Eden Park

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 Eden Park “Very Poor”. These are a few factors influencing its score:

• It uses few lower-impact materials, and it does not publish an aggregate breakdown of materials used.
• It uses renewable energy in its direct operations (such as stores or offices) but not in its supply chain.
• There’s no evidence it’s taking meaningful action to reduce or eliminate hazardous chemicals in manufacturing.
• There’s no evidence it’s taking meaningful action to reduce water use. 

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 Eden Park “Very Poor”. These are a few factors influencing its score:

• It partly traces its supply chain including the final and some of the second production stages.
• 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.
• During the height of the Covid-19 pandemic, it did not disclose adequate policies or safeguards 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 Eden Park “Not Good Enough”. These are a few factors influencing its score:

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

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