Hunter

Rated: We avoid

price:
$$$$

location: United Kingdom

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

Hunter sustainability rating

Planet

1 out of 5

People

1 out of 5

Animals

3 out of 5

Overall rating: We avoid

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


Hunter is owned by Authentic Brands 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 Hunter “Very Poor”. These are a few factors influencing its score:

  • It uses some lower-impact materials including recycled materials.
  • There’s no evidence it’s taking meaningful action to reduce its climate impacts.
  • There’s no evidence it’s taking meaningful action to reduce or eliminate hazardous chemicals in manufacturing.
  • There’s no evidence it’s taking actions to minimise microplastic impacts.

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

  • It sources its final stage of production from countries with extreme risk of labour abuse.
  • There’s no evidence it provides financial security to its suppliers, which can result in poor working conditions and wages.
  • There’s no evidence it ensures workers are paid living wages in its supply chain.
  • There’s no evidence it implements practices to support diversity and inclusion in its direct operations or 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 Hunter “It’s a Start”. These are a few factors influencing its score:

  • There’s no evidence it has an animal welfare policy.
  • It appears to use leather, and wool.
  • It doesn’t appear to use down, fur, angora, 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 Hunter “We Avoid” overall.

Last updated April 2024