the supply chain’s factories and with the production teams located in each country.

Rating: OKAY

Partnering with the ILO is a good start and a way to keep supply factories from abusing factory workers, but more needs to be done. H&M’s goal of achieving net zero carbon emissions is too far away and it has nothing else published on the matter, not yearly goals that will act as a plan to keep the brand on track. It also did not talk at all about other sustainable methods of production in terms of materials, machinery, practices, or energy used.

Energy and Emissions:

Rating: BAD

Similarly to what I stated above, there is no mention of energy, this is an issue H&M needs to address and be transparent on. Especially if it has a goal of being carbon neutral, it’s use of nonrenewable energy can play into that. This means they need to use renewable resources in both their supply chains, warehouses, and stores.

Chemicals:

Rating: BAD

Having little information detailing any chemicals used and only using a few sustainable materials and not detailing those out shows that this brand is probably greenbating. The have little to no transparency and no detailed plans for implementation. I would not be surprised if H&M is putting out these vague sustainability policies to make it seem as if they are going sustainable to appease customers with no real intention of becoming sustainable

Environmental Impact:

H&M’s “conscious” collection is very vague about how it is environmentally conscious. When they do give details they generalize the information. For example, when describing this line they put organic cotton and upcycled polyester together in the same category even though the materials are completely different. This shows that they might not know anything about sustainability and it is all just a front..

Rating: BAD

They have almost no policies that seem legitimate. If H&M is seriously becoming more sustainable they need to be more transparent and forthcoming with their information.

Community Impact:

Rating: BAD

H&M has no community initiative despite the fact that they are one of the most popular fast fashion brands on the market. They have the profits to do good but H&M doesn’t do that.

5. Primark

Sustainable Materials:

Primark has a Sustainable Clothing Action Plan that was created by experts at WRAP. They signed on in 2015 and must report annually on SCAP targets. Following SCAP means they use more durable and less resource intensive fibers and fabrics in the production of their clothing. This initiative means Primarks’ cotton is traceable.
Primark uses cotton that was grown using less water and less chemicals
They are a member of SAC the Sustainable Apparel Coalition which works with brands to improve supply chain sustainability.

Rating: PRETTY GOOD

Primark is doing good and on the right track, now they should work on expanding their sustainability to other resources besides cotton. Primark should also work quantify their usage of sustainable cotton.

Fair Labor Compensation:

Living wages are being paid for a standard working week. This means that it meets either the national legal standards or industry benchmark standards.
Employees shall be informed about their wages and the pay period before they begin.
Wages will not be deducted as a disciplinary measure. Additionally, “deductions from wages not provided for by national law [aren’t] permitted without the express permission of the worker concerned”.
All disciplinary measures will be recorded.
Non overtime hours are 48 per week and overtime hours are 60 per week. Overtime hours have to be voluntary and “the extent, frequency and hours worked by individual workers and the workforce as a whole. It shall not be used to replace regular employment”. These overtime hours will be compensated for with no less than 125% of the regular rate.
Safe guards are taken to ensure worker conditions are health and safety. For example access to potable water, sanitary facilities, and food are available
Supply chain factory employees must have at least one day off every seven day period.
Discriminatory practices and harsh inhumane treatment is not allowed
These jobs are regular employment, not labor-only contracting, sub-contracting, or home-working arrangements.
No child labor as defined by the ILO.

Rating: GREAT

I have found it’s very rare for companies to be transparent with how much they are paying the factory workers in their supply chains. It is important that these workers are being paid a living wage instead of just minimum wage. Even here in America a minimum wage (which is much higher than in other places in the world) is not livable. Primark is very transparent and has covered all of its bases.

Production Methods:

Primark, according to SCAD “submit[s] the type and amount of raw materials used in our products to SCAP with the help of our suppliers. We also register the country of origin of the materials and fabrics used which means we can track where they’re being sourced from”.
There are frequent audits of factories, about 3,000 each year. These audits are all paid for by Primark.
All factories are upheld to their code of conduct (which was described in the section above).
Is in compliance with UK Modern Slavery Act. This act affects businesses and supply chain, making sure both are in compliance with the act. Both must publish an annual anti-slavery statement. High levels of transparency are required along with the steps that are being taken to ensure modern slavery isn’t happening
Is partnered with experts like “Solidaridad and the International Finance Corporation (IFC) on its Partnership for Cleaner Textile (PaCT)” in Bangledesh to train factory managers and help procure technology that reduces the use of water. In China a similar program was implemented called Beter Mills which does the same thing.

Rating: GREAT

Primark has multiple different types of sustainable programs and goes into a lot of details for each program. They are also partnered up with legitimate third party organizations for help in these sustainable matters. Not only are they addressing their issue of water use but they are also making sure they have policies that address the labor in their factories along with the environmental impact.

Energy and Emissions:

Tried to create a carbon neutral store where store that would deliver almost 50% of carbon savings. Unforchunately, the technologies used in this store did not “deliver a payback within Primark’s investment policies”.
But Primark is working on a carbon strategy with the Carbon Trust to becoming lower carbon.

Rating: PRETTY GOOD

Primark ambitions and follow through with this project show a lot. Don’t think they are greenbating but honestly trying to become more sustainable. Hopefully they will release more news on how they are trying to be more energy efficient and lower their carbon footprint but I do think this store was a good try.

Chemicals:

Primark is partnered with ZDHC in phasing out certain chemicals that have been deemed hazardous. They are replacing these chemicals with alternative ones. The company has committed to and are following the ZDHC’s Manufacturing Restricted Substances List. Workshops in their supplier factories have been conducted to help the suppliers implement the restricted substances list.
In 2014, signed the Greenpeace’s Detox campaign that says certain chemicals will be completely phased out by 2020. They report annually on the progress of this.

Rating: GREAT

Primark has set a goal for a short amount of time and takes the necessary steps to show that it is following through. It does this by publishing these annual reports. The company is also partnering with multiple different organizations to phase out its use of harmful chemicals and is holding itself to the ZDHC’s list.

Environmental Impact:

Primark has resource recovery units in UK and Germany depots. These depots collect cardboard, plastic, and hangers that are processed and used in more recycling or energy recovery. This process reduces third party waste collection in their stores.

Rating: PRETTY GOOD

Primark is doing excellent an excellent job adjusting to being a sustainable and holistic brand. In addition to everything it is doing now in terms of individual materials it would be beneficial for the company to publish data describing what percentage of their clothing is made from sustainable or recycled materials. Furthermore, they should publish goals on when they will become completely sustainable.

Community Impact:

In 2013, teamed up with CottonConnect and Self-Employed Women’s Association to create a sustainable cotton program in India that trains farmers in sustainable farming methods.
Sustainable cotton program in India started with 1,251 female farmers and increased their profits by 200%. The program has extended to trainign 10,000 in India and 20,00 in Pakistan.
Donate unsold clothing in Europe to Newlife since 2010 and in America Primark to donate unsold clothing to NGO K.I.D.S./Fashion Delivers which distributes the clothing to families who have been displaced due to a natural disaster.
Has a program called “Suddokho” in Bangladesh that helps workers learn skills that enhance their earning potential.

Rating: GREAT

Primark has a multitude of programs going on that help communities of their customers and the communities of their suppliers. These programs cover different issues, are far reaching and seem to be expanding.

What are the Environmental Effects of Your Last Shopping Spree? The Fashion Industry and Sustainable Consumption

We wanna slide into your DMs