CRUSH

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

• It uses some lower-impact materials, however it does not publish an aggregate breakdown of materials used.
• It uses biodegradable packaging.
• While it offers clothing recycling to consumers, it doesn’t report on its results.
• To minimise waste, it recycles some of its textile offcuts.

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

• Some of its second stage is located in low risk countries or certified facilities, however it does not publish an aggregate breakdown of suppliers.
• There's no evidence it has a Code of Conduct.
• It partly traces its final production stage, though not its entire supply chain.
• 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 CRUSH “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, cashmere, alpaca, and uncertified virgin mohair.
• Some of its animal-derived materials consist of recycled or certified alternatives to conventional cashmere and wool.
• It doesn’t appear to use fur, angora, shearling or down.

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