Ludovic De Saint Sernin has a mixed sustainability picture. Independent rating site Good On You rates the brand “Not good enough” overall, mainly because it found little public evidence of strong action on emissions, chemicals, water use, or labour standards. The brand does use some lower-impact materials such as organic cotton, and Good On You says it traces part of its supply chain. On animal welfare, it scores a little better because it does not use fur, down, exotic skins, exotic hair, or angora, though it does use leather and wool. No clear third-party evidence of formal sustainability certifications or public targets was found in the provided material.
Positive Sentiment Found
The clearest positive signal comes from Good On You’s product-level notes. It says Ludovic De Saint Sernin uses some organic cotton, traces some of its supply chain, and avoids fur, down, exotic animal skin, exotic animal hair, and angora. Those are all meaningful steps in fashion, because they can reduce some farming and animal-welfare concerns. The Commons Earth content also shows that sustainability-focused apps and communities are actively rating brands and helping shoppers look for lower-impact options, which suggests there is consumer interest in this kind of information. However, there were no strong independent praise signals, certifications, or high third-party sustainability scores for this brand in the provided material.
Common Criticisms:
The main negative signal is Good On You’s overall rating of “Not good enough,” with low scores for both planet and people. The site says there is no public evidence that the brand has taken meaningful action on carbon emissions, hazardous chemicals, or water reduction. It also says there is no evidence of a code of conduct, safety incident reporting, or living wage action in the supply chain. In plain terms, that means the brand has not published enough verified information for the assessor to confirm strong labour or environmental practices. The assessment is from December 2021, so it may not reflect later changes, but based on the material provided, the brand still lacks clear third-party proof of stronger ESG performance.
