Nu.

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

• There’s no evidence it uses any lower-impact materials.
• To minimise waste, its products are made-to-order.
• To minimise waste, it reuses some of its textile offcuts.
• There’s no evidence it’s taking meaningful action to reduce or eliminate hazardous chemicals in manufacturing.
• There’s no evidence it’s taking any action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in its supply chain.

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 Nu. “It’s a Start”. These are a few factors influencing its score:

• It has a mission to improve social conditions for workers in Bangladesh.
• 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.

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 Bared Nu. “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.
• It doesn’t appear to use wool, down, fur, angora, exotic animal skin, or exotic animal hair.

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