The Remake Accountability Report

As 2021 came to a close, Remake released their Fashion Accountability Report. Here we take a little look at the ins and outs of the results.

Remake are an independent body on a mission to change fashion’s environmental and social harm. They conduct industry wide audits, challenging brands to their words. Their latest annual report (2021) scores 60 fashion companies across 6 key areas: traceability, wages & wellbeing, commercial practices, raw materials, environmental justice & climate change, and finally governance diversity & inclusion. They provide detailed analysis on why brands were scored in certain ways and make this readily available online.

Their report heavily focuses on transparency and wages, perhaps what is lacking in more detail is the discussion and rating around raw materials used. That being said, given raw materials are so far down the supply chain, most companies themselves are unlikely to know where the source is – or just chose to hide it, making it hard to give a rating and get an accurate sense of where the company is in this area.

So, what did the report say?

Let’s start with transparency… only 60% of brands have published a tier 1 supplier list. (Tier one suppliers are those with direct relationships to the company – they make the products. Tier 2 suppliers are the sources where tier 1 suppliers get the materials from. Tier 3 suppliers are further away from the final product again, they work with raw materials- cotton farmers for example). With regards to suppliers, it’s really common to see companies not holding themselves to the same standard as their suppliers. Supplier codes of conduct are in place, but no similar buyer codes meaning there are no baseline obligations to their suppliers around prices, human rights standards or fair contract terms.

This has really come to light recently, you may have seen people shout about the #PayUp campaign following thousands of cancelled orders at the beginning of the pandemic. Not a single company in this audit can show that they are paying all of their workers a living wage. 8% can provide some evidence of some workers being given a living wage, but not all. Covid really brought to home some hard truths, many companies deployed abusive commercial practices and pushed the financial burden of Covid-19 to the most vulnerable. 23% have still not paid for the cancelled orders. We are so happy to see Remake drive the #PayUp campaign, with every new signature brand executives get an email notifying them that more is being demanded with regards to workers’ rights – so sign the petition!

Circularity popped up quite a bit, with many brands taking on new resale initiatives into their business models. Levi’s second hand or Lululemon’s ‘Like New’ for example. But, until these more circular effects fully displace the production of new clothes or decrease the net consumption of raw materials and resources – they will mean nothing more than an additional revenue for company shareholders to enjoy. With regards to the materials themselves, 23% have set a time-bound target to reduce virgin polyester and other oil-derived synthetic materials, but a lack of urgency is the overall general gist in this department. Urgency was lacking in the emissions department too, only one brand was able to demonstrate that they can reduce emissions quick enough to reach the 45% reduction by 2030 in line with the ICPP’s 1.5-degree pathway – Levi’s.

So, they were the most striking overall points. It would be fair to say that the smaller brands scored much higher overall in most areas compared to the bigger ones. But, disappointingly what the report did confirm was that with fashions annual volume growth of 2.7%, the total resource consumption is going to far outrun any sustainability efforts – unless they are extreme and happen… now (yesterday).

Below is a snapshot of the worst to the best rated. The highest score would be 150 so Nisolo did pretty well being the highest at 55%. I can’t work out the percentage for -13, but I think those minus numbers can speak for themselves…..

Forever 21 ranked the worst (-13): unsurprising, it’s a big fast fashion business model and profits thrives on the disposability of clothes

Lululemon: (-3): one of the most profitable apparel companies in the world, yet it still fails to disclose any information around its sustainability commitments and does not pay any of its workers living wages

Missguided: (-1): again, perhaps not surprising given the quick turnaround of its trends and high volume of cheap stock but what is frustrating it their recent show on channel 4 showing how they empower women but don’t pay the living wage or re-invest in the communities from which they extract their wealth. No disclosure of supply chain or environmental footprint either!

Shein: (5): it’s a top spot fashion giant but very little is known about who is running it and how. The only place they score is around materials, they scored 5 out of a potential (?) because they don’t use any animal products.

Boohoo: (13): owners profited off the back of underpaid women during the pandemic. They have been under public scrutiny and have published a supplier list and have been calling on the UK parliament to introduce mandatory due diligence for brands. This is easy to do though, there are still no plans to change their business model to one with fewer, more durable garments.

Primark (13): the fast fashion giant doesn’t provide anything more than promises and vague claims with no scientific backing regarding their efforts to curb green-house-gas emissions. They talk about paying their workers a living wage but there is very little evidence to back this, that being said they have committed to the #PayUp campaign and to paying for cancelled orders in full.

Nike: (25): possibly the profitable and influential clothing brand in the world. It occasionally uses that influence for good, such as making commitments to progressing in widening diversity and inclusion throughout the workforce – by means of tying it together with executive compensation. They also support mandatory human rights due diligence in the EU, but they still can’t show whether they pay their workers a living wage or not.

H&M Group: (39) they score high for transparency, they don’t hold back on revealing details about factory wages and workers, they are invested in recycling textiles and they do push for mandatory due diligence on brands – BUT knowing your supply chain is not the same as being accountable for the people, communities and environmental impacts of those supply chains. Their fundamental linear model shows no signs of slowing down.

Nisolo (83): The highest scoring brand, actively publishes efforts into the public domain – leaving them vulnerable to be held accountable. They also provide evidence of paying all of their garment workers and direct employees a living wage. Although they were the highest in the report, 83 points still only ranks 55%. They have a lot of work to do with traceability from raw materials– most of their products are leather.

(Sources: Remake Fashion Accountability Report 2021)