Palmers

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

• It uses few lower-impact materials.
• There’s no evidence it’s taken any action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in its supply chain.
• While it donates unsold clothes to charity, 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 Palmers “Very Poor”. These are a few factors influencing its score:

• It sources its final stage of production from countries with high risk of labour abuse.
• There’s no evidence it provides financial security to its suppliers, which can result in poor working conditions and wages.
• It has an internal grievance mechanism for workers in its supply chain to anonymously report concerns like harassment and unpaid wages.
• There’s no evidence it implements practices to support diversity and inclusion in its direct operations or supply chain.
• 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 Palmers “Not Good Enough”. These are a few factors influencing its score:

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

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