Lucky Brand

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 Lucky Brand “Very Poor”. 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 its climate impacts.
• There’s no evidence it minimises textile waste in its supply chain.
• There’s no evidence it’s taking meaningful action to reduce or eliminate hazardous chemicals in manufacturing

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

• It doesn't disclose where all of its final production stage occurs.
• 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 implements practices to support diversity and inclusion in its direct operations or supply chain.
• The brand claims to audit some of its supply chain but doesn’t specify what percentage.
• 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 Lucky Brand “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, and exotic animal hair.
• It doesn’t appear to use down, 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 Lucky Brand “Not Good Enough” overall.