FWF – Brand Performance Check 2025-2026 - Icebug

Brand Performance Check Icebug AB Publication date: July 2026 This report covers the evaluation period 01‐03‐2025 to 28‐02‐2026

About the Brand Performance Check Fair Wear’s Brand Performance Check is a tool to annually evaluate and publicly report on the Human Rights Due Diligence (HRDD) efforts of the companies for which Fair Wear facilitates the implementation of HRDD. These efforts are assessed based on the standard that Fair Wear sets, which in turn is based on the OECD guidelines for business and human rights in the garment and footwear sector.

For the Brand Performance Check, Fair Wear focuses on the assembly stage of garment and textile production (i.e., Cut‐Make‐Trim factories and their supporting processes). Importantly, this focus does not entail a direct assessment of factories, but serves to evaluate how Fair Wear’s affiliated companies translate their HRDD commitments into concrete practices and outcomes at factory level, vis‐à‐vis their suppliers.

During a Brand Performance Check, Fair Wear evaluates to what extent companies have integrated human rights due diligence into their core business practices and evaluates to what extent the practices of member companies support the Fair Wear Code of Labour Practices (CoLP) by scoring companies against a set of indicators. Based on this process, each company is assigned a benchmarking score and a corresponding category: Leader, Good or Needs Improvement. Each Brand Performance Check report is published online for transparency and accountability. Through these reports, Fair Wear member brands demonstrate the changes that are possible. For more information on the scope and indicators of the Brand Performance Check, please see the Brand Performance Check Guide.

Based on their Brand Performance Check, brands are placed into a category that corresponds with their performance. Categories are calculated based on a combination of benchmarking scores. The specific requirements for each category are outlined in the Brand Performance Check Guide. The categories are as follows:

Generated: 6 Aug 2026

Page 2 of 24

Performance Check categories: Leader: The Leader score signifies that a company has scored exceptionally well on the Brand Performance Check indicators. It could show it has comprehensive processes in place for Human Rights Due Diligence and made strong, demonstrable efforts to engage in prevention and remediation of (potential) harms.

Good: The G o o d score signifies that a company has scored well on the Brand Performance Check indicators. It could show it has appropriate processes in place for Human Rights Due Diligence and made demonstrable efforts to engage in prevention and remediation of (potential) harms.

Needs Improvement: The Needs Improvement score signifies that a company has not been able to demonstrate sufficient evidence of improvement on requirements from the previous Brand Performance Check or that it has not yet demonstrated sufficient efforts on the overall Brand Performance Check indicators.

Generated: 6 Aug 2026

Page 3 of 24

Disclaimer: Brands receiving a Brand Performance Check have committed to work in accordance with Fair Wear’s policies based on international standards, such as the UNGP’s and the OECD Guidance for Responsible Supply Chains in the Garment and Footwear Sector, with the goal of achieving a positive impact on the working conditions in their supply chains.

The Fair Wear Brand Performance Check measures the results of the efforts of an affiliated brand to respect human rights and to carry out human rights due diligence (HRDD). HRDD is the process through which companies can identify, prevent, mitigate and address their actual and potential adverse impacts throughout their supply chains. The efforts are measured against a set of indicators developed by Fair Wear and publicly available on the Fair Wear website.

The statuses ‐Leader, Good, Needs Improvement‐ are granted according to calculated levels of achievement in the system. It does not compare the efforts and achievements of the affiliated brands against other non‐affiliated brands.

Generated: 6 Aug 2026

Page 4 of 24

Scoring overview Total score: 150 Possible score: 194 Benchmarking Score: 77 Performance Benchmarking Category: Leader

Foundational system’s criteria

Sourcing strategy

Identifying continuous human rights risks

Responsible purchasing practices

Quality and coherence of prevention and remediation system

Improvement and prevention

Communication, transparency and evaluation

100%

79%

87%

69%

93%

68%

78%

Summary: Icebug has demonstrated strong performance across indicators. With a total benchmarking score of 77, the member is placed in the Leader category. This Brand Performance Check covers the financial years 2024 and 2025.

Icebug’s sourcing strategy focuses on long‐term partnerships, including a Taiwanese supplier that owns a 30% stake in the company. The brand is making strong efforts to consolidate its supplier base, with 66% of production coming from suppliers where Icebug holds at least 10% leverage. The company is progressing in aligning its internal policies with HRDD standards and has established a robust onboarding and due diligence process for new suppliers. While sourcing does not yet prioritise countries with strong freedom of association, Icebug conducts comprehensive risk scoping and follows up with targeted action plans.

Generated: 6 Aug 2026

Page 5 of 24

The member applies a thorough risk assessment methodology that covers country, sector, business model, sourcing model, and product‐ level risks. Icebug demonstrated consistent follow‐up on previous Brand Performance Check requirements and conducted detailed assessments for most suppliers. It identifies key risks at both country and supplier levels, including risks affecting women workers, and is working to strengthen the collection and use of gender‐disaggregated data to support remediation and prevention. Social dialogue has been identified as a key risk, prompting targeted training for a supplier. Icebug has also taken steps to address the root causes of excessive overtime and low wages relative to living wage benchmarks. A living wage implementation plan is in place, with rollout expected in 2026.

Strengthening the involvement of workers and stakeholders in risk scoping and action planning remains an area for improvement, and continuing work on building strong human rights‐compliant contracts.

Generated: 6 Aug 2026

Page 6 of 24

Company Profile Icebug AB Member company information Member since 1 Jan 2021 Product types Accessories, Footwear, Outdoor wear and outdoor products and Sportswear Business type Other (Main) selling markets Sweden Production countries, including number of production locations and total production volume.

Production Country

Number of production locations

Percentage of production volume

Viet Nam

6

99.03%

Sweden

3

0.96%

Member of other MSI's/Organisations Leather working group Number of grievances received last financial year 0

Basic requirements Definitive production location data has been submitted for the financial year under review? Yes Projected production location data have been submitted for the current financial year? Yes Membership fee has been paid? Yes

Generated: 6 Aug 2026

Page 7 of 24

Layer 1 Foundational system’s criteria Possible Points: 7 Earned Points: 7 1.1 Member company has a publicly shared Human Rights Due Diligence policy that has been adopted by top management.: Yes 1.2 All member company staff are made aware of Fair Wear’s membership requirements, in particular the Fair Wear's HRDD policy and Fair Wear's Code of Labour Practices.: Yes 1.3 All staff who have direct contact with suppliers are trained to support the implementation of Fair Wear requirements, in particular the Fair Wear's HRDD policy and Fair Wear's Code of Labour Practices.: Yes 1.4 A specific staff person(s) is designated to follow up on problems identified by the monitoring system, including grievance handling. The staff person(s) must have the necessary competence, knowledge, experience, and resources.: Yes 1.5 Member company has a system in place to identify all production locations, including a policy for unauthorised subcontracting.: Yes 1.6 Member company discloses internally through Fair Wear’s information management system, in line with Fair Wear's Transparency Policy.: Yes Comment: Icebug discloses 100% of production locations internally through Fair Wear's information management system.

1.7 Member company discloses externally on Fair Wear’s transparency portal, in line with Fair Wear's Transparency Policy.: Yes Generated: 6 Aug 2026

Page 8 of 24

Comment: Icebug discloses 100% of production locations externally on Fair Wear's transparency portal.

1.8 Member complies with the basic requirements of Fair Wear’s communication policy.: N/A

Generated: 6 Aug 2026

Page 9 of 24

Layer 2 Human rights due diligence, including sourcing strategy and responsible purchasing practices.

Possible Points: 84 Earned Points: 66 Indicators on Sourcing strategy Comment: Icebug has a sourcing strategy addressing influencing labour conditions.

The member has nine active suppliers. 66% of the production volume comes from suppliers where the member has at least 10% leverage. 4% of the production volume comes from suppliers where Icebug buys less than 2% of its total FOB. Icebug's sourcing factories are Viet Nam and Sweden. Icebug’s sourcing strategy explicitly focuses on increasing influence through consolidation and active cooperation with other clients.

Comment: Icebug has a sourcing strategy that focuses on maintaining long‐term relationships. 94% of the member's total FOB volume comes from suppliers with whom Icebug has a business relationship for at least five years.

The member does not yet commit to long‐term contracts, but is working to establish them in 2026.

Recommendation: Fair Wear recommends Icebug to commit to long‐term contracts.

Comment: Icebug conducts risk scoping and includes all risk factors for the country, sector, business model, sourcing model and product level. In its risk scoping, the member has correctly assessed the impact and prevalence of the risks. The risk scoping includes a gender lens.

The member particularly looks at risks to pregnant people from chemical use and from certain workstations.

Input from workers, suppliers, and stakeholders is included in the risk scoping by conducting off‐site interviews with workers and local stakeholders.

Generated: 6 Aug 2026

Page 10 of 24

Recommendation: Fair Wear strongly recommends Icebug to privilege countries where workers can freely form or join a trade union and/or bargain collectively and make this explicit in its sourcing strategy.

Comment: It is the standard process for Icebug to inform new suppliers about its HRDD policy and Fair Wear membership by first assessing country‐level risks, raising awareness on human rights and Fair Wear standards, screening suppliers via Fair Wear's Code of Labour Practices questionnaire, verifying worker representation and gender responsibility structures, and ensuring an effective grievance mechanism is in place. Additionally, the brand began a dialogue with suppliers about human rights and how Icebug and suppliers can collaborate on this topic. Icebug did not onboard any new suppliers during the last two financial years.

Comment: Icebug collects human rights information of potential new suppliers by first assessing country‐level risks, raising awareness on human rights and Fair Wear standards, screening suppliers via a Code of Labour Practices‐based questionnaire, verifying worker representation and gender responsibility structures, and ensuring an effective grievance mechanism is in place, alongside reviewing third‐ party audits. In one instance, the member brand found a supplier lacking a union representative, but following discussions and follow‐up, one has now been appointed.

Comment: In the previous financial year, Icebug has not added any new suppliers.

Indicators on Identifying continuous human rights risks Comment: Icebug has a systematic approach to assessing human rights risks in its supply chain and has assessed 95% of FOB. The member brand has included all eight labour standards in its supplier risk scoping, including likelihood, severity, and significance.

Icebug has identified the right tool and frequency for each country. For instance, the brand assesses human rights risks at its production locations in Viet Nam as high, including a lack of freedom of association, by conducting regular factory visits and off‐site worker interviews.

Icebug has prioritised the most significant risk per production location.In addition to its approach, the brand ensures it uses a range of tools that include input from workers, suppliers, and other stakeholders. These tools are assessments, worker interviews and regular dialogue with the factory. Icebug has not yet fully incorporated a systematic approach to aligning the use and frequency of monitoring tools with the outcomes of risk scoping and assessment.

Recommendation: Fair Wear recommends Icebug to approach the assessment of risk in its production locations systematically, identifying the appropriate tool and frequency depending on the outcome of the risk scoping and risk assessment.

Generated: 6 Aug 2026

Page 11 of 24

Comment: Icebug has mapped the risks to FoA in all its sourcing countries and can explain the main risks per country, including the risks to women workers. The risks identified are that workers are not free to join a trade union, and worker reps are not democratically elected.

Women workers are represented in workers' councils and trade unions, which, to some extent, decreases the risks to women workers about FoA. Icebug can demonstrate advanced knowledge and understanding of FoA in all countries where it sources.

Comment: Icebug has included gender in its human rights risk identification.

The member could show that it understands the basic gender risks for its sourcing countries. In Viet Nam, for instance, it has identified the lack of lactation rooms, childcare allowances limited to women, and inadequate accommodations for pregnant workers.

Additionally, Icebug actively collects gender data per factory. The data that it collects is a breakdown of male and female workers, payslips of workers, the number of women in management positions and worker representation.

This information is collected through interviews, supplier questionnaires, and assessments.

Recommendation: Fair Wear recommends the member to deepen the analysis of the gender data collected at the country and factory levels and connect them. Fair Wear's gender instruments can be helpful.

Comment: Icebug has a strong and systematic evaluation system for assessing suppliers' human rights performance. Icebug evaluates its suppliers using a scorecard system that includes labour‐practice performance, overtime, regular risk‐scoping updates, and corrective action plans. Occasionally, the outcome of this evaluation influences purchasing decisions. For example, in 2023, Icebug decided to exit a factory in China due to very low FOB prices and a very high risk of forced labour. Icebug shares the evaluation results with its suppliers and their worker representatives.

Comment: Icebug uses the outcomes of its human rights monitoring to respond to unauthorised subcontracting. Additionally, the member actively prevents unauthorised subcontracting by visiting suppliers during production.

The member takes measures to prevent unauthorised subcontracting or unknown locations, such as having regular visits to the suppliers, calculating capacity at suppliers and having regular dialogue with suppliers.

Comment: Icebug has identified whether homework is prevalent in its sourcing countries. According to the member, there is a very low risk of homeworkers being used by its suppliers, as production processes depend on specialised machinery and the production line.

Indicators on Responsible purchasing practices

Generated: 6 Aug 2026

Page 12 of 24

Comment: Icebug does not use contracts with its suppliers. The member has purchase orders that stipulate delivery times and payment terms. No evidence of late payments to suppliers by Icebug was found. Icebug's payment terms with suppliers are to pay the invoices 60 to 90 days after the proof of shipment is provided. Icebug is currently developing contractual arrangements for its suppliers and aims to implement them in the next financial year.

Recommendation: Fair Wear strongly recommends Icebug to include the shared responsibility of CoLP implementation in its contracts, including fair payment terms.

Fair Wear strongly recommends Icebug to reduce payment terms to 60 days upon goods being loaded on the vessel and include agreements on the provision of materials in the contract.

Comment: There is an active interchange of information between CSR and other departments to enable coherent and responsible business practices. Sourcing and purchasing staff work with KPIs that focus on the share of long‐term business partners, the stability of production volumes, and overall supplier code of labour practice scoring in a scorecard system.

Recommendation: Icebug could include responsible business practices in its job role competencies of sourcing and purchasing staff.

Comment: Icebug uses long‑term, seasonal forecasting with early order placement based on pre‑orders, and actively involves suppliers in planning by aligning forecasts with their capacity and production plans. Information is shared regularly between teams and suppliers, with frequent communication and data tracking. Supplier feedback on capacity, materials, and peak periods is incorporated into planning adjustments. Production pressure is reduced by spreading orders over time, using carry‑over styles, and maintaining long product life cycles.

In the past year, there was one finding on excessive overtime. This occurred due to production peaks, material delays, and capacity constraints. Icebug responded by improving forecast accuracy, increasing forecast updates, placing orders earlier, and strengthening supplier dialogue. This finding is now also ready for validation. It also enhanced monitoring of overtime and wage data and addressed material issues through closer follow‑up, aiming to better align production with capacity and reduce peak‑season pressure.

Comment: Icebug understands wage levels at its suppliers and integrates this understanding into its own buying prices, using open costing and wage data. Icebug does not know the actual number of sewing minutes required for a style. Icebug includes changes in the legal minimum wage and inflation in its buying prices.

Recommendation: Icebug could provide suppliers who do not work with fact‐based costing, training on product costing and how to quote prices including (direct and indirect) labour costs. Fair Price product owners are available to conduct such training in all Fair Wear production countries.

Generated: 6 Aug 2026

Page 13 of 24

Comment: Icebug has informed its sourcing intermediaries of Fair Wear requirements and can demonstrate that they have informed production locations. Icebug works with an agent in Taiwan who is also a shareholder and co‐owner of 30% of Icebug. In addition, the intermediaries actively support HRDD and the implementation of the CoLP by participating in sourcing and production follow‑up. The CoLP is used as a shared reference in supplier dialogue, audits, corrective action plans, and follow‑up, ensuring that intermediaries support and apply labour standards expectations in their daily work with factories. The member checks whether its intermediaries uphold the purchasing practices outlined in the Common Framework of Responsible Purchasing Practices (CFRPP).

Generated: 6 Aug 2026

Page 14 of 24

Layer 3 Prevention, mitigation and remediation Possible Points: 92 Earned Points: 70 Indicators on the quality and coherence of a members’ prevention and remediation system Comment: Based on the risk identification, Icebug has linked factory risks to appropriate follow‐up for factories covering 96% of FOB. Icebug developed and implemented preventive actions to address the risk identified in its production locations throughout its supply chain. Actions include reducing excessive overtime, particularly at high‑volume suppliers, collecting and analysing wage data to enable payment of Icebug’s share of living wages based on leverage. The action plans detail the different approaches to prevent, mitigate and remediate the prioritised risks and include a budget and timeline.

Comment: Icebug has identified some actions through a gender lens in its improvement and preventive action plans, including CAP findings. Actions included looking into maternity leave and care, working to ensure pregnant workers have appropriate working conditions, including access to adequate seating, and are not working with certain chemicals, and actions related to wage equality for workers. The member has not included a comprehensive gender lens in all of its action plans.

Recommendation: Fair Wear recommends that Icebug make the gender lens in its action plans more comprehensive.

Comment: Icebug included comprehensive steps to encourage FoA and effective social dialogue in most action plans. These steps include first identifying if and how functioning social dialogue is in the suppliers, discussing with management and before onboarding a new supplier, and throughout the relationship with the supplier, with factories and asking them, reaching out and informing worker representatives, and conducting training at one supplier in Viet Nam. The member has yet to apply a gender lens and ensure its steps to promote FoA and effective social dialogue address the specific risks for female workers.

Generated: 6 Aug 2026

Page 15 of 24

Comment: Suppliers’ factory‐level grievance mechanisms are assessed at the start of the business relationship and are systematically monitored every year (for long‐term partners). Icebug has investigated the presence of grievance mechanisms at all Tier 1 factories through factory visits, interviews with management, union representatives, and worker representatives, and email communication with supplier management.

Icebug follows up on issues related to factory‐level grievance mechanisms when they are identified in CAPs. For instance, at one supplier in Vietnam, it was found that workers were unaware of the grievance mechanism. A training session was subsequently conducted, during which workers raised concerns about exposure to rain when moving between factory buildings during the rainy season. As a result, a cover was installed between the buildings.

Comment: Icebug cooperates with other Fair Wear members at its shared suppliers and responds to CAPs and complaints. Icebug works with other Fair Wear members at shared suppliers in Viet Nam, focusing on a living wage project and responding to CAPS. Icebug worked with a member brand to implement training on social dialogue at one supplier in Viet Nam.

Indicators on implementation: improvement and prevention Comment: During the Brand Performance Check, Icebug demonstrated that it has verified and completed 38% of the outstanding actions.

These actions are linked to findings identified in the previous three financial years. Icebug applies a strict verification process and completes actions only once sufficient evidence has been received and verified. The actions that are still open are more complex or structural and therefore require more time to complete.

Recommendation: Fair Wear recommends Icebug to start implementing actions that address the root causes of findings.

Comment: Icebug can prove that 82% of findings were validated and solved within the set timeframe. The validation shows that the brand's action plans have led to the intended results, and findings of actual or potential harms have been effectively prevented or remediated. These findings relate to issues such as freedom of association, reasonable working conditions and safe and healthy working conditions. Some findings that are still open are more complex or structural and therefore require more time to resolve.

Comment: Icebug has some suppliers where action plans are not needed. These cover less than 1% of the members' FOB. The member has a system to ensure possible human rights risks are regularly discussed with these suppliers.

The member includes worker representatives in discussions with factory management on possible human rights risks.

Generated: 6 Aug 2026

Page 16 of 24

Comment: A total of 4 findings related to excessive overtime have been identified across Icebug’s factories, of which 3 have been resolved to date.

The majority of these findings relate to reasonable hours of work.

Icebug analysed the root causes of these findings. According to the member, uneven production peaks, particularly during seasonal demand periods, challenges related to forecasting and order timing, delays in materials, and wage‐related overtime dependency (e.g., workers relying on overtime to supplement incomes) are significant causes of excessive overtime.

The member has addressed this and promotes transparency about working hours by working with the supplier on production peaks and making changes to production plans in consultation with the supplier, linking overtime reduction to Icebug's living wage commitment, and increasing forecasting.

Recommendation: Fair recommends that Icebug verify and validate whether excessive overtime could be reduced across all of its suppliers.

Comment: A total of 4 findings related to non‐payment of the legal minimum wage or legally mandated wage components have been identified across Icebug’s factories, of which 3 have been resolved to date.

The findings include instances of minimum wages not being paid, as well as allowances, bonuses, or overtime premiums not being provided.

Icebug responded immediately to verifying through audits, factory visits, and interviews with management, worker representatives, and union representatives. One historical case of legal‑wage non‑compliance was identified at a supplier in Viet Nam, where wages temporarily fell below legal requirements due to COVID‐19. During COVID‐19, Icebug offered financial support to address wage shortfalls, but the factory initially declined. Once the issue was formally identified through a later audit, Icebug re‑engaged with the supplier, calculated its proportional responsibility based on leverage, and paid its share of the affected wage gap.

Recommendation: Fair Wear recommends Icebug to remediate all findings.

Comment: Icebug has a basic overview of the wage levels at its suppliers. The overview shows the average wages without overtime (with bonuses), alongside global living wage coalition comparison for suppliers in Viet Nam. Icebug discusses wages with all its suppliers.

Based on the root‐cause analysis, Icebug has developed a time‐bound plan to enable a systemic increase in wages across all its suppliers in 2026, compensating workers based on the company's share of factory output. This includes discussions on providing a retroactive bonus to all workers for FY 2025 and continuing this approach for FY 2026, in line with the factory’s bonus schedule.

Generated: 6 Aug 2026

Page 17 of 24

Recommendation: Fair Wear encourages Icebug to involve worker representatives and local organisations in assessing root causes of wages lower than living wages. It is advised that the outcomes of the root cause analysis are discussed internally and with top management, to form a basis for an embedded strategy.

Comment: Icebug does have an overview of wages paid in production locations. Icebug has a strategy for financing wage increases at its suppliers. Icebug has started to address the topic of living wage internally, and has a comprehensive plan which was approved by the CEO in 2025. Icebug uses living‑wage benchmarks from the Global Living Wage Coalition, applying the Anker living‑wage methodology and has developed a living‑wage project to pay Icebug’s share of the living‑wage gap based on leverage at each Tier 1 factory. The brand's approach recognises shared responsibility among sourcing brands and plans to reach out to other brands to work on this in 2026. The project and funding commitment were formally approved by Icebug’s CEO in 2025. As a result, 100% of Tier 1 production volume has been benchmarked, and Icebug’s proportional wage responsibility has been calculated. Payment of Icebug’s share is planned for implementation in 2026.

Recommendation: In determining what is needed and how wages should be increased, it is recommended to involve worker representation.

Comment: Icebug does not yet contribute to higher wages at any of its production locations.

Recommendation: We encourage Icebug to show that discussions and plans for wage increases have resulted in the payment of a target wage.

Comment: Icebug received no grievances through the Fair Wear helpline in the previous financial year.

Comment: Icebug has some CAP findings where training is a recommended follow‐up action. The member has enrolled some suppliers with findings on health and safety and factory communication in worker training on health and safety, as well as training on social dialogue.

Recommendation: Icebug is recommended to implement training for all factories, also where this is not part of its action plan.

Comment: Icebug followed up on all training results by first reviewing the training, then following up via email, then speaking with factory management, and speaking with worker representatives on visits.

The member has not yet used the training results as input for its human rights risk monitoring.

Generated: 6 Aug 2026

Page 18 of 24

Recommendation: Fair Wear recommends Icebug to use the training results as input for Icebug’s human rights due diligence.

Comment: Icebug’s human rights due diligence system includes a responsible disengagement strategy/policy and has discussed with all suppliers.

In the previous financial year, the member brand did not disengage from any suppliers.

Comment: Icebug does not undertake activities related to human rights that go beyond Fair Wear's scope.

Generated: 6 Aug 2026

Page 19 of 24

Layer 4 External communication, outreach, learning, and evaluation Possible Points: 18 Earned Points: 14 Indicators related to communication Comment: In the previous financial year, Icebug submitted a Human Rights Due Diligence Report (HRDD Report), which was reviewed by Fair Wear.

Comment: Icebug published its social report, which includes some factory‐level data and remediation results, including an overview of potential and actual harms at its suppliers, actions per factory, and detailed information about training and complaints handling. Next to that, the member also publishes its full factory list and includes the time‐bound prevention, remediation and mitigation actions it has supported for each supplier.

Comment: Icebug has a system to track progress and check if implemented measures have been effective in preventing and remediating human rights violations.

The internal evaluation system involves top management.

Comment: The previous brand performance check included the following requirements: 2.13: Member company’s written contracts with suppliers support the implementation of Fair Wear’s Code of Labour Practices and human rights due diligence, emphasising fair payment terms.

Icebug followed up on this and is working on finalising their contracts, but this has not yet been finalised in this reporting period.

Requirement: It is required to work towards remediation of previous requirements from the last Brand Performance check. The requirements included in this Brand Performance check need to be addressed.

Generated: 6 Aug 2026

Page 20 of 24

Generated: 6 Aug 2026

Page 21 of 24

5 Appreciation chapter 5.1 Member company publicly responded to problems/allegations raised by consumers, the media, or NGOs.: Not applicable 5.2 Member company actively participated in lobby and advocacy efforts to facilitate an enabling environment in production clusters.: Not applicable 5.3 Member company actively contributed to industry outreach, visibility, and learning in its main selling markets.: Not applicable

Generated: 6 Aug 2026

Page 22 of 24

Recommendations to Fair Wear The brand expressed a need for stronger, more consolidated country‐level information, including newsletters, dedicated country data, updated living wage details, and relevant background context. It also noted that more frequent updates—such as regular webinars—would be valuable. Additionally, the brand highlighted the importance of clearer, real‐time information on laws and regulatory changes (e.g. notifications or alerts), as well as brief updates on key developments in each country.

The brand expressed that the Fair Wear Member Hub is working well overall. However, it suggested adding a visible timestamp to the action overview would be useful, as the icon currently appears without it.

The brand expressed that, at the start of audits, it would be beneficial to clearly outline what the factory is doing well. This would help ensure a balanced approach by highlighting both strengths and areas for improvement.

Generated: 6 Aug 2026

Page 23 of 24

Brand Performance Check details Date of Brand Performance Check: 18‐05‐2026 Conducted by: Louise Conway Interviews with: Nora Björning Engström Jerome Manceau David Eklund James Varkey

Generated: 6 Aug 2026

Page 24 of 24