Rodd & Gunn

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 Rodd & Gunn “Not Good Enough”. These are a few factors influencing its score:

• It uses some lower-impact materials, however it does not publish an aggregate breakdown of materials used.
• There’s no evidence it takes action to minimise its packaging, which is a driver of plastic waste.
• There’s no evidence it’s set a target to manage water use in its supply chain.
• It takes action to reduce process greenhouse gas emissions in its first production stage.
• While it donates used clothes to charity, 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 Rodd & Gunn “It's a Start”. These are a few factors influencing its score:

• Much of its final stage is located in low risk countries or certified facilities, however it does not publish an aggregate breakdown of suppliers.
• There’s no evidence it supports diversity and inclusion in its supply chain.
• Its Code of Conduct covers ILO principles.
• It traces most of its supply chain.
• It audits some of its supply chain including all of the final production stage.
• There’s no evidence it ensures workers are paid living wages in its supply chain.
• During the height of the Covid-19 pandemic, it disclosed some policies 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 Rodd & Gunn “Not Good Enough”. These are a few factors influencing its score:

• It appears to use leather, shearling, wool, cashmere, alpaca, down, and horn.
• Some of its animal-derived materials consist of recycled or certified alternatives to conventional cashmere, wool, alpaca, and down.
• It doesn’t appear to use mohair, fur, angora, or exotic animal skin.
• It states that it sources wool from non-mulesed sheep.
• It has a formal policy but it is not aligned with the Five Domains of Animal Welfare.

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