comma

Rated: Not good enough

price: $$$$

location: Germany

comma is not taking adequate steps to ensure payment of a living wage for its workers.

comma sustainability rating

Planet

2 out of 5

People

2 out of 5

Animals

2 out of 5

Overall rating: Not good enough

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


comma is owned by s.Oliver 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 comma “Not Good Enough”. These are a few factors influencing its score:

  • It uses few lower-impact materials.
  • There’s no evidence it’s taking meaningful action to reduce water use.
  • There’s no evidence it’s taking meaningful action to reduce its climate impacts.
  • There’s no evidence it’s taking actions to protect biodiversity 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 comma “Not Good Enough”. These are a few factors influencing its score:

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

  • It has a formal policy aligned with the Five Freedoms of animal welfare but no clear implementation mechanisms in place.
  • It appears to use leather, down, exotic animal hair, and silk.
  • It has a policy to source wool from non-mulesed sheep but doesn’t provide any evidence to verify its claims.
  • It doesn’t appear to use 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 comma “Not Good Enough” overall.

Last updated January 2024