Springfield

Springfield is owned by Tendam.

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

• It uses few lower-impact materials.
• It’s set a science based target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in both its direct operations and supply chain but there’s no evidence it is on track.
• There’s no evidence it’s set a target to manage water use in its supply chain.
• There’s no evidence it’s taking actions to protect biodiversity 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 Springfield “Not Good Enough”. These are a few factors influencing its score:

• Its final production stage is certified by Business Social Compliance Initiative Code of Conduct - BSCI.
• It received a score of 21-30% in the 2023 Fashion Transparency Index.
• There’s no evidence it supports diversity and inclusion in its supply chain.
• 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 adequate 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 Springfield “It's a Start”. These are a few factors influencing its score:

• It’s published a general statement about minimising animal suffering but not a formal animal welfare policy.
• It appears to use wool, and down.
• It doesn’t appear to use leather, fur, angora, exotic animal skin, or exotic animal hair.
• It uses few animal-derived materials.

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