Search

The Biggest Brands Should Be Doing the Most: Why We Rate Large and Small Brands Differently

We are an online community created around a smart and easy to access information hub which is focused on providing proven global and local insights about sustainability

09 Jul, 2024

This post was originally published on Good on You

Small, independent labels don’t have the same impact as behemoth brands like H&M, which often produce on a vast scale, and wield huge financial power and influence over their supply chains. So when Good On You rates brands, we first distinguish their size in order to assess each brand’s actions proportionately. Here’s why that matters, and how we work it all out.

Small and large brands are determined by their annual turnover

We determine a brand’s size classification as large or small based on its annual turnover—or that of its parent company—using the European Commission’s definition of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs).

Under this definition, micro enterprises are those with fewer than 10 employees and a turnover of €2m or less. Small enterprises have, at most, 50 employees and a €10m turnover. And for medium enterprises (included in the small category under our methodology), it’s a maximum of 250 employees and a turnover of €50m or less—or a balance sheet of €43m.

Most major brands are therefore classified as large ones—including the likes of H&M and all its subsidiaries (COS, Arket, Monki, Weekday, & Other Stories), and luxury superbrands such as Kering’s Gucci, or Dior.

Good On You rates brands relative to their size

Much of our methodology is the same for small and large brands, but we use these size classifications to help weight the issues that businesses should be tackling, and for larger brands, the additional issues that they should be addressing.

That means our ratings assessment is relative to these brands’ overall impacts and what is considered best practice. This is particularly important for small brands that have access to fewer resources and have less influence on their supply chains.

Good On You’s ratings methodology also reflects the different types of small brands to ensure that even those with the smallest output can still achieve a good rating. We assess these brands on a wide range of key issues but acknowledge that they may face limitations when addressing these issues, such as the ability to enforce payment of a living wage amongst their suppliers, or reducing deforestation in regions where they source materials. We also acknowledge that figuring out where to start with sustainability disclosures can be a challenge for small brands, and we offer some guidance to those who are concerned about their rating.

When Good On You was established, we prioritised rating the most popular brands that people were buying from—now we’ve rated over 6,000, and we’re turning our attention to the opportunity to rate much smaller brands. There are so many tiny brands that we can’t wait to rate and display in our directory, and we know there are so many brilliant, more sustainable brands that we haven’t yet gotten to. We have a long waitlist of user-requested brands to rate, and we’re continually working to expand our capacity to rate these brands in addition to regularly reviewing the ratings of larger brands to ensure the information you have about them remains accurate.

Large brands can—and should—be doing the most

Large brands have more influence, resources, and control over their supply chain, and our methodology reflects this. We expect large brands to address a broader range of sustainability issues, like deforestation, biodiversity, and climate change targets. And given the resources available to most large brands, we also expect them to publish more detailed sustainability data across more issues—ideally in the form of an annual report.

One of the clearest examples of the disproportionate influence of large fashion businesses was the impact of major brands cancelling supplier orders during the coronavirus pandemic. Some of the world’s biggest mass-producing brands abruptly cancelled big orders with their factories—many of which relied on such orders as a key part of their business, and as a result of the loss, were forced to cut working hours and pay for their garment workers, or even go out of business altogether. The purchasing power of small brands just isn’t on the same level that it could force the closure of a factory, and it’s vital that we hold larger brands accountable when they use their power to exploit others in the supply chain.

If you’re keen to learn more about Good On You’s ratings, have a look at our How We Rate page, read our explainer on the importance of publicly available information, and browse our directory to see how your favourite brands rate.

The post The Biggest Brands Should Be Doing the Most: Why We Rate Large and Small Brands Differently appeared first on Good On You.

Pass over the stars to rate this post. Your opinion is always welcome.
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

You may also like…

Extreme Weather Is Now Normal Weather in the UK: Met Office Report

Extreme Weather Is Now Normal Weather in the UK: Met Office Report

Extreme heat, excessive rainfall, ongoing droughts — these conditions are now considered the new normal, according to the latest State of the UK Climate report from the UK Met Office. The report highlights several alarming trends, including warming at the rate of 0.25°C per decade in the UK. The past three consecutive years have ranked […]
The post Extreme Weather Is Now Normal Weather in the UK: Met Office Report appeared first on EcoWatch.

“They’re Turning Pollution Into Candy!”: Chinese Scientists Stun the World by Making Food from Captured Carbon Emissions

IN A NUTSHELL 🌱 Chinese researchers have developed a groundbreaking method to convert methanol into sucrose, bypassing traditional agriculture. 🔬 The innovative in vitro biotransformation (ivBT) system uses enzymes to transform methanol derived from industrial waste into complex sugars. 🌍 This method contributes to sustainability by utilizing carbon dioxide as a raw material, supporting carbon […]
The post “They’re Turning Pollution Into Candy!”: Chinese Scientists Stun the World by Making Food from Captured Carbon Emissions appeared first on Sustainability Times.

Battery life and EV cybersecurity projects receive funding

Battery life and EV cybersecurity projects receive funding

Swinburne University of Technology researchers have been awarded close to $920,000 to advance two projects for battery life and EV cybersecurity, securing a portion of over $46 million shared across 75 new projects.

The university received the funding in the latest round of Australian Research Council’s (ARC) Linkage Projects 2024. The scheme, part of the ARC’s National Competitive Grants Program, funds research that delivers practical benefits and strengthens Australia’s innovation and industry capabilities.

Swinburne’s Deputy Vice Chancellor Research, Professor Karen Hapgood, said, “These projects demonstrate how our researchers are partnering with industry to deliver practical solutions, from extending the life of battery systems to securing Australia’s electric vehicle infrastructure. It’s a powerful example of how university research is driving innovation and supporting a more sustainable, technologically advanced future.”

The first of the two projects, led by Professor Weixiang Shen, received $449,882 to extend the lifetime of battery energy storage systems for power grids.

“This project will enable my team to develop an innovative control strategy to actively manage the operating conditions of an individual battery cell using digital twin technology. It offers an excellent opportunity to implement and validate our approach in inverter-less battery energy storage systems provided by our industry partner, which uniquely enables cell-level control within the system,” Shen said.

“The project’s outcomes will strengthen Australia’s leadership in advanced energy storage technologies, support the growth of the domestic manufacturing sector, and contribute to the creation of high-skilled jobs.”

Aiming to enhance energy storage performance, the three-year project will develop new strategies to slow battery aging within each cell. It will use digital twin technology, combining deep learning and electrochemical modelling, to predict the impact of operating conditions on battery aging and regulate these conditions to control the aging process and extend battery life.

Working in partnership with Relectrify Pty Ltd, the project team will support Australia’s transition to sustainable energy by delivering longer battery life and reduced downtime so that battery systems can produce more over time.

The second project, led by Professor Yang Xiang, received $474,531 to address cybersecurity challenges in electric vehicle charging stations.

“This grant will allow my team to build advanced cybersecurity tools that address the challenges posed by the interaction between EV charging stations, diverse EVs, the national power grid and wireless communication protocols,” Xiang said.

“It creates a unique opportunity to generate novel research insights, validate solutions in real-world settings, and produce tools with strong commercialisation potential. Its outcomes support sustainable economic growth by enabling the safe uptake of EVs, reducing emissions and creating jobs.”

Electric vehicle charging stations are widely deployed, but they face complex security risks due to the diversity of electric vehicles, their connection to the power grid, and wireless communication with users. The three-year project aims to address these challenges by functionality-guided, update-guided and greybox-guided fuzzing techniques.

Working in partnership with T-POWER Pty Ltd, the project team will explore methods for testing charging stations and developing advanced tools to secure EV infrastructure and improve cybersecurity within Australia’s expanding sustainable transport sector.

Image credit: iStock.com/narvo vexar

0 Comments