brand cover image

Jack & Jones

Rated: Not good enough

price: $$$$

location: Denmark

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

Jack & Jones sustainability rating

Planet

2 out of 5

People

2 out of 5

Animals

3 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


Jack & Jones is owned by BESTSELLER.

Its environment rating is 'not good enough'. It uses some eco-friendly materials including recycled materials. It has set a science-based target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions generated from its own operations and supply chain but there is no evidence it is on track to meet its target. It implements water reduction initiatives in some of its supply chain. There is no evidence it has a policy to protect biodiversity in its supply chain.

Its labour rating is 'not good enough'. Little of its supply chain is certified by labour standards which ensure worker health and safety, living wages or other labour rights. It received a score of 21-30% in the 2021 Fashion Transparency Index. There is no evidence it implements practices to encourage diversity and inclusion in most of its supply chain. There is no evidence it ensures payment of a living wage in its supply chain. It discloses partial policies or safeguards to protect suppliers and workers in its supply chain from the impacts of COVID-19.

Its animal rating is 'it's a start'. It has a formal animal welfare policy aligned with Five Freedoms and has some clear mechanisms to implement. It uses leather and exotic animal hair. It uses down accredited by the Responsible Down Standard. It has a policy to source wool from non-mulesed sheep but does not provide evidence on how it is implemented. It does not use fur, exotic animal skin or angora. It traces some animal product to the first stage of production.

Jack & Jones is rated 'Not good enough' overall.

Last updated February 2022