Wilson

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

• It uses few lower-impact materials.
• There’s no evidence it minimises textile waste in its supply chain.
• There’s no evidence it’s taking meaningful action to reduce water use.
• There’s no evidence it takes action to minimise its packaging, which is a driver of plastic waste.

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

• Its social auditing program is accredited by the Fair Labor Association (FLA)
• 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.
• Its Code of Conduct covers ILO principles.
• There’s no evidence it ensures workers are paid living wages in its supply chain.

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

• It has a formal policy aligned with the Five Freedoms of animal welfare but no clear implementation mechanisms in place.
• It appears to use leather and down.
• It doesn’t appear to use wool, exotic animal hair, fur, angora, or exotic animal skin.
• 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 Wilson “It’s a Start” overall.