Greenpeace - The Detox Catwalk

Adidas is now back on track as a Detox leader. Two years after it crossed the line as one of the original Detox pioneers, adidas began failing to meet its commitment. That was until global pressure from the Detox movement helped it get back on side in June 2014.

Adidas has delivered on its commitment to ensure that 99% of its wet processing supply chain facilities in China publicly report data via the credible Institute for Environmental Affairs platform (1). It also publishes its list of suppliers and encourages facilities to divulge their respective customers when reporting data.

Adidas’ rapid progress on transparency is particularly encouraging and needs to be maintained to ensure that supply chain facilities beyond China begin full public disclosure of their data on hazardous chemical discharges. If it keeps up its winning streak, adidas will only further secure its place on the podium as a Detox leader. Find out more

Brands owned: adidas, Reebok, Taylor Made

Country of Origin: Germany

Net Profit (2013): US$940.77 million

CSR: “As a global business operating worldwide, the adidas Group has a responsibility to look after the environment, both for people today and for future generations.” Adidas Sustainability.

• Elimination (Phtalates and APEOs) Removing priority chemicals such as Phtalates and APEOs
• Elimination (PFCs) Substituting PFCs with safer alternatives
• Transparency How transparently they report data

Since making a commitment to Detox, Benetton has come clean about its supply chain and will work with Greenpeace and the Institute for Environmental Affairs (1) to publish online data from its suppliers in China and the Global South. The fashion conscious Italian company publicly recognises the critical “zero discharge” and “precautionary” principles and is applying the best current technology to identify and eliminate hazardous chemicals.

Benetton needs to continue to progress towards the elimination of hazardous chemicals such as PFCS, which it has committed to do by the end of 2015, and ensure its compliance results are published on its global website.

Find out more.

Brands owned: United Colors of Benetton, Undercolours of Benetton, Sisley, Playlife

Country of Origin: Italy

Operating Profit (2011): US$167 million, no update beyond 1st quarter 2012.

• Elimination (Phtalates and APEOs) Removing priority chemicals such as Phtalates and APEOs
• Elimination (PFCs) Substituting PFCs with safer alternatives
• Transparency How transparently they report data

Since throwing the gauntlet down to its luxury competitors in 2014, the British luxury fashion house has made significant progress delivering on its commitment. It is to be congratulated for publishing chemical discharge data on the credible Institute for Environmental Affairs platform (1) and has committed to eliminating PFCs by July 2016.

While other out of touch luxury brands refuse to clean up their act, Burberry joins Valentino to prove that toxic free fashion doesn’t have to be a luxury. To ensure it retains its title as a Detox Leader, Greenpeace encourages Burberry to remain on trend and continue with its thorough implementation of its Detox Commitment.

Find out more.

Brands owned: Burberry

Country of Origin: United Kingdom

Adjusted Profit Before Tax (2014): US$711.76 million

CSR: “Burberry continues to pursue its aim of being recognised for its operational excellence. An important part of this is Burberry’s commitment to integrating sustainability considerations as part of its business operations including in relation to its suppliers.” Burberry CSR.

• Elimination (Phtalates and APEOs) Removing priority chemicals such as Phtalates and APEOs
• Elimination (PFCs) Substituting PFCs with safer alternatives
• Transparency How transparently they report data

The company is showing the signs of a Detox pioneer on the elimination of hazardous chemicals, having already phased out per- and polyfluorinated compounds (PFCs) (1) from its supply chain since January 2015. Reacting to the wave of global consumer pressure, the company upgraded its individual Detox action plan.

While C&A has shown real initiative, it can still go further to become a true Detox hero. The company should demonstrate its toxic-free credentials by integrating a precautionary approach to chemical use, achieving full supply chain transparency and continuing to work towards the zero discharge of hazardous chemicals by 2020. Find out more.

Brands owned: C&A, Angelo Litorico, Yessica, Your Sixth Sense, Westbury, Canda, Clockhouse, Baby Club, Palomino, Here & There, Rodeo Sport

Country of Origin: The Netherlands

Net Profit: Not found

CSR: “Protecting the environment is always in vogue at C&A.” C&A, Our Responsibility

• Elimination (Phtalates and APEOs) Removing priority chemicals such as Phtalates and APEOs
• Elimination (PFCs) Substituting PFCs with safer alternatives
• Transparency How transparently they report data

The company has shown it is committed to cleaning up its act and ensuring its supply chain is free of hazardous chemicals. The well-known casual wear company has eliminated PFCs from its products ahead of schedule and reports that by doing this “54.3 tons/year of PFC based chemistry” has been removed from its supply chain.

Esprit has also agreed to always apply the best current technology available for setting detection limits and for chemical screening methodology. Meanwhile, Esprit has shown its Detox spirit by using crucial principles to inform its daily decision-making process and is taking progressive steps towards the complete elimination of toxic chemicals.

Esprit is showing the signs of a Detox leader but needs to ensure it continues to meet its commitments and goes all out in the name of toxic-free fashion. Find out more

Brands owned: Esprit, EDC

Country of Origin: Germany / Hong Kong

Net Profit: (2013/14) US$27.08 million

CSR: “Today we are striving to make a difference by adopting an eco-conscious way of thinking – and outing it into action.” ESPRIT, Sustainability in Practice

• Elimination (Phtalates and APEOs) Removing priority chemicals such as Phtalates and APEOs
• Elimination (PFCs) Substituting PFCs with safer alternatives
• Transparency How transparently they report data

On toxic transparency G-star is ahead of the game, recognising the critical right of consumers and local communities to know what is being released into our water. Matching its words with credible actions, the company has begun to disclose its supply chain discharges via the Institute for Environmental Affairs platform. (1)

G-Star will also ensure it uses the best current technology to identify toxic chemicals in its discharge and products (for both detection limits and screening methodology), a critical step towards the complete elimination of hazardous chemicals. It’s also started implementing PFC-free alternatives in line with its commitment to eliminate PFCs by December 2014.

We call on G-Star to stay on top and continue to demonstrate its raw talent as a Detox champion. Find out more.

Brands owned: G STAR RAW

Country of Origin: The Netherlands

Net Profit: Not found

CSR: “Only when taking our responsibility towards society and the environment are we able to maintain our position as a forward looking company that anticipates the future.” RAW Responsibility

• Elimination (Phtalates and APEOs) Removing priority chemicals such as Phtalates and APEOs
• Elimination (PFCs) Substituting PFCs with safer alternatives
• Transparency How transparently they report data

H&M proved that its commitment wasn’t just a fast-fashion fad, being the first brand to eliminate the hazardous chemicals PFCs from its products. The Swedish fashion giant has also banned the use of APs/APEOs and phthalates during manufacturing - a move it has already communicated to its suppliers. It has shown it supports the ‘right-to-know’ principle, having begun to report discharge data from its suppliers on the global Institute for Environmental Affairs platform (1).

To keep on trend, we encourage this Detox Leader to implement the best current technology available in order to reveal the presence of hazardous chemicals and continue on its current path towards achieving zero discharges by 1st January 2020.

Find out more

Brands owned: H&M, COS, Monki, Weekday, Cheap Monday, Other Stories

Country of Origin: Sweden

Net Profit (2013): US$2.058 billion

CSR: “At H&M, we think of sustainability as a word of action. It’s an ongoing journey full of heart, drive and passion with sincere direction, constantly pushing the boundaries.” H&M’s Conscious Actions 2012

• Elimination (Phtalates and APEOs) Removing priority chemicals such as Phtalates and APEOs
• Elimination (PFCs) Substituting PFCs with safer alternatives
• Transparency How transparently they report data

Following its commitment to Detox, the name behind the world’s largest clothing retailer Zara, has shown it is serious about breaking the toxic water cycle, being among the first to publish data on the discharge of hazardous chemicals from its suppliers on the Institute for Environmental Affairs’ platform (1)

Inditex has taken tangible steps to meet its Detox commitments, agreeing to always apply the best current technology for both detection limits and screening methodology; it has already phased out PFCs in its all clothing, shoes and accessories, and has told its suppliers of its intention to eliminate APEOs and phthalates from its global supply chain with a monitoring system.

This pro-active toxic-free attitude is showing what companies could achieve if they wanted to. Retailing giants with global supply chains are proving to their competitors that the toxic-free trend doesn’t have to cost the earth. Find out more.

Brands owned: Zara, Pull & Bear, Massimo Dutti, Bershka, Stradivarious, Oysho, Tempe, Uterique

Country of Origin: Spain

Net Profit (2013): US$2.69 billion

CSR: “We believe that in the course of doing business, Inditex must implement sustainable development standards that promote environmental protection, ensure that resources are properly managed and meet society's needs.” Inditex’s Environmental Policy

• Elimination Removing priority chemicals such as Phtalates and APEOs
• Elimination (PFCs) Substituting PFCs with safer alternatives
• Transparency How transparently they report data

The world’s most well-known denim company has embraced the Detox way with fashion fervor, acting with the urgency required on its toxic-free promises. The company is already integrating the precautionary principle into its supply chain, an essential step towards a toxic-free future.

Levi’s counts itself amongst those leading brands willing to recognise the essential right-to-know principle via the Institute for Environmental Affairs platform (1), acting on behalf of the millions affected by toxic pollution by already publishing discharge data from its supply chain facilities in China and the Global South online. It has already communicated to its suppliers that it will eliminate APEOs, phthalates and PFCs (2) and continues to check on implementation.

We need to ensure Levi’s sticks to its progressive promises and continues down the toxic-free runway, making our clothes a story to be proud of. Find out more.

Brands owned: Levis, Dockers, Signature, Denizen

Country of Origin: USA

Net Profit (2013): US$229.2 million

CSR: “Our commitment to sustainability goes far beyond regulatory compliance or minimizing the environmental impact of our business practices. We build sustainability into everything we do, so that our profitable growth helps restore the planet.” Levi Strauss & Co. Planet

• Elimination (Phtalates and APEOs) Removing priority chemicals such as Phtalates and APEOs
• Elimination (PFCs) Substituting PFCs with safer alternatives
• Transparency How transparently they report data

Since following the toxic-free trend, the company has started to walk the talk by ensuring that the presence of toxic chemicals in our clothes should be no secret and making clear progress towards public disclosure of its discharge data via the Institute for Environmental Affairs platform (1).

Limited Brands has already communicated to its suppliers that it will eliminate APEOs, phthalates and PFCs and continues to check on implementation.

We urge Limited Brands to show that pollution free fashion knows no limits, following through on its promises and plans with credible, on the ground implementation and encouraging change amongst the industry laggards. Find out more.

Brands owned: Victoria's Secret, La Senza, Henri Bendel

Country of Origin: USA

Net Profit (2013): US$753 million

CSR: “We are stewards of the environment. Leaders in our communities. And making positive strides for better business practices.” Limited Brands Responsibility

• Elimination (Phtalates and APEOs) Removing priority chemicals such as Phtalates and APEOs
• Elimination (PFCs) Substituting PFCs with safer alternatives
• Transparency How transparently they report data

In the year since it committed, the Spanish retailer has taken credible and ambitious action towards its Detox commitments. It has come clean about its supply chain, giving local communities, consumers, journalists and officials the information they need to monitor the release of toxics into our water.

Mango has delivered on its commitment to eliminate hazardous per- and polyfluorinated compounds (PFCs) (1) from its clothes and to always apply the best technology on the market (including for detection limits and screening methodology). The company is also a leader when it comes to integrating core principles into its processes.

Mango should be congratulated for its progressive and proactive Detox stance and we encourage the company to continue to implement its commitment to people and the environment.
Find out more.

Brands owned: Mango, H.E., MNG by Mango

Country of Origin: Spain

Net Profit (2013): US$134.92 million

CSR: “Our desire is to act sustainably in all our spheres of influence.” Mango sustainability report 2013

• Elimination (Phtalates and APEOs) Removing priority chemicals such as Phtalates and APEOs
• Elimination (PFCs) Substituting PFCs with safer alternatives
• Transparency How transparently they report data

Marks & Spencer has become an advocate of the right-to-know principle, acting on its commitment to supply-chain transparency by publishing chemical discharge data on the credible Institute for Environmental Affairs platform (1).

M&S is committed to always applying the best current technology available for detecting and screening chemicals and has agreed to integrate the key precautionary and zero discharges principles across its global supply chain.

The company needs to go further in the name of its customers and those affected by toxic water pollution by taking the necessary steps to ensure the complete elimination of hazardous chemicals from its clothes. Find out more.

Brands owned: Marks & Spencer, Per Una, North Coast, Portfolio, Indiglo, Autograph, Blue Harbour, Ceriso, Ultimate, Brazil’s, Occasions, Collezione, Insola

Country of Origin: UK

Net Profit (2014): US$810.57 million

CSR: “Implementing new business models will necessitate more resilient and transparent supply chains.” How we do business report 2012

• Elimination (Phtalates and APEOs) Removing priority chemicals such as Phtalates and APEOs
• Elimination (PFCs) Substituting PFCs with safer alternatives
• Transparency How transparently they report data

Since making its Detox commitment, Primark has come clean about its supply chain and will work with Greenpeace and the Institute for Environmental Affairs (1) to publish online data from its suppliers in China and the Global South.

The Irish fashion retailer is enforcing its ban on priority hazardous chemicals and has promised to eliminate all PFCs by December 2015 - a model for others to follow.

Surely not a company to rest on its laurels, Greenpeace encourages Primark to cement its leadership and apply the precautionary and zero discharge principles to how it assesses the presence of hazardous chemicals in its products.
Find out more.

Brands owned: Primark, Penneys (Republic of Ireland), sub-brands: Early Days, Rebel, Little Rebel, YD, Young Dimension, Atmosphere, Ocean Club, Love to Lounge, Opia, No Secret, Denim Co., Secret Possessions, Cedar Wood State

Country of Origin: Ireland

Net Profits of Parent Group ABF (2014): US$1.208 billion

CSR: “We take our responsibility to the workers in the factories, their communities, our customers, and our shareholders seriously. We work hard to ensure that our products are made with respect for the environment, in good working conditions, and that workers' rights are respected.” Primark Website, Ethics.

• Elimination (Phtalates and APEOs) Removing priority chemicals such as Phtalates and APEOs
• Elimination (PFCs) Substituting PFCs with safer alternatives
• Transparency How transparently they report data

Puma recently renewed its detox commitment by committing to eliminate PFCs in 100% of its products by the end of 2017, another major step since 2011 when Puma leapt ahead of the pack by becoming the first ever company to make a Detox move. The global sportswear giant has stepped up its game and clawed its way to the top of the pile.

Puma has agreed to integrate the precautionary and zero discharge principles across its global supply chain. It also counts itself amongst those leading brands willing to recognise the essential right-to-know principle by reporting data on the discharge of hazardous chemicals from its suppliers on the online Institute for Environmental Affairs platform (1).

To keep on track, we encourage Puma to continue towards the substitution and elimination of hazardous chemicals such as PFCs (2).
Find out more

Brands owned: Puma, Cobra Gold, Tretorm, Volcom

Country of Origin: Germany

Net Profit (2014): US$71.77 million

CSR: “At PUMA, we believe that our position as the creative leader in Sport lifestyle gives us the opportunity and the responsibility to contribute to a better world for the generations to come.” PUMA Handbook of Environmental Standards

• Elimination (Phtalates and APEOs) Removing priority chemicals such as Phtalates and APEOs
• Elimination (PFCs) Substituting PFCs with safer alternatives
• Transparency How transparently they report data

The fashion-forward name behind the Japanese casual wear giant Uniqlo is leading the committed companies by publishing chemical discharge data from the majority of its global supply chain on the online Institute for Environmental Affairs platform (1).

On the race to “zero discharges” Fast Retailing is ahead of the pack, integrating key principles across its global supply chain and agreeing to use the best technology available for detection limits and screening methodology.

It has reinforced its ban on APEOs, includes phthalates and PVC on its restricted list for suppliers and is also on track to eliminate PFC by its deadline of June 2016.

International companies with global supply chains like Fast Retailing are proving that they can bring about the transformational change we need to Detox our water.
Find out more.

Brands owned: Uniqlo, Compti des Cotonniers, GU, Helmut Lang, J Brand, PLST, Princess Tam Tam, Theory

Country of Origin: Japan

Net Profit (2014): US$ 652.997 million

CSR: “CSR-related aims should be inseparable from a company's business operations. Otherwise, firms run the risk of falling out of public favor.” FR website

• Elimination (Phtalates and APEOs) Removing priority chemicals such as Phtalates and APEOs
• Elimination (PFCs) Substituting PFCs with safer alternatives
• Transparency How transparently they report data

Since throwing down the gauntlet to its luxury competitors in early 2013, the Italian high-fashion giant continues to make real progress towards its comprehensive commitment. Valentino is congratulated for publishing data on the discharge of priority hazardous chemicals from 100% of its global supply chain – a crucial victory for people’s right to know what is being put into their waterways.

Valentino is committed to applying the best available technology to ensure zero discharges across its supply chain, and the company is on track to eliminate from its supply chain all per- and polyfluorinated compounds (PFCs) (1).

While other out of touch luxury brands refuse to clean up their act, Valentino’s industry-leading commitments prove that beautiful fashion needn’t cost the earth. We encourage Valentino to stay on trend and continue to deliver on its toxic-free commitment.
Find out more

Brands owned: Valentino, M Missoni

Country of Origin: Italy

Net Profit: Not found

CSR: “In line with the Valentino Fashion Group’s long-term sustainability program, the Valentino Fashion Group recognizes the urgent need for eliminating industrial release of all hazardous chemicals.” Valentino Detox Commitment

• Elimination (Phtalates and APEOs) Removing priority chemicals such as Phtalates and APEOs
• Elimination (PFCs) Substituting PFCs with safer alternatives
• Transparency How transparently they report data

Despite its early promise as a pioneering Chinese brand, LiNing's inadequate Detox programme and refusal to walk the talk continues to undermine the toxic-free progress being made by fashion-forward Detox Leaders like Puma and Adidas.

LiNing has not yet published Detox data from its supply chain, however, it has made a promise to publish data on the discharge of hazardous chemicals for 80% of its ‘wet process’ suppliers by the end of 2015. LiNing has not given a clear timeline to eliminate all PFCs in all its products.

LiNing has at least taken the first step to coming clean by admitting its toxic problem, but it still fails to deliver on its promises. It needs to significantly scale up its ambition level in order to reach the goal of ‘eliminating the use of hazardous chemicals by 2020’.

As China’s leading sports brand, LiNing has a responsibility to implement change, not only on behalf of its customers, but on behalf those impacted by the effects of its toxic trail from its supply chain facilities.
Find out more.

Brands owned: LiNing, Z-Do, Aigle, Double Happiness, Lotto, Kason

Country of Origin: China

Net Profit (2013): Operating loss estimated at US$27 million

CSR: “The Group believes that its commitment to being a responsible corporate citizen helps to bring long-term benefit to not only its employees, but also the community and the environment.”
Li Ning 2012 CSR Report

• Elimination (Phtalates and APEOs) Removing priority chemicals such as Phtalates and APEOs
• Elimination (PFCs) Substituting PFCs with safer alternatives
• Transparency How transparently they report data

Despite its fashion-forward claims, Nike has made little progress since its Detox commitment in 2011 and it is again in the Greenwasher category. The company is unwilling to embrace a transparency revolution across its global supply chain and still has not given a clear timeline to eliminate all PFCs in all its products. What does Nike have to hide?

Despite putting considerable resources into its chemicals programme over many years, Nike’s perpetual development of multiple tools has failed to deliver real changes on the key issues of the Detox campaign. Instead of working with urgency to eliminate hazardous chemicals, Nike is hiding behind weak commitments whilst portraying themselves to consumers as fashion conscious, industry leaders.

Nike continues to use the Zero Discharge of Hazardous Chemicals (ZDHC) industry group as a smokescreen to mask its lack of individual action and ambition to clean up our clothes. What’s more, Nike is standing in the way of progress, lowering the level of Detox via the ZDHC and holding back the true Detox leaders.

Nike, it’s time to come clean, stop greenwashing and Just Do It: Detox now.
Find out more

Brands owned: Nike, Converse, Hurley International, Jordan, Nike Golf

Country of Origin: USA

Net Profit (2014): US$698 million

CSR: “As environmental, social and economic challenges in our world proliferate, they demand our best performance. We’re using the power of our brand, the energy and passion of our people and the scale of our business to create meaningful change.” Nike Responsibility, September 2013

• Elimination (Phtalates and APEOs) Removing priority chemicals such as Phtalates and APEOs
• Elimination (PFCs) Substituting PFCs with safer alternatives
• Transparency How transparently they report data

Over two years after Greenpeace International’s Toxic Threads: The Big Fashion Stitch-Up report revealed Armani’s links to toxic water pollution, Armani continues to avoid truly tackling the problem with the seriousness it needs.

Armani made a self-declared detox commitment, however, its self-declared Detox commitment is not credible as it refuses to acknowledge some of the fundamental Detox principles such as the 'Precautionary Principle' and the 'Right to Know'. Despite multiple requests, Armani has refused to agree on a credible Detox commitment through Greenpeace, which would deliver on the public’s 'Right to Know' by ensuring the publication of data on the discharge of hazardous chemicals by its suppliers, on a publicly available website. Armani is not joining the real 'Detox movement' with its ineffective and vague commitment. That's why it's a Detox Loser.

As its competitors have proven, toxic-free fashion should be the fabric of any respectable fashion house.

Would Armani’s iconic models be so supportive if they knew their favourite brand had a problem with transparency?
Find out more

Brands owned: Giorgio Armani, Emporio Armani, Armani Exchange, Armani Jeans, Armani Collezioni

Country of Origin: Italy

Net Profit (2014): US$449.40 million

CSR: “As a global leader in the fashion industry, Armani Exchange believes that how we work is just as important as the work itself. We strive to ensure that our merchandise is manufactured in a responsible manner, and our standards and systems continue to evolve to reflect those expectations for ethical labor practices and environmental control.” Armani Exchange Corporate Responsibility, September 2013

This company has not made a Detox commitment

Greenpeace International uncovered Bestseller’s links to the toxic problem in its Toxic Threads: The Big Fashion Stitch-Up report revealing the presence of hazardous chemicals in its clothes. Greenpeace believes the presence of hazardous chemicals in our clothes is completely unacceptable.

Surely large companies with a global reach like Bestseller are in a perfect position to lead from the front and clean up their global supply chain with a credible, individual Detox solution.

Leading players in the industry have proven that toxic-free fashion doesn’t cost the earth so why can’t companies like Bestseller take credible and ambitious steps to kick their chemical addiction?
Find out more

Brands owned: Jack & Jones, Junarose, Mamalicious, Name It, Object Collectors Item, Only, Outfitters Nation, Pieces, Vero Moda, Vila Clothes

Country of Origin: Denmark

Net Profit (2013/14): US$255.74 million

CSR: “Sustainability is an integrated part of our business…We believe that responsible products are on the future agenda, and we expect to increase the use of sustainable materials...” Bestseller Sustainability Report 2012

This company has not made a Detox commitment

When we tested the company’s products in 2012, Greenpeace International revealed the presence of hazardous chemicals such as nonylphenol ethoxylates (NPEs) which break down in the environment to form hazardous chemicals.

Despite global pressure to clean up its act and catch up with its competitors by agreeing to Detox its clothes, the name behind brands such as Diesel, Viktor & Rolf, has shown itself to be an industry laggard. The company has refused to act on its toxic addiction and is slowing the fashion world’s progress towards fashion without pollution.

We call on Only the Brave to join the trendsetting fashionistas heeding the public’s calls for fashion without hazardous chemicals and make a credible Detox commitment for a toxic-free future.
Find out more

Brands owned: Diesel, Maison Martin Margiela, Viktor & Rolf, Marni

Country of Origin: Italy

Revenues (2012): US$2 billion

CSR: “Brave actions for a better world” Only The Brave, September 2013

This company has not made a Detox commitment

Dolce&Gabbana products were found to contain hazardous chemicals in Greenpeace International’s 2014 report which investigated luxury clothing for children. Dolce&Gabbana has not replied to the numerous requests from Greenpeace, refusing to share what is going on behind closed doors with regards to toxic discharges from textile production. We think ignoring the evidence is not very becoming.

Dolce&Gabbana and its suppliers cannot ignore the truth and continue to treat our public waterways as a toxic waste dump. This toxic addict has failed to act with the individual corporate responsibility its consumers and the affected local communities deserve.

We call on Dolce&Gabbana to join the trendsetting fashionistas heeding the public’s calls for fashion without hazardous chemicals and make a credible Detox commitment for a toxic-free future.

Brands owned: Dolce & Gabbana

Country of Origin: Italy

Net Profit (2012): Not provided

CSR: “For Dolce&Gabbana, Respect for the environment is a fundamental value that the Company pursues by adopting sustainable conduct when performing its activities and supporting initiatives and projects to combat climate change.” Dolce&Gabbana’s Corporate Code of Ethics

This company has not made a Detox commitment

In April 2013 Greenpeace International uncovered further evidence linking Gap Inc. to hazardous chemical pollution. Toxic Threads: Polluting Paradise revealed the company’s ties to a polluting supplier releasing a cocktail of hazardous chemicals into the local water supply in Indonesia. While its competitors like Zara listened to the global calls to clean up the industry with credible Detox action, Gap continues to look the other way.

Though the company claims to be cleaning up its act, hiding behind the ineffective Zero Discharge of Hazardous Chemicals industry group’s paper commitments, there is a gap between its words and its actions. It is time Gap took full individual responsibility for its toxic addiction and caught up with the rest of the industry to become the fashion-forward company its customers expect it to be.
Find out more

Brands owned: Gap, Banana Republic, Old Navy, Piperlime, Athleta, INTERMIX

Country of Origin: USA

Net Profit (2013): US $1,280 million

CSR: “For Gap Inc., environmental responsibility means far more than being “green” or selling green products. We view it as connected to every aspect of our business, from the manufacture of our clothes to how they are packaged and shipped to the design of our stores. As a global retailer, we have the potential to make a difference on critical environmental issues.” Gap Inc, Social and Environmental Responsibility, September 2013

This company has not made a Detox commitment

In February 2014, Greenpeace International uncovered evidence that Hermès products contained hazardous chemicals. The evidence showed the use of a hazardous chemical in luxury branded clothing for children.

Hermès has yet to take credible actions to come clean about its toxic supply chain and make a credible, individual Detox commitment. Without a credible Detox commitment, the French fashion house is making consumers around the world an unwitting accomplice to the release of hazardous chemicals into our environment.

Valentino and Burberry are ahead of the curve and realise that beautifully crafted goods should not cost the earth. We need Hermès to show the world it is as serious about tackling its toxic problem, as it is about the quality of products, and immediately commit to a credible, individual Detox commitment.
Find out more

Brands owned: petit h, Hermès Horizons, John Lobbbootmaker, Cristalleries de Saint-Louis, Verelde Belval, Bucol, Métaphore, Le Crin textiles, Shang Xia

Country of Origin: France

Net Profit (2013): US$ 884.9 million (attributable to owners of the parent)

CSR: “Hermès is an attentive, concerned and committed company which conducts its business in a way that respects its ecological, social, economic and cultural environment.” Hermès Annual Report

This company has not made a Detox commitment

Louis Vuitton, Marc Jacobs, and Dior products were found to contain hazardous chemicals in Greenpeace International’s 2014 report which investigated luxury clothing for children. LVMH/Christian Dior has yet to take any credible action to come clean about its toxic supply chain and make a credible, individual Detox commitment.

LVMH and Christian Dior have a complex interconnected ownership structure. The urgency of the global water crisis demands that LVMH and Christian Dior, together, quickly resolve a credible public Detox commitment through Greenpeace. While other luxury brands like Burberry and Valentino listened to the global calls to clean up the industry with credible Detox action, LVMH/Christian Dior continues to look the other way.

We urge them to join the Detox leaders forging a path towards a toxic-free future on behalf of consumers and affected local populations around the world.
Find out more

Brands owned (LVMH): Louis Vuitton, Céline, Loewe, Berluti, KENZO, Givenchy, Marc Jacobs, Fendi, Emilio Pucci, Thomas Pink, Donna Karan, Edun, NOWNESS, LoroPiana, Nicholas Kirkwood - (fashion & leather goods)

Brands owned (Christian Dior Couture): Christian Dior

Country of Origin: France

Net Profit of LVMH (2014): US$ 3,568 million (profit from leather and goods)

Net Profit of Christian Dior Couture (2013/14): US$ 213 million

CSR: “For LVMH, an environmentally sound approach is closely linked to our values and our businesses. Indeed, the style of life that we strive to uphold and the humanity in each of us that we strive to enhance, are forged in the name of these very traditions.” LVMH website

This company has not made a Detox commitment

Since Greenpeace International's Toxic Threads: The Big Fashion Stitch-Up report in November 2012 uncovered the company’s continued toxic addiction, Metersbonwe has yet to take any credible action to come clean about its toxic supply chain and make a credible, individual Detox commitment. Companies like Metersbonwe continue to make their customers unwilling accomplices in the release of hazardous chemicals into our environment.

We need Metersbonwe to act with the urgency the situation calls for, putting a stop to hazardous water pollution across its processes and products. While Detox leaders such as Fast Retailing and G-Star take strides towards a toxic-free future, industry laggards like Metersbonwe have been left in the dust.
Find out more

Brands owned: Metersbonwe

Country of Origin: China

Net Profit (2014): US$23.36 million

CSR: “The company sees environmental protection as an important part of its sustainable development strategy, actively takes the environmental responsibility, increases resource utility rate and strengthens waste management.” Metersbonwe (2011). Metersbonwe 2011 CSR report, p.8.

This company has not made a Detox commitment

After being implicated in the toxic scandal in Greenpeace International's Dirty Laundry report, PvH, the company behind fashionable names like Calvin Klein and Tommy Hilfiger, claimed to be committed to a toxic-free future. Its actions since have proved otherwise. Greenpeace’s product testing results also showed that PvH is telling its consumers fairytales when it comes to its clean production techniques and toxic-free clothes.

This toxic addict has failed to act with the individual corporate responsibility its shareholders, consumers and the affected local communities deserve. Under the guise of the Zero Discharge of Hazardous Chemical industry group’s weak collective commitments, PvH refuses to reveal its toxic trail and is unwilling to commit to an individual, Detox solution.

Unlike leading companies such as Benetton, implementing real Detox solutions to the toxic problem, PvH has failed to take the credible, individual steps to really tackle its toxic addiction.

Brands owned: Calvin Klein, Tommy Hilfiger, Van Heusen, IZOD, ARROW, Speedo, Olga, Warner's, GH Bass & Co

Country of Origin: USA

Net Profit (2013): US$581 million

CSR: “It is an honor to lead a company that is first and foremost about people — whether it is our own associates, our supply chain partners, our customers, or the broader communities where we live and conduct business.” CSR 2012 - CEO Message, September 2013

This company has not made a Detox commitment

Despite Greenpeace International’s report Toxic Threads: The Big Fashion Stitch-Up revealing a link between the Chinese brands products and toxic pollution, the company has so far refused to acknowledge its role in the toxic scandal. As a leading Chinese company, it not only has a responsibility to its consumers but must act on behalf of those suffering directly from the effects of toxic pollution in China.

Vancl and its suppliers cannot continue to treat our public waterways as a toxic waste dump. We urge them to join the Detox leaders forging a path towards a toxic-free future on behalf of consumers and affected local populations around the world.

Brands owned: Vancl

Country of Origin: China

Net Profit (2012): Not found

CSR: Nothing found on their website

This company has not made a Detox commitment

Nearly a year after a Greenpeace International’s 2014 report revealed hazardous chemicals in Versace clothing products for children, it has failed to clean up its act. If other fashion forward luxury brands such as Valentino and Burberry can make a credible Detox commitment, than so can Versace.

Versace and its suppliers cannot continue to treat our public waterways as a toxic waste dump. If it really considers itself to be at the forefront of the fashion world, the Italian fashion house should urgently take action to Detox its global supply chain and join the trendsetting leaders by making a credible, individual commitment.

We call on VERSACE to join the trendsetting fashionistas heeding the public’s calls for fashion without hazardous chemicals and make a credible Detox commitment for a toxic-free future.
Find out more

Brands owned: Atelier Versace Collection, Versace Collection, Versace Menswear, Versus

Country of Origin: Italy

Net Profit (2012): US$480 million (est.)

CSR: “The Group will establish relationships of collaboration with its suppliers in compliance with current law and the Code principles, giving attention to ensuring the best professional standards, the best practice in terms of ethics, health and safety protection and defence of the environment.” Versace’s Ethical Code

This company has not made a Detox commitment