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

• It uses few lower-impact materials, and it does not publish an aggregate breakdown of materials used.
• There’s no evidence it’s set a target to manage water use in its supply chain.
• 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.
• While it offers clothing recycling to consumers, it doesn’t report on its results.
• To minimise plastic waste, it uses packaging that consumers can repurpose and reuse.

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:

• 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 provides financial security to its suppliers, which can result in poor working conditions and wages.
• 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 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 Springfield “Not Good Enough”. These are a few factors influencing its score:

• It appears to use leather, wool, and down.
• It doesn’t appear to use shearling, cashmere, alpaca, or mohair.
• It’s published a general statement about minimising animal suffering but not a formal animal welfare policy.
• It uses few animal-derived materials.

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