Avada Interior Design

All Reviews

  • The brand curates labels such as Finders Keepers, Levis, Cooper St, Wish and Billini– each of which use a mix of natural and synthetic fabrics, leather, cotton, linen and silk and each do not disclose sufficient supply chain information. 3 Style Clothing's website does not encourage responsible consumption or sustainable production. No information is given about packaging and the website does not list supply chain information; origin of textile fabric, textile production, manufacturing, social, environmental and economic impact.
  • 3rd Story the Label is lacking transparency around its supply chain. It does not communicate where its products are manufactured, or whether or not it is taking adequate steps to ensure payment of a living wage and fair working conditions for its workers. The website does not list sufficient supply chain information to give it a higher rating; origin of textile fabric, textile production, manufacturing location, or the social, environmental and economic impacts.
  • Jewellery by 8 Other Reasons looks like it's relatively well made. Nothing is in place to ensure responsible consumption and sustainable production. No information is given about packaging. The website does not list supply chain information; social, environmental and economic impact, or origin of gold/silver manufacturing or production.
  • 9.0 Swim's website does not disclose where production takes place and is not taking adequate steps to ensure payment of a living wage for its workers. Nothing is in place to ensure responsible consumption and sustainable production and no information is given about packaging. The website does not list sufficient supply chain information; origin of textile fabric, textile production, manufacturing, social, environmental and economic impact.
  • While its designs are made to last, womens' footwear brand A.EMERY is lacking transparency around its supply chain. It uses leather but no other animal products. Its website does not communicate where its products are manufactured, or whether or not it is taking adequate steps to ensure payment of a living wage and fair working conditions for its workers. The website does not list sufficient supply chain information to give it a higher rating; origin of materials, material production, manufacturing location, or the social, environmental and economic impacts.
  • Aaina and Co use stainless steele for its recycable quality and packaging in vegan, leather pouches. Her ethos is giving back to charities to support childrens education in Bali, which inspired her brand. We think this has great potential if there was more transparency overall. Does not list supply chain information; origin of textile fabric, textile production, manufacturing, social, environmental and economic impact.
  • Jeans and staplesby Abrand look to be well made, however the brand does not list sufficient supply chain informationto gve it a higher rating. It requires more communication on origin of textile fabric, textile production, manufacturing, social, environmental and economic impact.
  • Ace of Something states it is looking for ways to improve its social and environmental impact. The products made are designed to last and their plastic-free packaging is designed to be reused. Materials used for products are mostly wool and vegan leather. While wool is biodegradable, the standard of animal welfare for sheep in Australia is controversial and sheep farming uses methods that harm the environment. Although vegan leather contributes to the cut-down of animal cruelty, it is not a perfect material in terms of environmentalism as it requires plasticisers and toxic chemicals to create the leather-like feel. The brand believes that its workers deserve a safe and fair working environment and they regularly liaise with them, however no certifications are in place and manufacture location is not stated. The website does not list enough supply chain information; origin of textile fabric, textile production, manufacturing, social, environmental and economic impact.
  • Garments by Acler look to be well-constructed pieces. Most garments are made from synthetic fabrics as well as linen, cotton and silk. Cotton requires high water consumption to grow. Silk has a worse impact on the environment than any other textile, using more water than cotton and emitting more gases. No information is provided about manufacturing process or location. Nothing is in place to ensure responsible consumption and sustainable production. No information is given about packaging. The website does not list supply chain information; origin of textile fabric, textile production, manufacturing, social, environmental and economic impact.
  • Location of Brand is based in Australia, does not secify brand head offcie, where the clothing is designed or manufactured. Fabric Content is specified, up to 92% of polyester for tops.Using 92.5-95% cotton, does not specify origin country or location of cotton textile grown or manufactured.
  • Afends creates classically timeless, durable, high quality designs out of hemp that should last a lifetime. Hemp requires little water and no pesticides in order to grow well and the brand’s goal is to be environmentally and socio-economically sustainable in all facets. While they use organic cotton in their production, Afends doesn’t use organic hemp– meaning that it isn’t environmentally friendly as it cannot confirm damaging fertilisers aren’t used by farmers. Organic cotton, even though it’s a good option, uses requires high water consumption to grow. The brand also uses leather. Labour-wise, it is not taking adequate steps to ensure payment of a living wage for its workers.
  • Afends is on a mission to reduce, reuse and recyle. They want to go back to basics but educate consumers in the long term, thus encouraging a cyclical evolution - that is starting from the raw materials used, the way its made, the where and the how. They are obsessed with hemp and note its little waste qualities and longevity. Afends has been transparent with their ethical and sustainability standards and certifications (GOTS, OCS 100, OCS Blended) and constantly check in on their supply chain from manufacturere, logistics and shipping, to the store and the customer beyond. They are transparent on manufacturer location and textile productions. They are happy to be held accountable and be educated and educate the masses on sustainability and giving back to our earth. They are also transparent about the individual factories work ethics and standards and treatment of employees and company culture. A great potential partnership!
  • This brand makes carry-wear out of cactus leather, as it aims to create goods without causing any harm. It uses mostly eco-friendly materials and it limits the amount of chemicals and water used. Manufacturing location is not disclosed and the brand does not ensure that living wages are paid along its supply chain. It is PETA-certified vegan, ensuring no animals are harmed in the production of the brand’s bags.
  • Pieces by Azaki are designed to become a much worn and loved part of your wardrobe, and the brand’s website discourages the throwaway 'fast fashion' culture. It notes that it’s on a sustainability journey, always opting for natural fabrics such as linen, silk and cotton. They have a made-to-order system to reduce waste and Akazi also produce a very small run of garments in a small-scale production house in Indonesia. While they claim to have a close relationship with the production house, there is no evidence it ensures living wage in its supply chain. It’s important to mention that silk has a worse impact on the environment than any other textile, using more water than cotton and emitting more gases. The website does not list sufficient supply chain information about social, environmental and economic impact to give the brand a higher rating.
  • Alias Mae creates shoes that look to be well-made. The brand is partnered with i=Change to donate $1 from every sale to a few causes. This brand uses leather in most, if not all of its shoes. Nothing is in place to ensure responsible consumption and sustainable production. No information is given about packaging. The website does not list supply chain information; origin of textile fabric, textile production, manufacturing, social, environmental and economic impact.
  • Garments by Alice McCall look to be well-constructed pieces. It's website does not disclose where production takes place and the brand is not taking adequate steps to ensure payment of a living wage for its workers. Nothing is in place to ensure responsible consumption and sustainable production and no information is given about packaging. The website does not list sufficient supply chain information; origin of textile fabric, textile production, manufacturing, social, environmental and economic impact.
  • Garments by All About Eve look to be well made, however the brand does not list sufficient supply chain information; origin of textile fabric, textile production, gold/silver manufacturing or production and the social, environmental and economic impacts to give the brand a higher rating.
  • This brand encourages responsible consumption and claims that its workers are treated fairly. They use recycled components where possible and all packaging is biodegradable. In saying this, Alpha Fortis's website does not disclose where production takes place and is not taking adequate steps to ensure payment of a living wage for its workers. The website does not list sufficient supply chain information; origin of textile fabric, textile production, manufacturing, social, environmental and economic impact.
  • No About Us information, only a shop front, up to 80% cotton, no provenance on manufacturing country/location, no provenance on cotton textile, printed, no information on print materials/processes used. Failed transparency
  • Does not list supply chain information; origin of textile fabric, textile production, manufacturing, social, environmental and economic impact.
  • Amuse Society's website does not disclose where production takes place and is not taking adequate steps to ensure payment of a living wage for its workers. Nothing is in place to ensure responsible consumption and sustainable production and no information is given about packaging. The website does not list sufficient supply chain information; origin of textile fabric, textile production, manufacturing, social, environmental and economic impact.
  • This sustainably-driven surfwear brand makes board shorts from 100% recycled polyester, it uses some organic cotton in its products and is a part of the ‘Better Cotton Initiative’. The brand has removed plastic from its supply chain. Its manufacturers are based in China and Bangladesh and are part of the Child Labor Free initiative. The brand has a code of conduct for workers but there is no evidence it ensures living wage in its supply chain. Organic cotton, even though it’s a good option, requires high water consumption to grow. More efforts need to be made by And or With to counteract the brand’s negative social, economical and environmental impacts.
  • This brand is lacking transparency around its supply chain and policies and does not express any sustainability goals. It does not communicate where its products are manufactured, or whether or not it is taking adequate steps to ensure payment of a living wage and fair working conditions for workers along its supply chain. The website does not list sufficient supply chain information to give it a higher rating; origin of materials and textile fabric, textile and material production, manufacturing location, or the social, environmental and economic impacts.
  • This brand is partnered with Pledge 1%, a global movement that donates 1% of their staff time, product, profit, and/or equity to any charity of the brand's choice. Apero donates to Women’s Community Shelter. Customers can choose to offset their carbon at checkout, and all packaging is sustainable. They manufacture out of the Guangzhou Province of China and all factories are certified by Sedex, an ethical trade membership organisation, working with businesses to improve working conditions in global supply chains. In saying this, there is no evidence it ensures living wage in its supply chain. The website does not list sufficient supply chain information about social, environmental and economic impact to give the brand a higher rating.

Go to Top