THOMAS SABO

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

• It uses few lower-impact materials.
• There’s no evidence it’s taking actions to protect biodiversity in its supply chain.
• There’s no evidence it’s taking meaningful action to reduce or eliminate hazardous chemicals in manufacturing.
• It uses Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certified packaging.

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

• There’s no evidence it supports diversity and inclusion in its supply chain.
• There’s no evidence it provides financial security to its suppliers, which can result in poor working conditions and wages
• It traces most of its supply chain.
• It doesn't disclose where its final production stage occurs.
• 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 THOMAS SABO “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 and pearls.
• It doesn’t appear to use wool, down, fur, angora, exotic animal skin, or exotic animal hair.
• There’s no evidence it traces any animal-derived materials to the first production stage.

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