Image credit: HIKARI underwear

HIKARI underwear

Rated: Good

price: $$$$

location: Japan

HIKARI creates underwear with a focus on comfort and natural materials.

HIKARI underwear sustainability rating

Planet

5 out of 5

People

3 out of 5

Animals

3 out of 5

Overall rating: Good

Our ratings are based on a scale from 1 (We avoid) to 5 (Great) How we rate


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 HIKARI underwear “Great”. These are a few factors influencing its score:

  • It uses a high proportion of lower-impact materials including organic cotton.
  • It uses low impact materials that help limit the chemicals, water, and wastewater in its supply chain.
  • To minimise waste, its products are made-to-order.
  • It manufactures its products closer to home to reduce the climate impact of long-distance shipping.
  • It avoids plastic packaging.

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 HIKARI underwear “It's a Start”. These are a few factors influencing its score:

  • Its final production stage happens in Japan, a medium risk country for labour abuse.
  • It traces most of its supply chain.
  • There’s no evidence it has a Code of Conduct.
  • There’s no evidence it ensures workers are paid living wages in its supply chain.

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 HIKARI underwear “It's a Start”. These are a few factors influencing its score:

  • There’s no evidence it has an animal welfare policy.
  • It appears to use wool.
  • It doesn’t appear to use leather, down, fur, angora, exotic animal skin, or exotic animal hair.

Based on all publicly available information we’ve reviewed, we rate HIKARI underwear “Good” overall.

Last updated April 2024