Our principles
1Evidence over documentation
Any brand can publish a sustainability report; we assess the quality of transparency behind it. We prioritise clear, product-level disclosure of who made the item, where it was produced, and from what materials—signals that often carry more weight than high-level reporting.
2Size-tiered expectations
Brands are assessed relative to their scale. We classify each as micro, small, or large, and apply criteria accordingly—only expecting measures like science-based targets or third-party audits where they are realistically applicable.
3Certifications as supporting signals
Third-party certifications are taken into account, but they are not determinative. Brands without certifications can score highly if they provide strong, verifiable evidence, while certified brands must demonstrate meaningful practices behind their credentials.
4Specificity over generalisation
We prioritise precise, verifiable information over broad or ambiguous claims. Detailed disclosures about materials, supply chains, and production methods are weighted more heavily than general sustainability language or marketing-led statements.
5No trade-offs across categories
Each dimension—materials, labour, environment, transparency, and animal welfare—is assessed independently. Strong performance in one area does not offset weak performance in another, ensuring that gaps are not obscured by strengths elsewhere.
What we measure
Materials28%
What the item is actually made of — the fibres, fabrics, and whether they hold third-party certifications like GOTS or OEKO-TEX. We check exact compositions, sustainable alternatives to virgin synthetics, and independently verified data.
Do they disclose exact material compositions on product pages?
Are more than 50% of materials organic, recycled, or certified sustainable?
Do they hold GOTS, GRS, bluesign, or OEKO-TEX certification?
Have they replaced virgin polyester with recycled alternatives?
Labour28%
How workers are treated across the supply chain — living wages, safe conditions, independent audits, and certifications like SA8000 or Fair Trade. We look at supplier transparency at Tier 1 and Tier 2 level.
Do they publish a supplier list covering Tier 1 factories?
Have they committed to living wages across their supply chain?
Are independent third-party audits published and up to date?
Do workers have access to a grievance mechanism?
Environment30%
The brand's broader planetary impact — carbon targets, water use, renewable energy, chemical management, and packaging. We look for science-based targets and concrete commitments rather than vague pledges.
Do they have science-based carbon reduction targets?
Have they committed to reducing water use in production?
Do they use renewable energy in their own operations?
Have they eliminated single-use plastic from packaging?
Transparency14%
Does the brand publish verifiable evidence for their claims? We check whether audit results are public, whether sustainability pages contain actual data rather than marketing language.
Do they publish audit results and supply chain data publicly?
Does their sustainability page contain specific data, not just claims?
Have they engaged with the Fashion Revolution Transparency Index?
Animal Welfare10%
Whether the brand has explicit policies against fur, exotic skins, angora, and irresponsibly sourced down. Brands that score well here are rewarded; it does not heavily penalise brands where animal materials are not relevant.
Do they have an explicit fur-free and exotic skin-free policy?
Is their down responsibly sourced (RDS) or avoided entirely?
Do they have an angora-free policy?
The grades
AGreat
These brands lead on all dimensions and demonstrate genuine transparency.
BGood
Strong practices in most areas, meaningful commitment to sustainability.
CIt's a start
Some good practices but significant gaps remain.
DNot good enough
Limited evidence of sustainable practices across key dimensions.
FWe avoid
Little to no credible sustainability information; possible greenwashing.
Scoring caps
Certain practices override the total score regardless of performance elsewhere.
Extreme animal welfare violations. Brands confirmed to use fur, real exotic skins, or live-plucked down are capped at D regardless of other scores.
Verified greenwashing. Where a brand has been found by a regulator or credible third party to have made false sustainability claims, the score is capped accordingly.
Price-practice inconsistency. A brand cannot claim premium sustainable practices while pricing below the sustainable production threshold. Where this inconsistency is clear, scores are adjusted.