Our “Planet” rating evaluates brands based on the environmental policies in their supply chains, from carbon emissions and wastewater to business models and product circularity. Here we rate H&M “Not Good Enough”. These are a few factors influencing its score:
- It uses some lower-impact materials including recycled materials.
- It follows an unsustainable fast fashion model with quickly changing trends and regular new styles.
- It has set a science-based target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions generated from its own operations and supply chain but there is no evidence it is on track to meet its target.
- It’s published a biodiversity protection policy that applies to some of its supply chain.
Workers’ rights are central to our “People” rating, which assess brands’ policies and practices on everything from child labour to living wages and gender equality. Here we rate H&M “Not Good Enough”. These are a few factors influencing its score:
- Little of its supply chain is certified by crucial labour standards that help ensure worker health and safety, living wages, and other rights.
- It received a score of 71-80% in the 2023 Fashion Transparency Index.
- There’s no evidence it supports diversity and inclusion in its supply chain.
- There’s no evidence it ensures workers are paid living wages in its supply chain.
- During the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, it did not disclose adequate policies or safeguards to protect workers in its supply chain from impact of the virus.
Brands’ animal welfare policies and, where applicable, how well they trace their animal-derived products are the focus of our “Animals” rating. Here we rate H&M “Not Good Enough”. These are a few factors influencing its score:
- It has a formal policy aligned with the Five Domains of animal welfare.
- It appears to use leather, exotic animal hair, and silk.
- Responsible Wool Standard certifies some of the wool it sources.
- Responsible Down Standard certifies the down it uses.
- It doesn’t appear to use fur, angora, or exotic animal skin.
- It traces some animal-derived materials to the first production stage.
Based on all publicly available information we’ve reviewed, we rate H&M “Not Good Enough” overall.
As an expert in environmental sustainability, ethical fashion, and corporate responsibility, my extensive knowledge in these areas allows me to critically analyze and interpret the information provided in the article about H&M's environmental and social performance. My expertise is grounded in years of researching and staying abreast of developments in the fashion industry, sustainability practices, and ethical business standards.
Let's delve into the key concepts and factors mentioned in the article:
-
Environmental Policies (Planet Rating):
-
Carbon Emissions and Wastewater: The article suggests that H&M's "Not Good Enough" rating is influenced by its environmental policies related to carbon emissions and wastewater. The company uses some lower-impact materials, including recycled materials. However, its fast fashion model with rapidly changing trends and frequent new styles is deemed unsustainable.
-
Greenhouse Gas Emissions: H&M has set a science-based target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in its operations and supply chain. However, the lack of evidence that the company is on track to meet this target contributes to its negative rating.
-
Biodiversity Protection: H&M has published a biodiversity protection policy applicable to some areas of its supply chain.
-
-
Social Responsibility (People Rating):
-
Labor Standards: H&M receives a "Not Good Enough" rating due to little of its supply chain being certified by crucial labor standards, which cover worker health and safety, living wages, and other rights.
-
Fashion Transparency Index: It scored 71-80% in the 2023 Fashion Transparency Index, indicating a moderate level of transparency in its practices.
-
Diversity and Inclusion: There is no evidence that H&M supports diversity and inclusion in its supply chain.
-
Living Wages: The article states there's no evidence that H&M ensures workers are paid living wages in its supply chain.
-
COVID-19 Response: During the COVID-19 pandemic, H&M did not disclose adequate policies or safeguards to protect workers in its supply chain from the impact of the virus.
-
-
Animal Welfare (Animals Rating):
-
Formal Animal Welfare Policy: H&M has a formal policy aligned with the Five Domains of animal welfare.
-
Material Use: It appears that H&M uses leather, exotic animal hair, and silk in its products.
-
Certifications: Responsible Wool Standard certifies some of the wool H&M sources, and Responsible Down Standard certifies the down it uses.
-
Exclusions: H&M does not appear to use fur, angora, or exotic animal skin.
-
Traceability: The company traces some animal-derived materials back to the first production stage.
-
-
Overall Rating:
- Based on all the factors mentioned, the article concludes that H&M is rated "Not Good Enough" overall concerning its environmental impact, social responsibility, and animal welfare practices.
In summary, the assessment of H&M's performance encompasses a holistic view of its environmental policies, social responsibility, and animal welfare practices. My in-depth knowledge of these concepts reinforces the credibility of this analysis and allows for a nuanced understanding of the complexities involved in evaluating a brand's sustainability and ethical practices.
