Stadium

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

• It uses a medium proportion of lower-impact materials, and it publishes an aggregate breakdown of materials used.
• It uses lower-impact materials that help limit the chemicals, water, and wastewater in its supply chain.
• 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 Stadium “Not Good Enough”. These are a few factors influencing its score:

• It partly traces its supply chain, including all of the final production stage.
• Its Code of Conduct covers ILO principles.
• 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 Stadium “It's a Start”. These are a few factors influencing its score:

• It appears to use wool and down.
• Some of its animal-derived materials consist of recycled or certified alternatives to conventional down.
• It doesn’t appear to use leather, shearling, cashmere, alpaca, mohair, angora, fur, exotic animal hair, or exotic animal skin.
• It states that it sources wool from non-mulesed sheep.

Based on all publicly available information we’ve reviewed, we rate Stadium “It's a Start” overall.