R.M.Williams

R.M.Williams is owned by Tattarang.

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 R.M.Williams “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 water use.
• 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.

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 R.M.Williams “Not Good Enough”. These are a few factors influencing its score:

• 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.
• It claims it has a Code of Conduct but does not publicly disclose it.
• There’s no evidence it ensures workers are paid living wages in its 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 R.M.Williams “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, exotic animal skin, shearling, exotic animal hair, and silk.
• It doesn’t appear to use down, fur, or angora.
• It traces some animal-derived materials to the first production stage.

Based on all publicly available information we’ve reviewed, we rate R.M.Williams “We Avoid” overall.