How sustainable are your favourite brands?

News, blog and backgrounds about the sustainability scores of brands

Sustainability is sexy, but is sexy also sustainable?

Sustainability is long past the image of tree huggers and hippies. Sustainability is hip and sexy. But is sexy also sustainable? Rank a Brand’s latest research on 24 underwear and lingerie brands shows that sometimes it is, but definitely not always. Four brands that make such products show that sustainability and sexy can go hand in hand. Nevertheless, as with most clothing sectors, the majority of brands making underwear and lingerie perform badly when it comes to climate, environment and labour conditions.

Underwear-2015-Banner-EN

The frontrunners
One label received the highest label on our performance list, which runs from A label (best score) to E label (worst score): the Dutch brand Saint Basics. With this score, consumers can be sure that they are purchasing a top performing brand with respect to sustainability and labour conditions. Two other brands, Pants to Poverty and the German brand Minga Berlin, receive the second best label, the B label. The brands respectively score 24, 22, and 19 points out of a maximum of 31. While Saint Basics and Minga Berlin are local brands, they are available through online shopping and ship to many countries outside of their home country as well. Another German brand that is also available online, von Jungfeld, shows a reasonable performance. With 15 points, the brand receives a C label (reasonable performance, but could still do better).

Scorecard_lingerie_underwear_update_2015

The first three brands all perform well in the areas of environmentally certified materials and labour conditions. Saint Basics and Pants to Poverty both use only organic cotton, while Minga Berlin almost reached that point (around 70-80%). Furthermore, all products from all three brands are GOTS certified. Besides guaranteeing better environmental performance, this certification also means that labour conditions during production are monitored and improved. Pants to Poverty and Saint Basics are also working to increase the wages of their employees in low wage countries. Pants to Poverty is even working on a project for a living wage (a wage that a labourer can live well of and is often much higher than the minimum wage). However, the results of this project are not yet published.

The remaining brands
Apart from the four brands mentioned above, only one brand shows a bit more attention to sustainability: Hunkemöller. This brand scores 5 points, thereby receiving a D label. This label means that Hunkemöller has set its first steps on the path toward more sustainability in its production, but still has a long way to go. Just like in most sectors, in the underwear and lingerie sector, the large majority of brands fall behind. Of the 24 brands we examined, 19 fall in the lowest category, the E label. Brands in this category include Björn Borg, Triumph, Sloggi, Victoria’s Secret, and Jockey. We recommend consumers not to buy these brands until they show more readiness to incorporate sustainability in their production processes.

Help make sustainability even sexier
The list of examined brands can be found on the overview page of lingerie and underwear brands. By clicking on a brand, you can find more information about our criteria. Furthermore, you can use this page to send a message to the brand to stimulate it to sell more sustainable and fairer clothes.

To keep doing our research, we could really use your support. Besides contributing as a responsible consumer that purchases more sustainable alternatives through our website, you can also support us financially or by helping in our research as a volunteer. Do you want to be kept up date about our research of the sustainability performance of well-known brands? Then follow us on Facebook and Twitter. Or subscribe to our newsletter through our website.

More expensive brands not necessarily more sustainable

For many cheap clothing brands, you might wonder if the low price means that the environment and labour conditions of labourers in low wage countries will suffer. In general this seems to be the case. Sadly, this does not mean that when you pay a premium price for a piece of clothing, it automatically means the environment and labour conditions are improved. From our latest research of 38 premium clothing brands on their performance with respect to climate, environment, and labour conditions, we can conclude that most of these brands hardly perform better than their cheaper competitors.

premium-fashion-banner-en_1024

The results
Just like in the cheaper sectors, such as the large retailers, premium brands show little effort when it comes to sustainability. Only one brand receives the C label (scoring 13 out of 31 points): COS, one of the brands of fashion giant H&M Group. This score means the brand is performing reasonably with regard to the environment and labour conditions. While both COS and H&M received a B label in our previous ranking, they did not manage to maintain this score. This also has to do with the fact that we made our criteria more stringent. This is because we like to see that brands keep trying to perform better each year.

Score_card_premium_brands_update_2015

COS receives points for its casino online first steps toward reducing its carbon emissions, making use of environmentally prefered materials (14% in 2014), reducing harmful chemicals, and working toward achieving fairer labour conditions in factories in low wage countries. To achieve this latter issue, H&M Group also became member of the Fair Labour Association and the Ethical Trading Initiative. These organizations are committed to improving labour conditions.

The laggards
Unfortunately, the remaining brands do not perform as well. Seven brands receive the second lowest grade, the D label. This label was achieved by the brands Acne, Claudia Sträter, Marimekko, Marc O’Polo, Hugo Boss, Calvin Klein, and Tommy Hilfiger. These brands show some first steps when it comes to incorporating sustainability in their company policy, but still have a long road ahead of them. Of these brands, Acne receives the highest score (9 out of 31 points) and comes in second. Third place is shared by Claudia Sträter and Marimekko. Both brands scored 8 points.

The remaining 30 brands remain stuck at the lowest grade, the E label. These brands hardly or do not show any performance with respect to sustainability. We therefore recommend consumers not to buy these brands until they show better results. Examples of brands in this group of laggards are: McGregor, Gant, Benetton, Ralph Lauren, Lacoste, and Michael Kors.

Help get sustainability into fashion
Before people say that it apparently does not matter which clothes you buy, because it is all just as unsustainable; this is not the case. Research in other sectors by Rank a Brand shows that there certainly are brands that perform better. To find an overview of such brands, you can visit our website, for example the overview page of all clothing brands. By purchasing these better performing brands, you support an upward trend to fairer and cleaner clothes.

You can find the list of the brands we’ve examined on the overview page of premium brands. By clicking a brand, you can find more information on our rating. Through these brand pages, you can also send the brand a message to stimulate them to perform better.

To do the work we do, we could really use your help. Besides your support as a responsible consumer making conscious choices in your clothing purchases, you can also support us financially or volunteer to help in our research. Do you want to stay up to date about our research of the sustainability performance of well-known brands? Then follow us on Facebook and Twitter. Or subscribe to our newsletter through our website.

Soft drinks not so soft for environment and labor conditions

Most soft drink brands show little ambition when it comes to the use of fair trade and environmentally certified ingredients, reduction of packaging, waste and water usage, and climate impact. Let alone that these brands show some actual results. Luckily, there are some exceptions that are performing better. One would expect that a sector that depends so much on water as its main resource to be more careful with water.

Soda_Banner_2015_EN

Front runners

For our latest ranking we assessed 30 soft drinks brand. Top performer of this list is Lemonaid. This small German brand is the only brand with a B label, with a score of 14 out of 24. Another German brand, Bionade, scores reasonably well with 11 out of 24, sufficient for a C label.

Lemonaid performs well on labor conditions, by using Fair Trade and environmentally certified ingredients. However, Lemonaid doesn’t provide clear information on the reduction of its carbon and water footprints, so there is still room for improvement in that area. For Bionade, it is the other way around. This pioneer in organic soda has a good score on climate impact and performs pretty well on environmental aspects, but low on labor conditions due to a lack of information. What a great score would these brands achieve if they were able to combine each other’s strengths. Bionade has improved its label from D to C, as a result of increased transparency by issuing their first CSR report.

Soda-ranking-scorecard-update-2015-EN

Disappointing performance of large brands 

The performance of the large soda brands is disappointing. More than half of the assessed brands, including Dr Pepper, Red Bull, and Rivella, get the lowest label: E. This label means that these brands show little or no interest in sustainability and fair trade. We advise consumers not to buy these brands until they have improved their policies and performance.

Ten other brands have taken first steps and get the D label. These include 7UP, Coca-Cola, Fanta, Sprite and Pepsi. Coca-Cola, Fanta and Sprit, all brands of the Coca-Cola company, have lost their C label. This was caused by the application of stricter criteria for the use of fair trade and environmentally certified ingredients, packaging and waste. Rank a Brand keeps setting the bar higher, because we feel that brands should continuously improve on sustainability and fair trade. Unfortunately, this is not shown by the large brands.

Help us to improve sustainability of soft drink brands

You can find the full list of assessed brands on the overview page of soda brands on our website. By clicking on a brand you will gain more information about our assessment. Moreover, you can send the brands a message by clicking the ‘nudge this brand’ link.

To improve the sustainability performance of soft drinks, we can use your help. Support Rank a Brand! Besided financial support, you can also help us in our research as a volunteer. If you want to be kept informed about our work, follow us on Facebook and Twitter, or subscribe to our newsletter in the upper right corner of our website.

World Food Day: Use Rank a Brand to choose sustainable brands

Today is World Food Day, a day in which there is extra focus on food safety. This special day is organized every year since 1981 by the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations. This year, not only Oktober 16th, but the whole week, is centered around food related issues, such as some of the topics from the ‘Sustainable Development Goals’. The main issue during this week is ensuring food for every person on the planet.

World_Food_Day

What’s going on?

Special attention for our food is very much needed nowadays. With a growing world population, climate change and the exhaustion of large areas of agricultural land, there are plenty of challenges to be met. Large scale use of pesticides, of which the health risks are not always clear, and the clearing of tropical rainforests are well-known examples. Furthermore, in many countries laborers in the food industry are still exploited systematically. These people receive too little pay for a reasonable existence, work too much hours a day and/or end up with physical complaints as a result of things like spraying pesticides without protective clothing.

What can you do?

The questions that remains with circumstances such as those mentioned above is always: who is responsible? Companies, governments and consumers often point to each other and at the end of the day, too little is happening. Of course none of these parties has full responsibility, but when everyone takes little steps, large improvements can be made.

For a start, a great step for consumers is using Rank a Brand. On our website, you can see which companies take their responsibility when it comes to climate change, environment, and labor conditions. To see how serious they are in this respect, the brands’ performance on criteria such as carbon emissions, carrying certificates (like organic or fair trade) and the reduction of food waste and waste nbso online casino reviews are examined. The brands are then ordered from high to low, and get assigned labels according to their scores as seen in the image below. More information about our methods can be found on the pages ‘what we do’ and ‘how we work’.

Explaining_the_labels

Using Rank a Brand gives consumers the power to create change, by rewarding well-performing brands through the purchase of their products. A list of the better performing brands can be found on the overview page of food and beverages brands. We also regularly communicate about the performance of multiple sectors, like recently for restaurant chains and crisps brands.

Support Rank a Brand

Rank a Brand is a brand comparison website by and for consumers and focuses on sustainability and socially responsible entrepreneurship. We want to provide consumers with a clear overview of the sustainable performance of well-known brands. In this way, they can choose for better performing brands more easily, so that companies are stimulated to produce more sustainable and fair. We do not only rank brands that offer food and beverages, but also other sectors, among which are clothing, electronics, and telecommunication.

To be able to continue our work, we are in great need of your support. Apart from you contribution as a responsible consumer that makes more well considered purchases with the help of our website or app, you can also support us financially or help us carry out our research as a volunteer. Do you want to stay up to date about our research on the sustainable performance of well-known brands? Follow us on Facebook and Twitter. Together we can make sure that on this World Food Day and during the rest of the year, our food supply will become more sustainable and fair!

Sustainability often not on the menu of restaurant chains

A quick bite downtown, at the railway or bus station or along the highway. Most of us do it often. However, is it possible to do so in a sustainable way? Unfortunately, this mostly is not the case for the more well-known restaurant chains.

restaurant_chains_2015_en_1024

How do the restaurant chains perform?

Sustainability doesn’t seem to be on the menu for most of the well-known restaurant chains; in the latest ranking of Rank a Brand, none of the restaurant chains that were examined scored better than a C-label. Only IKEA Restaurant shows some substantial improvement and is now top performer in this sector. McDonalds and Subway perform somewhat better than most brands and receive a D label, which means they have started to take sustainability into account, but they should do better. Popular chains like Burger King, KFC, Pizza Hut, Vapiano, and Domino’s Pizza receive the lowest possible grade, the E label. We therefore recommend not ordering at these chains until they show more improvements.

In comparison to the previous ranking, some brands received lower scores due to new, more demanding criteria that Rank a Brand implemented. Burger King for example, lost its nbso online casino reviews D label and now resides among the worst-scoring brands with an E label. The new criteria are, among others, sustainability measures in the production chain or the supply of vegan food.

Restaurant Chains Update 2015 Score Card EN

What stands out?

As far as sustainable meat, fish, eggs, drinks, or fruits and vegetables go, almost no restaurant chain shows concrete policy on these products to make them more sustainable. Examples of such policies are the use of organic beef, fruits or vegetables or the supply of tap water as opposed to bottled water. In a sector that has a major global environmental impact, such as large-scale agriculture and cattle breeding for which tropical forests are being cleared, improvements are necessary.

Help get durability on the menu

The full list of the brands we’ve surveyed can be found on the overview page of restaurant chains. By clicking on a brand you can find more information about our assessment. You can also send brands a message through their brand page by clicking the link ‘nudge this brand’.

To help get sustainability on restaurants’ menu, we could use your help. Support Rank a Brand!

Children clothing brands need to grow up

Similar to Rank a Brand”s previous yearly update, brands that produce baby and children clothing show little maturity when it comes to their progress regarding environmentally friendly and fair clothing. This is a sad situation, since young children are not only extra sensitive to (hormone disrupting) chemicals, but also because they inherit the planet from the current generation. Leaving them the earth with a disrupted climate, destroyed nature and social unrest as a result of unfair labor practice should therefore not be considered good business. However, many of the brands we’ve researched do not appear to take this idea to heart.

Children_Clothing_Update_2015_EN

How do the brands perform?
For our latest ranking, we researched 15 brands that produce baby and children clothing. Of these 15 brands, 13 receive the lowest label, the E label. Examples are Prénatal, Rock Star Baby, Derhy, and Oilily. The E label means that brands hardly show or don’t show that they take the environment and labor conditions into account in their production process. Therefore, we advise consumers not to purchase these brands until they perform more sustainably.

The remaining two brands perform somewhat better. The brand Name It comes in first place. This brand receives the C label, which means it is on its way towards becoming more sustainable, but it still has to work harder. Name It scores points for using over 20% environmentally preferred materials, having GOTS certified production for a number of products, having a decent Code of Conduct in place for workers in low wage countries and for being a member of the Danish Ethical Trading Initiative. Imps&Elfs comes in second place and receives a D label. This means that the brand already took some steps towards more sustainable practices, but still casino has serious work to do in this respect. Imps&Elfs scores points for its use of environmentally preferred materials (59% of total production) and by being a member of the MADE-BY organization. Being a member of such initiatives shows brands take improvement of labor conditions seriously.

Children_Clothing_update_2015_scorecard_EN

What stands out?
None of the brands published their carbon emissions footprint, which makes it unclear how large this footprint is. Using renewable energy would be a great step in the right direction, but so far, only Name It shows plans to increase its use of renewable energy. With respect to the environment, much could be gained by using more environmentally preferred and certified materials for baby and children clothing, such as organic cotton or recycled materials. While multiple brands mention having a clothing line with such materials, only Name It and Imps&Elfs publish the precise share.

Using certified materials, from GOTS of EU-Ecolabel for example, also means that fewer or no harmful chemicals are used in the production process. Using fewer of these chemicals is desperately needed, because of not only their effect on the environment and the makers of the clothing, but also for the babies and children who wear them. Of the brands we’ve researched, only Name It demonstrates that it is working on this initiative, by having removed at least one group of harmful chemicals from its clothing.

Help baby and children clothing brands grow
The full list of researched brands can be accessed through the overview page of the baby and children clothing sector. By clicking on a brand, you can find more information about our ranking. Furthermore, you can send the brand a message through this page.

To help baby and children clothing brands grow toward more sustainable practices and to be able to research more brands, we could use your support!

Surf, beach & swimwear: going against the sustainable current

When you’re out catching a wave or swimming laps in a pool, you may not realize that the clothes you’re wearing have an impact on the environment, and especially, on our global oceans and waterways, due to the chemicals required to manufacture surf, beach and swimwear. In order for future generations to be able to enjoy the same oceans, lakes, and rivers that we do today, we must be more conscious of sustainability initiatives in the surf, beach, and swimwear sector, and therefore, we should keep this in mind during our purchasing of such brands.

Swimwear_update_2015_ORG

Overview
As a whole, the surf, beach, and swimwear sector has a great deal of room for improvement. Of the 11 brands in this sector, none received a score higher than D-label. This score means a brand reached its “first milestones, but should be perform better.” Two brands (Speedo and Reef) receive a D-label, while the remainder receives an E-label, meaning “don’t buy.” The highest scoring brand is Speedo, scoring 6 out of a maximum of 31 points. Reef (or its brand owner VFC) comes in second with 5 points. Speedo received the majority of its points from its Labor Conditions Policy while Reef excelled in its climate and chemical management and  reduction initiatives. Brunotti, Oxbow, Quiksilver, Roxy, O’Neill, and Rip Curl all scored some points, but not enough to score better than an E-label. The lowest performing brands for the sector are Billabong, Protest, and Rhino Surf, receiving zero points.

Swimwear_update_2015_EN

Use of Hazardous Chemicals

In “high risk” production countries that have fewer or weaker wastewater treatment regulation, wastewater containing hazardous chemicals from the washing, bleaching, and dying of fabrics in online casino factories is not or inattentively treated before its eventual discharge. This can result in impacts to water quality, entire ecosystems, and the well-being of those people that rely on these water resources. According to the World Bank, almost 20% of global industrial water pollution comes from the treatment and dyeing of textiles. Given the surf, beach, and swimwear sector’s reliance on the sustainability of our global ocean’s and waterways for the success of its brands, it is imperative that this sector focus much more heavily on improving its sustainability initiatives as they pertain to phasing out hazardous chemicals and polluting waterways.

Of all 11 brands in the sector, only Reef clearly communicated a policy to eliminate hazardous chemicals from the whole lifecycle and all production procedures for its products. None of the brands however have clearly reported results of having a policy to phase out at least one suspect chemical group, such as phthalates or perfluorinated chemicals, from their entire production.

Climate Change

Sea level rise and coral bleaching due to ocean acidification as ocean temperatures rise are just two of the potential effects of climate change. As a sector, half of the brands (Speedo, Reef, Brunotti, Quiksilver, Rip Curl, and Roxy), have reported a first step towards reducing their impacts to climate change by implementing a policy to minimize or compensate carbon emissions. However, no brand clearly reports that it has actually reduced or compensated their emissions by 10% in the last 5 years. Therefore, it is imperative that the surf, beach, and swimwear sector implement more initiatives to reduce the effects of climate change, and report on clear results already realized.

Labor Conditions

About half of the brands (Speedo, Reef, Oxbow, Roxy, and Quiksilver) report to have implemented a Code of Conduct to improve labor conditions at the factories where their clothes are made. Speedo is a member of the Ethical Trading Initiative (ETI), which demonstrates that Speedo is part of an alliance of companies, trade unions and NGOs that promotes respect for workers” rights around the globe. However, none of the brands annually report on clear enough results of theirs labor conditions policy. Similarly, none of the brands clearly annually report on the labor conditions policy for their fabric manufacturing phases.

Support Rank a Brand

You can see all the results of the ranking here. Please note that you will only see brands that are available in your country. If you select a brand you can see their score on each of our criteria, and a short explanation on how we have assessed this.

If you value our ranking, support us!

If you love the beach or are concerned about the sustainability of our global oceans and waterways, please support us in helping surf, beach, and swimwear brands to be more sustainable.

Poor performance of Sport and Outdoor brands

Recently, Rank a Brand updated its ranking for Sport & Outdoor brands. These brands have some of the greatest potential to appeal to people who prefer to buy environmentally and socially responsible brands. Generally, those of us who tend to make purchases from these sectors spend time outdoors, whether they’re hiking up a forest trail, kayaking down a whitewater river, biking across rugged terrain, or playing their favorite sport. The buying decisions Sport & Outdoor consumers make not only allow them to enjoy nature, but have an impact on the environment and nature as well.

Sport_Outdoor_Ranking_2015_EN

For the Sport & Outdoor Clothing and Shoes sectors, we looked at how brands performed with respect to the use of environmentally preferred materials and the phase out of hazardous chemicals, including suspect chemicals and chromium used in leather tanning. Despite the fact that the brands from these sectors are geared towards people who appreciate the great outdoors, they all have room for improvement in regards to their sustainability initiatives.

Front Runners

Of all brands in the Sport & Outdoor sectors, none receive a grade higher than “C” (on its way towards sustainability, but can do better) on their sustainability initiatives on a scale from “A” (high sustainability efforts) to “E” (little to no efforts). While some brands are with respect to single policy measures indeed front runners in their industry, they aren”t yet able to convert its comparably better performance to even better ranking results – like scoring a “B” grade. Overall, Vaude received the highest score and is one point shy of a “B” grade. Vaude excels in its climate protection policies through the use of 100% renewable energy and is member of the Fair Wear Foundation, which shows the brand is serious about improving labor conditions in low wage countries. Other brands that receive a “C” grade are Puma, Pyua, Jack Wolfskin, and Patagonia. Of these, Pyua is a leader in the use of environmentally-preferred raw materials (97%).

Sport clothing update 2015 _ ENG _ small

Click image for larger version

Laggers

Overall, the Sport & Outdoor sectors exhibit a number of “lagging” brands, with many receiving a “D” grade (first milestones, could be better), while the majority receive an “E” grade (don’t buy). Well-known brands scoring a “D” grade include Adidas, Nike, Reebok, Helly Hansen, and Fjällräven. In the category of brands scoring an “E” grade, Oakley, Fila, Lonsdale, and Perry Sport stand out. 11 brands score a total of zero points. These brands are yet to implement sustainability initiatives, or disclose such initiatives on their websites.

Overall trends

The majority of Sport & Outdoor brands reported some sort of policy measure nbso online casino reviews to minimize, reduce, or compensate carbon emissions. However, across both sectors, only 5 of 63 brands (among which are Vaude and Adidas) have succeeded in reducing or compensating at least 10% of their carbon emissions in the past 5 years. The sectors struggle as a whole with environmentally preferred raw materials. Pyua leads in this regard, using such materials almost entirely. Only a few other brands (such as Vaude and Hanwag) clearly report a policy to use environmentally preferred materials for at least 5% of its total production.

Only two brands (Pyua and Fjällräven) clearly report to have eliminated at least one harmful chemical group from their global supply chains. Furthermore, among the typical outdoor- and sport shoe brands, only Nike, Puma and Brooks clearly deliver on the result that PVC is eliminated from its collection to at least more than 90%. In regards to labor conditions initiatives, 48 brands report implementation of a Code of Conduct to assure better working conditions for workers in low wage countries. However, only 8 ouf 63 brands report on clear results of its policy measures implemented in its supply chain on apparel manufacturing level, namely: Mammut, Nike, Jack Wolfskin, Vaude, Trigema, Deuter and Schöffel. Even worse are the results when it comes to presenting clear results further down the supply chain. Only only two out of 63 brands report on clear results of this policy measures in the fabric manufacturing stages, namely Puma and Jack Wolfskin. Finally, across both sectors, only Löffler realizes that at least 50% of its fabrics manufacturing takes place under good, respectively low-risk labour conditions, as its 70% of its fabrics are processed in its own production facility in Austria.

These trends in climate, environmental, and social responsibility indicate that the Sport & Outdoor Clothing and Shoes sectors are both at a starting point in terms of its collective sustainability efforts. As sectors with great potential to excel in the realm of sustainability, due to their outdoor-oriented consumers, perhaps greater strides will be seen from brands in both of these sectors in future ranking updates.

Support Us

You can see all the results of the ranking on the overview page of the Sport & Outdoor Clothing sector and the overview page of the Sport & Outdoor Clothing and Shoes sector. Please note that you will only see brands that are available in your country. If you select a brand you can see their score on each of our criteria, and a short explanation on how we have assessed this.

If you value our ranking, support us!

If you enjoy the outdoors, please help us help Outdoor & Sport Clothing and Sport Shoes brands to be more sustainable!

How green are your favourite crisps?

After the latest update of the beer sector, next in line is the crisps sector. At parties it is now more easy to drink a more sustainable beer, but a bowl of crisps in the same manner turns out to be more difficult. Therefore, Rank a Brand presents the newest ranking of the sustainability efforts of well-known international crisps brands.

What is it that makes crisps sustainable? Rank a Brand reviewed multiple aspects in this regard. For one, we researched if brands make use of sustainable ingredients, such as organically grown potatoes and more sustainable variants of (or alternatives to) palm oil. We also looked at the climate policy the brands have in place and the use of renewable energy. Lastly, we checked how well the brands performed in the area of labour conditions.

Crisps_Ranking_2015_EN

A long way to go
What is remarkable, is that none of the crisps brands Rank a Brand researched scored higher than a D label (15 to 35% of the maximum score). Of the 17 points that the brands could receive, the highest scoring brand only managed to get four. This score applies to Doritos, Lay’s, and Smiths, all part of the American concern of PepsiCo. The brands scored points for their policy to reduce carbon emissions, for minimizing packaging and waste, and for having a Code of Conduct in place to accomplish better labour conditions in low wage countries.

With three points, Kettle and Pringles both also get a D label, although barely. Pringles scores points for having a climate policy in place, as well as a Code of Conduct and for minimizing its waste stream. Apart from a point for its climate policy, Kettle also scores two points for using more sustainable oil and for having an organic crisps line with the more sustainable ingredients to match. The other two brands in our list, Burts and Tyrrells, do not mention anything on their sustainability efforts and receive the lowest possible E label. We therefore recommend to especially leave these brands lying in the shelves.

score card crisps eng

Limited amount of brands
Ofcourse it is true that there are much more crisps brands than the seven international brands (and one national brand, Croky) we have examined. These brands are, however, the most well-known, and thus are most commonly eaten. Smaller brands, like those sold in organic stores, may well receive higher scores. Since Rank a Brand is however limited in the amount of brands we can rank, these brands are left out for now.

Do you want to keep eating one of the crisps brands mentioned above, but would you still like to see this brand perform more sustainable, nudge them! This can be done by clicking the link ‘nudge this brand’ in the upper right corner of the brand page.

Support Rank a Brand
The complete list with crisps brands is available on the overview page of the crisps sector. By clicking a brand, you can find more information on our rating.

To be able to expand our assortment of ranked crisps (and ofcourse other brands), for example by adding more smaller and specialized brands, we need your support!

New beer ranking by Rank a Brand

Rank a Brand has recently updated its beer ranking. Many of us like a good tasting beer every now and then, especially during the summer months. But we also want to be sure it is brewed in a responsible and sustainable way.

Sustainability and beer is not just about using organic ingredients. Reduction of energy and carbon emissions, use of green energy and water efficiency during production are also included in our sustainability criteria. Other focus points include reducing waste and environmental impact of packaging. We have assessed 32 national and international beer brands based on these criteria.

Front runners and laggers

Of the international brands, Bavaria and Grolsch have achieved 12 out of 23 points (52% of the maximum score), while Warsteiner has scored one point less. These brands are awarded a C-label, meaning: reasonable, but could be better. This is demonstrated by Neumarkter Lammsbräu (Germany) and Gulpener (the Netherlands). These small breweries who serve their local markets have both received a B-label.

Most international beer brands however, score a D-label, meaning their score is below 35% of the maximum. This means that international beer brands really have to put in more effort, in order to achieve a better score and to rightfully sell their beer as being sustainable. At the bottom of our list we find Duvel and Alfa. These brands receive an E-label, the lowest of our labels, which means: don’t buy these brands until they show serious improvements!

If your favourite brand is not one of the front runners, or even worse: nudge them! This can be done by clicking the ‘nudge brand’ link in the upper right corner of each brand page.

Improved reporting

In general we see more and more beer brands taking their reporting on corporate social responsibility more seriously. It is an important principle for Rank a Brand that brands not only improve their sustainability performance, but are also transparent about it. This way, consumers like you and me can assess it to support our responsible shopping choices.

While most brands report on their carbon emissions, we hardly see any clear reduction targets. Furthermore, only a few brands have clear policies on the use of renewable energy. A better ambition level is shown on the use of water. However, the score on the use of certified environmentally friendly raw materials is disappointing, again with only a few exceptions.

Support us

You can see all the results of the ranking here. Please note that you will only see brands that are available in your country. If you select a brand you can see their score on each of our criteria, and a short explanation on how we have assessed this.

If you value our ranking, support us!

A sustainable beer tastes good, but don’t drink too much of it!

Radboud van Delft, managing director Rank a Brand