Planet B measures and reports its environmental and operational impact to make decisions visible, identify gaps, and improve over time. This page outlines the frameworks, standards, and reporting we currently use, along with the scope and limitations of that work.
Our approach prioritises clarity and accuracy over completeness. As our initiatives grow, the depth and coverage of reporting will evolve alongside them.
We focus on how decisions are measured, verified, and improved over time. Rather than presenting a single sustainability score or claim, we use a combination of independent assessment, internal reporting, and recognised standards to understand where impact occurs and where change is needed.
The information on this page reflects the current stage of our business and initiatives. It is intended to provide transparency about what we measure today, how we measure it, and where reporting will deepen as our work develops.
GHG emissions and material impacts across our operations and initiatives
Use of recognised standards to verify materials, packaging, and sourcing.
Supplier expectations, risk areas, and responsible sourcing practices.
Policies, reporting boundaries, and how accountability is maintained as we scale.
We measure environmental impact to understand where emissions and material use occur across our activities and initiatives. This includes tracking greenhouse gas emissions and material inputs in order to identify the areas where design, sourcing, or operational changes can have the greatest effect.
Our current reporting focuses on establishing clear boundaries and a reliable baseline rather than on presenting headline reduction claims. As a developing business with multiple initiatives at different stages, data maturity varies, and this is reflected in how figures are presented and caveated.
Environmental impact data is used internally as a decision-making tool. It informs design choices, supplier selection, and prioritisation of future work, rather than serving as a standalone performance score.
EcoVadis is a widely used independent sustainability assessment platform employed across global supply chains by manufacturers, retailers, and procurement teams. It assesses companies on their policies, actions, and evidence across areas including environment, labour and human rights, ethics, and sustainable procurement.
Our EcoVadis assessment is used at a company level to provide an external view of how our governance, policies, and practices compare to recognised expectations for businesses of our size and maturity. It functions as a diagnostic tool to identify strengths, gaps, and priorities for improvement rather than as a certification or endorsement.
The Global Recycled Standard is an international, third-party certification that verifies recycled content, chain of custody, and certain environmental and social practices within supply chains. It is designed to provide confidence that recycled materials are genuinely recycled and traceable through production.
We use GRS certification at an initiative and product level where recycled materials form a core part of the design. It is used to verify material inputs and sourcing claims, not to assess overall product sustainability.
The Forest Stewardship Council is an independent organisation that sets standards for responsible forest management and the sourcing of paper-based materials. FSC certification is commonly used to verify that paper and packaging materials originate from responsibly managed sources.
We apply FSC certification to packaging materials where appropriate. It is used to verify paper sourcing rather than to make broader claims about product or company-level environmental performance.
We use recognised standards and third-party assessment where they provide meaningful external verification of materials, processes, or organisational practices. These standards are applied selectively, based on relevance to the initiative and the decisions being made, rather than uniformly across the business.
They are used to verify inputs, provide independent challenge, and create shared reference points with partners, suppliers, and stakeholders. They are not treated as guarantees of impact, nor as substitutes for internal design and operational judgement.
Our initiatives rely on global supply chains that include material sourcing, manufacturing, logistics, and distribution. These supply chains vary in complexity and risk depending on the product, materials used, and stage of development.
We set clear expectations for suppliers in areas such as labour standards, legal compliance, and responsible sourcing. Where appropriate, we complete supplier factory audits and on-site inspections as part of supplier selection, onboarding, or review, alongside requests for supporting documentation and certifications.
The depth and frequency of assessment is proportionate to scale, risk, and the role of the supplier within each initiative. Where risks or gaps are identified, they are used to inform supplier selection, design decisions, or operational changes.
We do not claim full visibility across all tiers of every supply chain. As the business grows, we expect expectations, data collection, and oversight to become more structured and comprehensive. Supply chain responsibility is treated as an area for ongoing improvement rather than a fixed state.
Our current reporting focuses on establishing clear boundaries and a reliable baseline rather than on presenting headline reduction claims. As a developing business with multiple initiatives at different stages, data maturity varies, and this is reflected in how figures are presented and caveated.
Environmental impact data is used internally as a decision-making tool. It informs design choices, supplier selection, and prioritisation of future work, rather than serving as a standalone performance score.
We do not approach accountability from the assumption that we already have the right answers. The frameworks and measures set out on this page exist because improvement requires visibility, structure, and the willingness to acknowledge what is incomplete or imperfect.
By building and refining these frameworks over time, we aim to improve how decisions are made as the business grows and to offer a credible alternative to operating models that prioritise short-term optimisation over long-term value. Progress, in this context, is cumulative rather than declarative, and it is shaped by learning as much as by intent.
If you would like to learn more about how these measures are applied in practice, explore potential partnerships, or discuss how we approach the challenges outlined here, we welcome thoughtful enquiries. Please use the contact page to get in touch.