Birkenstock

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 Birkenstock “Not Good Enough”. These are a few factors influencing its score:

• It uses few lower-impact materials.
• There’s no evidence it’s taking actions to protect biodiversity in its supply chain.
• It produces long-lasting products.
• There’s no evidence it minimises textile waste in 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 Birkenstock “Not Good Enough”. These are a few factors influencing its score:

• Most of its final production stage happens in the European Union, a low/medium risk region for labour abuse.
• There’s no evidence it provides financial security to its suppliers, which can result in poor working conditions and wages.
• The brand claims to audit some of its supply chain but doesn’t specify what percentage.
• There’s no evidence it ensures workers are paid living wages in its supply chain.
• During the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, it disclosed some policies to protect workers in its supply chain from 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 Birkenstock “Not Good Enough”. These are a few factors influencing its score:

• There’s no evidence it has an animal welfare policy.
• It appears to use leather, wool, and exotic animal hair.
• It doesn’t appear to use down, fur, angora, or exotic animal skin.
• There’s no evidence it traces any animal-derived materials to the first production stage.

Based on all publicly available information we’ve reviewed, we rate Birkenstock “Not Good Enough” overall.