Traceability and transparency are at a lower level than they should be. But the subsidiaries of the largest luxury groups are doing better than private labels. That's what the conservation charity said earlier this month in a report entitled “Time for Change”.
Stakeholder engagement is also limited, according to WWF. Which ranked 21 well-known luxury watch and jewellery brands based on efforts including sustainability strategies, climate action, biodiversity and human rights management.
“Most companies are not yet involving their suppliers, employees and consumers in a targeted and integrated way in their sustainability efforts,” the Swiss non-governmental organisation (NGO) said.
Many are “still at the beginning in the areas of water, biodiversity, human rights management. As well as the implementation of circular approaches,” he added.
Subsidiaries of larger companies have benefited from group-wide efforts, the report continues. Pomellato, owned by Kering, received the highest score in the industry. It earned a rating level of “ambitious” along with LVMH's Tiffany & Co. and Bulgari. Also, Richemont's IWC Schaffhausen, Cartier and Panerai and Kering's Boucheron.
However, Richemont watch companies A. Lange & Söhne, Jaeger-LeCoultre and Vacheron Constantin were only in the “upper mid-range” category. As were the Swatch Group's Omega, Tissot, Swatch and Longines. LVMH's TAG Heuer also received this rating. So did Breitling, owned by private equity funds, and Danish jeweller Pandora.
Family-owned watch and jewellery maker Chopard received a “lower mid-level” ranking. Along with other private labels Audemars Piguet and Rolex. The only brand to receive a rating of “late, opaque” was Patek Philippe, another family-owned Swiss watchmaker.
“While the overall sustainability performance of the watch and jewellery sector leaves much to be desired, as the assessment results show, there are individual brands that have already thoroughly addressed sustainability issues and developed approaches and measures that can serve as examples for other industry stakeholders,” the report said.
The ratings represented an improvement on the last report in 2018, when WWF criticised the industry's environmental standards and ranked eight brands in the lowest position.
Source: rapaport.com
