BLUE STANDARD

Rated: We avoid

price:
$$$$

location: Japan

BLUE STANDARD is not taking adequate steps to eliminate hazardous chemicals in its supply chain.

BLUE STANDARD sustainability rating

Planet

1 out of 5

People

1 out of 5

Animals

2 out of 5

Overall rating: We avoid

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


BLUE STANDARD is owned by RIZAP GROUP.

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 BLUE STANDARD “Very Poor”. 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.
  • There’s no evidence it takes action to minimise its packaging, which is a driver of plastic waste.
  • There’s no evidence it’s taking meaningful action to reduce or eliminate hazardous chemicals in manufacturing.

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. Unfortunately, BLUE STANDARD does not publish sufficient information. You have a right to know how the products you buy affect the issues you care about.

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 BLUE STANDARD “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 angora.
  • It doesn’t appear to use down, fur, exotic animal skin, or exotic animal hair.
  • 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 BLUE STANDARD “We Avoid” overall.

Last updated February 2024