Rank a Brand

How sustainable is Lafuma ?

Lafuma & sustainability


Lafuma
Dont buy Click here for score rapport: 4 out of 34

Sustainability summary

Lafuma has achieved the E-Label. This is the bottom label of our ranking. The main reason for this is that Lafuma is not very transparent about how fairly, climate-friendly and environmentally friendly their own products are manufactured and traded. From the consumer's point of view, it is therefore difficult to judge whether products from Lafuma are recommendable in terms of sustainability.

Brand owner: Calida Group
Head office: Annecy, France
Sector: Sport & outdoor clothing
Categories : Male, Female
Free Tags: Calida Group, Bags, Shirts, Jackets, Dress, Shoes

What's your sustainability news about Lafuma?

Lafuma sustainability score report

Last edited: 3 April 2019 by RSM - Students
Last reviewed: 3 April 2019 by Maarten

Questions about Climate Change/ Carbon Emissions

0 out of 6
1. Has the brand (owner) disclosed the annual absolute climate footprint of its 'own operations', and has it accomplished an overall absolute climate footprint reduction compared to the result of the previous reporting year? Lafuma publishes the climate footprint of its own operations, but the reported footprint is more than two years old (see link, page 34). Source
2. Is at least 50% of the electricity used by the brand (company) generated from renewable resources, such as wind or solar energy? Neither Lafuma, nor Millet Mountain group, communicate the company's renewable energy policy. Source
3. Is all the electricity used by the brand (company) generated from renewable resources, such as wind or solar energy? See remark for carbon emissions policy question 2. Source
4. Has the brand (owner) disclosed the annual absolute climate footprint of its supply chain that is 'beyond own operations'? Lafuma publishes the climate footprint of its supply chain, but the reported footprint is more than two years old (see link, page 34). Source
5. Has the brand (owner) accomplished a reduction of this annual absolute climate footprint 'beyond own operations' compared to the result of the previous reporting year? See remark for carbon emissions policy question 4. Source
6. Has the brand (owner) set a target to make at least its own operations fully climate neutral by 2030, and is the brand on track to achieve this target? Lafuma does not communicate any information on its climate footprint towards a climate neutrality goal for its own operations. Source

Questions about Environmental Policy

3 out of 12
1. Does the brand (company) use environmentally 'preferred' raw materials for more than 5% of its volume? In 2017, 55% of Lafuma's cotton was organic, and 11% of their polyester recycled (see link, page 27). It is not clear what percentage of the total annual volume these environmentally preferred raw materials represent, but a minimum share of 5% can be considered certain. Source
2. Does the brand (company) use environmentally 'preferred' raw materials for more than 10% of its volume? See remark for environmental policy question 1. Source
3. Does the brand (company) use environmentally 'preferred' raw materials for more than 25% of its volume? See remark for environmental policy question 1. Source
4. Does the brand (company) use environmentally 'preferred' raw materials for more than 50% of its volume? See remark for environmental policy question 1. Source
5. Does the brand (company) use environmentally 'preferred' raw materials for more than 75% of its volume? See remark for environmental policy question 1. Source
6. Does the brand (company) use environmentally 'preferred' raw materials for more than 90% of its volume? See remark for environmental policy question 1. Source
7. Is there a policy for the brand (company) to eliminate all hazardous chemicals from the whole lifecycle and all production procedures to make the clothes and footwear? Lafuma's clothing is Bluesign® certified. This means that during production high environmental standards are maintained for chemical and water use. This certification is applicable to 50 percent of their products (see link, page 25). Source
8. Has the brand (company) eliminated at least one suspect chemical group, such as Phthalates or Per fluorinated chemicals from its entire garment production? Lafuma aims to eliminate PFCs by 2020, but does not report whether at least one chemical group, such as Phthalates or APEOs, can be considered as fully eliminated from its entire production already (see link, page 29). Source
9. Has the brand (company) eliminated at least three suspect chemical groups, such as Phthalates or Per fluorinated chemicals from its entire garment production? See remark for environmental policy question 8. Source
10. Does the brand (owner) report what percentage of its consumer packaging materials are renewable or made from recycled materials, and does the brand implement best practices or concrete policies which have reduced the environmental impact of their packaging materials? Millet Mountain Group reports using FSC or PEFC-certified paper, but they do not state whether they exclusively use paper with such certifications, nor what percentage of recycled or renewable materials is used for their consumer packaging (see link, page 24). Source
11. Does the brand (owner) publish its absolute waste materials footprint and implement concrete policies to minimize waste, by reducing, re-using and recycling, thereby decreasing its waste footprint compared to the previous reporting year? Millet Mountain Group MMG implements several measures to reduce its annual absolute waste footprint, such as reusing fabric offcuts by making tote bags (see link, page 55), but concrete aggregate results regarding its annual absolute waste footprint are not made public. Source
12. Does the brand (company) encourage the return or re-use of garments? Millet Mountain Group offers its customers the opportunity to make use of its repair service and to purchase second-choice resale items (see link, page 43). Source

Questions about Labour Conditions/ Fair Trade

1 out of 16
1. Does the brand (owner) have a supplier Code of Conduct (CoC) which includes all standards to ensure workers' rights such as no child labour, no bonded labour, a safe workplace and no excessive overwork? And is there at least a progress report once every two years on implementation of this Code of Conduct? Lafuma provides a summary of social compliance in their supply chain (see next link, page 36), but only brand owner CALIDA group publishes a code of conduct (COC). This COC is not clearly a supplier COC, and does not mention living wages, nor explicitly restricts excessive working hours (see current link). Source
2. Does the brand (owner) have a policy to make sure there is a proper grievance mechanism in place for factory workers and are at least 25% of workers informed about their rights regarding this mechanism (e.g. through training)? Lafuma does not report on a grievance mechanism for workers. Source
3. Does the brand (company) have a published list of direct suppliers, that have collectively contributed to more than 90% of the purchase volume? Millet Mountain Group provides an overview of production countries, but not a list of direct suppliers (see link, pages 36-37). Source
4. Is this supplier list specific? Are e.g. the addresses of direct suppliers included, and/or are the specific products mentioned per factory? See remark for labor conditions policy question 3. Source
5.  Is the list of direct suppliers extended with suppliers further down the supply chain, with a minimum of 40% in number compared to the direct suppliers? See remark for labor conditions policy question 3. Source
6. Is the brand (owner) a member of a collective initiative that aims to improve labor conditions, in which civil society organizations like NGOs and labor unions have a decisive voice, or does the brand purchase at least 50% from certified manufacturers with improved labor conditions? The CALIDA group is a member of the BSCI, but this is not a multi-stakeholder initiative. Source
7. Does this initiative require clear minimum performance levels for member brands? See remark for labor conditions policy question 6. Source
8. Is at least 25% of the total production volume at direct suppliers verified under monitoring concerning good labour conditions? Lafuma mentions SA8000 standards in their social complicance report, but it is not clear what percentage of total production volume was verified using these standards (see link, page 37). Source
9. Is at least 50% of the total production volume at direct suppliers verified under monitoring concerning good labour conditions? See remark for labor conditions policy question 8. Source
10. Is at least 75% of the total production volume at direct suppliers verified under monitoring concerning good labour conditions? See remark for labor conditions policy question 8. Source
11. Is at least 95% of the total production volume at direct suppliers verified under monitoring concerning good labour conditions? See remark for labor conditions policy question 8. Source
12. Does the brand (company) annually report on the results of its labor conditions policy for the leather, yarn and fabric production phases, including a reasonable overview of the number and region of workplaces covered by the policy in relation to the total production volume? Neither Lafuma, nor Millet Mountain Group or CALIDA Group reports clear results of any implemented measures to improve labor conditions at its fabric manufacturers (see link, pages 36-37). Source
13. Does the brand (owner) publicly commit to a living wage benchmark with defined wages per production region or factory? Neither Lafuma, nor Millet Mountain Group or CALIDA Group has published any clear commitment to a living wage benchmark. Source
14. Does the brand (owner) set a target to establish the payment of living wages at its apparel manufacturers, and is the brand on track to achieve this target? Neither Lafuma, nor Millet Mountain Group or CALIDA Group provide concrete information about implemented measures to establish the payment of living wages at its apparel manufacturers. Source
15. Has the brand (owner) realised payment of living wages for at least 10% of its production volume? Neither Lafuma, nor Millet Mountain Group or CALIDA Group provide information about payments of living wages. Source
16. Does the brand (owner) adhere to buying practices that enable living wages and good labour conditions, such as long-term relations with factories, and concentrating production at limited number of factories? Millet Mountain Group reports that it owns a production plant in Tunisia and one in Hungary where 28% of their collection is manufactured (see link, pages 36-37). Source