This table explains the areas and issues that Good On You assesses when rating fashion brands, and the impact of these issues.
Planet
Area | Issue | Impact | Description |
Resource use | Materials | High | Whether brands use fabrics with lower environmental impacts. We encourage brands to publish estimates of fibres used across 12 months based on purchased fabrics (preferred), sold fabrics, or their available collections. Brands with a higher proportion of lower-impact fibres, such as organic cotton, will score higher than brands that use smaller quantities. |
Circularity | High | Business models and design decisions. Certain fashion business models drive unsustainable consumption practices that lead to excess waste and pollution. We reward business models that focus on slow fashion and circular principles that seek to design out waste and pollution and keep products and fibres in use for as long as possible, including through reuse and recycling. We also evaluate brands that operate high-production and consumption business models, such as fast fashion brands. These brands often have mass sales, regular new arrivals, on-trend designs, and low price points. | |
Microfibres | Medium | Information on brands’ initiatives to avoid or reduce the discharge of microfibres, both pre-consumer and during the consumer-use phase. Synthetic fibres such as polyamide and polyester (including recycled versions) discharge microplastics into the environment, particularly during machine washing. | |
Packaging | Low | The packaging brands use and how they address its environmental impacts. We look at the components of the packaging, such as whether it is made from recycled materials, and the steps the brand has taken to minimise the use of packaging in the first place, as well as eliminating plastic packaging. | |
Non-textile waste | Low | How brands avoid or minimise non-textile waste in their direct operations and across the supply chain, taking into account the relevant certifications. | |
Deforestation | Medium | The steps brands take to avoid or minimise deforestation from the use of fabrics associated with deforestation, including leather, rubber, metal, precious stones, and cellulosic fibres. Brands are expected to have a policy with clear mechanisms of implementation that avoid deforestation for all at-risk fibres. | |
Biodiversity | Low | How brands avoid or minimise impacts on biodiversity in their supply chain. Brands are expected to have policies that include regenerative approaches to agriculture that restore soil and grasslands, protect waterways, and ensure conservation of impacted species. | |
Climate change | CDP disclosure | High | Whether brands disclose to CDP and if they do, what their CDP Climate score is. |
Measurement | High | Whether and how brands measure greenhouse gas emissions across their direct operations and value chain, taking into account any relevant certifications. Brands are expected to identify and measure the emissions that have the largest impact in their supply chain. Brands are also expected to collect primary data from their suppliers for more accurate emissions figures. | |
Reduction | High | The steps brands have taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, taking into account any relevant certifications. We look at where in the value chain the emissions reductions occur, with a particularly strong focus on the supply chain. Making products by hand, using renewable energy, local manufacturing, and energy efficiency projects are some of the actions that brands can take to reduce their climate impact. | |
Targets | Med | Brands’ greenhouse gas emission reduction targets, taking into account any relevant certifications. We reward brands that set ambitious targets that cover their direct operations and particularly their supply chain. Brands are rewarded for setting Science-Based Targets. | |
Progress v target | Med | Whether brands report progress against their targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions across their supply chain. It is important that a brand sets ambitious targets, but even more critical is that it demonstrates that it has or will actually meet that target. | |
Chemicals | Hazardous chemicals | High | How brands reduce the use and impact of hazardous chemicals in their supply chain, including specific issues related to working with leather and footwear if applicable, and taking into account any relevant certifications. We expect brands to go further than eliminating chemicals hazardous to human health and also set targets and actions to eliminate chemicals hazardous to the environment throughout their supply chain. |
Policies | Med | Policies on chemical use, taking into account any relevant certifications. Brands are expected to have a manufacturing restricted substances list aligned with ZDHC or equivalent standard, and be working towards ensuring it is met throughout their supply chain. | |
Leather tanning | Med | How brands avoid or minimise the impact of chromium and other chemicals in leather production, taking into account any relevant certifications. This criterion is weighted more heavily for brands where leather is a dominant fabric used in their production. | |
Solvent use | Med | How brands avoid or minimise the impact of solvent-based chemicals used in shoe production, taking into account any relevant certifications. This criterion is weighted more heavily for brands where shoes is a dominant category sold in their production. | |
Water | CDP disclosure | High | Whether brands disclose to CDP Water and if they do, what their CDP Water score is. |
Local impact | Low | Brands’ impact on water use across the supply chain. Water issues manifest themselves at a local water basin level. Brands are expected to trace their suppliers and determine whether they are operating in water basins with high levels of water stress. | |
Stakeholders | Med | How brands engage with stakeholders to manage water issues in the value chain. Brands are expected to engage with their suppliers and other key stakeholders, particularly in water basins with higher levels of water stress. | |
Targets | Med | Brands’ targets for reducing water use across their supply chain. | |
Reduction | Med | Brands’ initiatives to reduce water use across the supply chain, taking into account any relevant certifications. Specifically, water initiatives where there are higher levels of water use such as the wet processes stages of the supply chain and the raw primary stage. | |
Measurement | Low | How brands measure water use across the supply chain, taking into account any relevant certifications. | |
Wastewater management | Med | How brands manage wastewater and treat effluent across the supply chain, taking into account any relevant certifications. | |
Citizenship | Citizenship | Med | The actions brands take as corporate citizens to address environmental harm related to fashion including innovation, advocacy, and remediation of negative incidents. |
People
Area | Issue | Impact | Description |
Supply chain risk | Traceability | Med | The extent to which brands are able to trace suppliers. Brands are expected to trace beyond just the final production stage and include primary and secondary suppliers to best manage their impact and ensure workers’ rights. |
Transparency | Med | How transparent brands are about their suppliers across the full supply chain, including whether they publish details such as the country of manufacture, supplier names and contacts, number of employees, and raw fabrics used. | |
Labour rights and abuse risks | Med | How brands’ choice of supplier location and industry standards impacts the risk of labour rights abuse in the supply chain. | |
Policies | Code of conduct | Med | Labour policies covered in the supplier code of conduct, taking into account any relevant certifications. At a minimum, brands should have a code of conduct that covers all of their supply chain and includes the ILO Principles. |
Modern slavery | Med | The actions brands take to avoid modern slavery across the supply chain, taking into account any relevant certifications. | |
Financial security | Med | Whether brands ensure financial security for their suppliers, which helps avoid poor working conditions and wages in the supply chain. Long-term contracts offer suppliers stable, predictable income, enabling investment in their workforce. | |
Gender, diversity, and inclusion | Med | The diversity and inclusion policies and practices, both in direct operations and across the supply chain. This includes brands’ approach to discrimination on the basis of race, gender, age, sexuality, ability, and socioeconomic status. We expect brands to demonstrate the mechanisms and tools to ensure that their policy is met, with particular weighting to brands that demonstrate tangible results as an outcome from those mechanisms. | |
Sandblasting | Med | Whether brands offer distressed denim, and if they do, their approach to sandblasting. | |
Assurance | Worker empowerment | High | How brands support the right to freedom of association and other ways to empower workers across the supply chain. We also evaluate what proportion of workers are members of collective bargaining groups or unions, and how the brand engages with those groups to ensure stronger worker outcomes. |
Auditing | High | Any relevant certifications and what proportion of the supply chain is covered. Social auditing is designed to ensure that the policies and standards brands expect of their suppliers are adhered to. | |
Supplier relationships | High | How brands support suppliers to avoid labour rights abuses and to promote respect for workers and fair wages. We look for brands that may be partnering with artisans or independent makers, and ensure that the brand and workers have a balanced and equal working relationship. We also look at brands that may be set up with an explicit purpose to engage with underrepresented workers and communities. | |
Grievance mechanism | Med | The formal processes implemented for workers in the supply chain to raise complaints, harassment, or other issues related to their working conditions and rights. | |
Living wage | Methodology | Med | How brands calculate living wages for workers across the supply chain, taking into account any relevant certifications. |
Outcomes | High | The extent to which brands ensure payment of a living wage to workers across their supply chain, taking into account any relevant certifications. | |
Collaboration | Multi-stakeholder initiative | Med | Cross-industry initiatives to address labour rights that brands are actively involved in. |
Citizenship | Citizenship | Med | The actions brands take as corporate citizens to address labour rights issues including advocacy record, response to COVID-19, remediation for any harm caused, and efforts to avoid sourcing from regions with high risk of human rights abuses. |
Animals
Area | Issue | Impact | Description |
Products | Range | High | If brands make products in categories that normally include animal-derived fabrics, and whether or not they use them. |
Traceability | Traceability | Med | How brands trace animal impacts in the supply chain. |
Policies | Animal welfare | Med | Brands’ approach to animal welfare. |
Commitments | Med | Whether brands have made commitments to avoid all or some animal-derived fabrics or to address specific areas of animal suffering. | |
Materials | Leather | Med | Use of leather or recycled leather. |
Wool | Med | Use of wool and how it is sourced. | |
Down | Med | Use of down and how it is sourced. | |
Other animal materials | High | Whether brands use various less common animal-derived fibres. | |
Citizenship | Citizenship | Med | Brands’ work to advocate for better outcomes for animals in fashion and to respond to incidents in the supply chain. |