Haglöfs Sustainability Profile

Haglöfs presents sustainability as part of how it makes outdoor gear. Its website says it thinks about the next generation in business decisions and links its work to climate, responsible production, and social responsibility. The brand also says it checks human rights risks in its supply chain and works with suppliers to improve working conditions. Independent rating sites give it a mixed but not poor picture: Good On You rates it “It’s a start,” with stronger marks for planet than for people or animals, and Trustpilot reviews are very positive for customer service. Overall, the public picture suggests real effort, but also room to improve on labour and transparency.

Positive Sentiment Found
Public sentiment is strong on customer experience, even though that is not the same as sustainability performance. Trustpilot shows a 4.8 out of 5 rating based on 493 reviews, which points to very happy customers and good service. On sustainability-specific review sites, Good On You rates Haglöfs “It’s a start,” with 4 out of 5 for Planet and 3 out of 5 for both People and Animals. That means the brand looks stronger on environmental issues than on labour or animal welfare, but it is still seen as doing more than many brands in the outdoor sector. The company also publicly discusses Fair Wear membership, supply chain checks, and human rights work, which adds some credibility to its sustainability story.

Common Criticisms:
The main criticism in the available material is about labour and supply chain management. In July 2023, Haglöfs said it lost Fair Wear Leader status after a new assessment found that its risk assessment was not fully integrated and that its action plans needed to be clearer. That suggests gaps in how the brand turns worker-risk checks into action. Good On You also gives only a middle-range People score of 3 out of 5, which signals that the public evidence is not strong enough to show best practice on worker treatment. The brand’s own material mentions continuous improvement, but the available sources do not show full public data on emissions, factory conditions, or detailed supply chain results, so some claims remain hard to verify from outside.