Sustainability Summary
- Good On You - We avoid
- Ethical Consumer - Locked
- B Corp - Not found
- Trustpilot - 1.7/5 (451 reviews)
- This is an unclaimed profile. Scotch & Soda has not joined Sustainability Tracker to verify their sustainability credentials. We gathered what we could from public sources.
Scotch & Soda is a fashion brand with a mixed sustainability picture. Independent ratings say it shares too little public detail about labour, materials, and environmental action, which leads to a very poor overall score from Good On You. At the same time, its wider business group says it is working on packaging, supplier checks, emissions tracking, and reporting, and some product and store changes have used lower-impact materials and energy-saving features. Public customer feedback is also weak, with a low Trustpilot score. Overall, the brand shows some sustainability activity, but there is not enough independent evidence to call it a strong performer. Positive Sentiment Found Positive public sentiment is limited, but there are a few signs of sustainability progress in the material found here. Good On You notes that Scotch & Soda is owned by Bluestar Alliance and gives the brand an overall rating of “We avoid,” yet the brand’s own reported actions include some lower-impact steps such as FSC-certified wood in stores, recycled hangers, recycled packaging materials, and a recycled-nylon bag. ULAC, which handles distribution, also says it has increased FSC-certified and recycled packaging, recycled textiles with nonprofits like FABSCRAP, and started using Worldly’s Product Impact Calculator to measure supply chain emissions more accurately. These are concrete actions, but they come mostly from company or partner disclosures rather than broad independent praise. Common Criticisms: The strongest public signal is negative. Good On You rates Scotch & Soda “We avoid,” with a 1/5 score for Planet, 1/5 for People, and 2/5 for Animals, saying the brand does not publish enough information about labour policies and shows little evidence of action on emissions, water use, hazardous chemicals, or biodiversity. Trustpilot is also weak, with a 1.7/5 score from 451 reviews, and the visible review text complains about product durability, such as T-shirts developing holes after a few months. Together, these sources suggest weak transparency and poor consumer confidence. The brand’s sustainability claims are also hard to verify because much of the available detail comes from company or partner statements rather than independent assessment.
About Scotch & Soda
- Status
- Unverified
- Website
- Visit Website
Scotch & Soda Sustainability Actions
Scotch & Soda Sustainability Commitments
2024
Raise packaging material share
ULAC said it aimed to increase the use of FSC-certified or recycled material in packaging to at least 50% in 2024. This is a packaging target, not a full company-wide sustainability goal. FSC-certified material means paper or wood that comes from forests managed under set environmental and social rules. The commitment suggests the company wants to keep shifting away from virgin paper and toward recycled or certified inputs.
2030
Cut Scope 1 and 2 emissions
ULAC said it aims to reduce Scope 1 and 2 carbon emissions by 42% by 2030. Scope 1 means direct emissions from things the company owns or controls, like fuel use in buildings. Scope 2 means emissions from purchased electricity. The target was described as validated by the Science-Based Targets initiative, which checks whether climate goals match climate science. This is a clear future climate commitment, but it applies to the wider company group rather than Scotch & Soda alone.
2030
Use more sustainable fibres
ULAC said it wants to increase the use of sustainable and regenerative fibres by 5-10%, including recycled polyester, organic cotton, and man-made cellulosic fibres. Regenerative fibres are materials linked to farming or sourcing methods that aim to improve soil and ecosystems, though the term can be broad. This commitment points to a planned shift in material mix, but the company did not give a full product-by-product timeline in the source.
