How We Report Leading industry standards and a balanced view

Read about how we use global frameworks here

Use our GRI, UNGC and SDG Index to navigate the report

About our report

Unless otherwise stated, all data relates to our global performance for the business year 2017. Our data is based on science – and where that is unavailable, we take a precautionary approach. 2015 is our baseline year for measuring progress against our goals. Where possible, we have compared our performance to that of previous years and reported regional and global figures. We’ve also tried to present a more balanced view; for every major topic we talk about our challenges as well as the progress we’ve made.

Reporting scope and boundaries

As a privately-held company, we do not report on economic performance. We strive to report on all other standard disclosures as specified in the G4 guidelines.

Unless otherwise specified, we report on our entire value chain. We work with our tier-1, tier-2 and tier-3 suppliers to disclose information, where available. We are working closely with supply chain partners to create a closer link between farmers and farm groups and our tier-3 and 4 supply chain.

Uncertainty

We strive to provide accurate and precise data. However, there are inherent uncertainties in certain data sets. All our data has been collected and consolidated with Credit 360. Internal subject matter experts have validated data points. We have used state-of-the-art Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) methods to calculate greenhouse gas emissions and water use data, however, uncertainties may rise due to the assumptions used in the model.

In 2017, we used data from garment care instructions and a customer survey on garment use. This information helped significantly reduce uncertainty compared to last year. The customer survey collected data on actual (1) washing/drying habits of C&A customers by garment type, (2) washing machine technology used and (3) the number of wears per wash for high impact garment categories. Assuming a random sample, the margin of error for each of these parameters was quite small (+/-3% or less depending on the market).

The carbon and water footprints associated with cotton, specifically Better Cotton (sourced via a system of mass-balance and self-reported by fabric mills) is derived from a weighted average of BCI’s results indicators. The methodology used and results presented have not been verified by BCI.

Standards of practice

When collecting data or calculating impacts, we only use industry recognised or multi-stakeholder developed guidelines and standards:

• Employee data: Obtained from our transactional Human Resource systems. Practices follow industry standards for identification of gender, management levels and contract types. The employee engagement survey was rolled out to more than 25,000 colleagues by an independent third party to ensure anonymity and confidentiality.
• Cotton and raw material data: Obtained from our internal systems for order placement and sales.
• Climate and carbon footprint data: Obtained from core financial data and modelled using hybrid, input/output Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) methods, combined with C&A business data, using LCA software SimaPro by Aligned Incentives. All methods used followed the WBCSD/WRI Greenhouse Gas Protocol Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard and the Corporate Value Chain (Scope 3) Accounting and Reporting Standard. In the case of water, we applied both the Aligned Incentives hybrid LCA methodology and the Water Footprint Networks methodology for green, blue and grey water impacts.
• Customer data: Obtained through interviews of over 6,000 consumers in our major markets. Survey design and analysis was conducted by GlobeScan.
• Human rights information: We work to identify human rights issues through our internal SSC processes and by employing third parties like Deloitte to conduct independent reviews. Our human rights due diligence follows the UN Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights.
• Chemicals data: Wet processing units are audited using our internal audit protocol and rating system, as we migrate to the Sustainable Apparel Coalition’s HIGG 3.0 module.
• Materiality: Our analysis follows the GRI definition of materiality. We have not used the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) definition in determining material aspects. We reassess materiality each year. The material aspects of our work have not changed in 2016 from 2015.

Read about our material issues

What we mean when we say...

C&A is a buying and retailing organisation; we do not own our own factories. It is important to understand what we mean when we use the following terms:

• C&A, the company, us or we: This refers to our owned legal entities that fall under the C&A brand. Unless specified it refers to all retail and sourcing markets for C&A. It does not refer to our holding entity, COFRA Holding AG or any of their non-C&A-related subsidiaries.
• C&A Foundation: C&A Foundation is a private corporate foundation associated with the C&A brand. Their work supports the entire apparel industry, of which C&A is a part.
• Suppliers: This refers to independent third parties that we have a contractual relationship with. Our suppliers operate their own businesses and manage factories.
• Factories or production units (PUs): These are the actual locations where garments are produced under the control of our contracted suppliers.
• Global Sustainability team: This includes our leadership team comprised of internal leaders in sustainability and our retail market colleagues. This team owns the global sustainability strategy and the policies that govern risk management, compliance and sustainability performance and leadership.
• Sustainable Supply Chain (SSC): This refers to our social and environmental auditing function where the policy and strategy is led by our Chief Sustainability Officer and the execution is owned by each regional CEO. SSC is an execution function that is governed by second- and third-party oversight.
• Sustainable Chemicals Management (SCM): This refers to the topic of management related to Zero Discharge of Hazardous Chemicals (ZDHC) within our supply chain.

Transparency

We believe that being transparent helps to drive better practices across the industry. Transparency is important to our stakeholders and is becoming increasingly important to our customers. In this report, we strive to cover not only positive progress and detailed analyses of our supply chain, but also the challenges that we have faced along the way. 

In this light we have been ranked 28 out of 198 brands, including 734 of their suppliers, who were assessed in the third annual Corporate Information Transparency Index (CITI).

C&A was also placed in the top 10 most transparent brands in the 2018 Fashion Revolution Transparency Index. We increased our score by 19% since the 2017 index and received the highest possible score for our governance.

We collaborate and share information with our partners, suppliers and other brands. Each year, we publish a list of our suppliers' tier-1 and tier-2 factories and locations.

See the full list of our suppliers' factories here