The 2019 Ethical Fashion Report

The 2019

Ethical Fashion

Report

THE TRUTH BEHIND THE BARCODE

Date: April 2019

Project Leads: Libby Sanders, Jasmin Mawson

Lead Researchers: Jessica Tatzenko, Claire Hart, Annie Hollister-Jones

Researcher Support: Meredith Ryland, Luke Medic, Emily Taylor

Behind the Barcode is a project of Baptist World Aid Australia.

New Zealand headquartered companies researched in partnership

with Tearfund New Zealand.

www.behindthebarcode.org.au

THE 2019 ETHICAL FASHION REPORT

THE TRUTH BEHIND THE BARCODE

Report Design: Susanne Geppert

Infographics (pp 10–11): Cadence Media

Front cover photo: © Baptist World Aid Australia

CONTENTS

1. Executive Summary .......................................4

2. Methodology

............................................... 12

3. Industry Inﬂuences

.......................................17

4. Policies

........................................................25

5. Traceability and Transparency

.....................28

6. Auditing and Supplier Relationships

............33

7. Worker Empowerment

................................ 37

8. Environmental Management

.......................40

9. Brand Index

................................................. 45

1 0. Survey Data

.................................................64

Appendices

Statements from non-responsive brands 90

Letter from auditor 95

Sources 96

About Baptist World Aid Australia 97

Acknowledgements 98

Executive Summary

This section outlines the research aim

and scope; data collection and ﬁndings;

and overall results of all companies.

Excitingly, in addition to its traditional focus on

labour rights, this year’s research also incorporates

new environmental management metrics in the

assessment criteria. In 2019, 75% of companies

assessed actively engaged in the research process,

shedding light on the global fashion industry’s

performance in the arenas of labour rights and

environmental management.

For the 43 million workers in the Asia Paciﬁc

region, and for millions of others across the world,

Baptist World Aid is pleased to deliver its sixth

consecutive report on labour rights and

environmental management systems in the

fashion industry. The 2019 Ethical Fashion

Report grades 130 companies from A+ to F,

based on the strength of their systems to

mitigate against the risks of forced labour, child

labour, and exploitation in their supply chains.

the global fashion industry remains a signiﬁcant

employer. It also spurs economic growth,

generates tax revenue, provides valuable skills and

training, and delivers crucial foreign exchange.

Allof these factors can, and often do, contribute

toimproving the lives of workers and their

communities.

At the same time, however, the fashion industry

isa source of exploitation for millions.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION

* = non-responsive companies

Overall Grades: A–M

OVERALL GRADE

D–

B–

A–

C+

A–

D+

C+

D+

B–

C+

C–

C+

C–

C+

B+

D+

A–

C–

D–

C+

A+

D+

B–

D–

A+

D+

D–

A–

B+

B–

C+

D+

A+

A–

B+

C+

C–

D+

B+

A–

A+

C–

A+

C+

A–

B–

B+

Abercrombie & Fitch*

adidas

ALDI Stores

Ally Fashion*

Anthea Crawford*

APG & Co.

Arcadia Group

AS Colour

ASICS

ASOS

Baby City*

Bardot

Barkers Clothing*

Bec and Bridge*

Ben Sherman Australia

Best & Less

Betts Group

Big W

Bloch*

Blue Illusion

Boardriders

Boden

Boohoo

Brand Collective (Apparel)

Brand Collective (Footwear)

Camilla and Marc*

Canterbury NZ

City Chic Collective

Coles*

Cotton On Group

Country Road Group

Cue

David Jones

Decjuba*

Designworks

Etiko

Ezibuy

Factory X

Farmers*

Fast Future Brands

Forever 21*

Forever New

Freeset T–Shirts

Fruit of the Loom*

Gap Inc.

Gazal*

General Pants Group

Gildan Activewear

Gorman

H&M

Hallenstein Glasson Holdings

Hanesbrands

Hot Springs*

House of Quirky

Huer

Hugo Boss Group

Hunting & Fishing NZ

Icebreaker

Inditex

Industrie

Jeanswest

JETS

Just Group

K&K

Karen Walker*

Kate Sylvester*

Kathmandu

Kmart Australia

Kookai

Kowtow

L Brands

Lacoste

Levi Strauss & Co.*

Liminal Apparel

Lorna Jane

Lowes*

Lululemon Athletica

Macpac

Marks & Spencer

Max*

Merric Apparel NZ*

Policies

B–

A+

A–

A+

A–

A+

A–

A+

A–

A+

A–

A+

A–

A+

B+

A+

A–

A+

A–

A+

B–

A+

Trancparency and

Traceability

D–

A+

A–

D+

A+

A–

C–

B+

C–

C+

D+

B+

C+

C–

B+

C–

C+

A–

C+

A+

B+

C+

D+

A–

A+

B+

A–

B–

B+

A+

B+

A–

C+

B–

C–

A+

A–

A+

B+

C–

A–

A+

B–

A+

Auditing and

supplier

relationships

D–

B+

B–

C–

A–

D–

D+

C–

C+

D+

A–

C–

C+

A–

C–

C+

A+

C+

B–

A+

C+

C–

A+

B+

D+

B–

D+

D–

A–

B+

A–

B+

D+

B–

B+

B–

A+

B–

Worker

empowerment

B–

D–

C–

B–

D–

B–

D–

C–

D–

D+

D–

C–

C+

D+

C–

A+

C–

A+

D–

D+

C+

C–

C+

B+

D–

A–

B+

D+

D–

C–

B+

C–

B–

A–

D+

D–

A+

C–

B–

D+

Environmental

management

A–

C+

C–

B+

C–

D+

B+

B–

C–

A+

C+

B+

A+

D–

A–

B+

A–

B+

A+

B+

A+

D–

D+

C–

A+

D+

B–

B+

C–

B+

A+

A–

D+

A+

A–

C+

A+

For the majority of workers in the fashion industry,

wages are so low that it leaves them, and their

families, trapped in the cycle of poverty. Beyond

this, fashion production throughout the Asia

Paciﬁc is marred by the prevalence of slavery and

child labour. In addition, whilst safety standards

have improved, ﬁre safety, structural defects within

factories, and unsafe working conditions remain

reasons for continued concern.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION

For six years, this research has assessed

companies across the globe on the strength of

their labour rights management systems. In the

2018 Ethical Fashion Report, we acknowledged

that a “truly ethical” company not only ensures

that its supply chain empowers workers and pays

them a living wage, it also understands its impact

on the environment and manages its footprint to

keep waterways, the earth, and the atmosphere

These 130 companies represent

480 brands. To check brand

grades, go to the brand index

on page 45 or online at

www.behindthebarcode.org.au

healthy. Correspondingly, it is the workers in the

fashion supply chain that most acutely feel the

detrimental eects of poor environmental

management. This is the ﬁrst year that the Ethical

Fashion Report will assess companies on their

environmental management systems, alongside

their labour rights management systems, in

consideration of their ﬁnal grade.

OVERALL GRADE

A+

B–

A–

B–

A–

B+

C+

A+

C–

C+

B–

C–

C+

B+

A–

C–

D+

C+

C–

B–

D–

B+

D–

B–

Mighty Good Group

Munro Footwear Group

Myer

Nature Baby

New Balance

Nike

Nobody Denim

Noni B Group

Nudie Jeans Co.

Oroton Group

Outland Denim

Oxford

Pagani

Patagonia

Pavement United Brands*

Postie+

Puma

PVH Corp.*

R.M. Williams

Ralph Lauren*

Retail Apparel Group

Rip Curl

Rodd & Gunn

RREPP

Ruby Apparel

Seafolly

Seed Heritage

Showpo*

Simon de Winter Group

Sussan Group

Swanndri NZ

3 Wise Men Ltd.*

T&T Fashions*

Target Australia

The Baby Factory*

The Iconic*

The PAS Group

The Warehouse Group

Tigerlily*

Tree of Life

Trelise Cooper*

UNIQLO

VF Corp.

Voyager Distributing Co.*

Wish Designs*

Workwear Group

WORLD*

Zimmermann

Policies

A+

A–

A+

A–

A+

C–

B+

A+

Trancparency and

Traceability

A+

C+

A–

B+

A–

A+

D+

C+

A+

B–

A+

D–

A–

B+

A–

B–

A+

C–

D+

A–

B–

C+

Auditing and

supplier

relationships

B+

D–

A–

C+

B–

B+

B–

A+

C–

D+

B–

B+

C–

B+

C–

D+

B+

D+

C–

B–

B+

C+

Worker

empowerment

A+

D+

B–

D–

B+

B–

D+

A+

D–

C–

D+

D–

D+

B–

B+

D+

D–

C+

D+

C–

D–

D+

C+

Environmental

management

A+

D+

A+

B+

B–

A+

B+

A+

B–

D+

A–

A+

C–

C+

C–

C+

C–

D–

A+

D+

Overall Grades: M–Z

* = non-responsive companies

The annual nature of this research enables us to track the

progress in ethical sourcing, made by the fashion industry.

Since last year, improvements have been made across the

industry in 79% of the areas assessed. Most noteworthy

areas of improvement in 2019 are:

Gender inequality 61% of companies (an increase of

22%) have created policies addressing gender inequality

intheir supply chain, including the introduction of

strategies addressing discrimination faced by women.

Responsible purchasing practices 45% of companies

(an increase of 18%) have introduced policies addressing

responsible purchasing practices, with an aim to improve

working conditions.

Child and forced labour 35% of companies (an increase

of 17%) have robust remediation plans to redress child or

forced labour if it is found in their supply chain.

Manufacturing Restrictive Substance List (MRSL)

35% of companies (an increase of 14%) have a

comprehensive MRSL that they test against to ensure

workers are not exposed to hazardous chemicals with

direenvironmental impacts.

An important part of the annual reporting process is

to give companies the opportunity to report on the

improvements they have made, which encourages

continual improvement across the industry. Of the

companies that were assessed by both the 2018 and

2019 Ethical Fashion Reports, 38% improved their overall

grade. The area showing the highest improvement in

2019 is Auditing and Supplier Relationships, followed

by Environmental Management (which was assessed

in 2018, but not included in the grading until 2019).

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

INDUSTRY PROGRESS

Workers with Bangladesh Independent Garment Workers Union.

Despite the signiﬁcant progress we’ve

seen across the industry in the last six

years, serious concerns remain that

need addressing.

Traceability

A company’s investment in traceability and its

knowledge of suppliers remains a key pillar of

a strong labour rights management system.

If companies don’t know (or don’t care) who

their suppliers are, then there’s virtually no way

of ensuring that the workers who make their

products aren’t being exploited. It is encouraging

then, that this continues to be one of the most

signiﬁcant areas of improvement for the industry

— since Baptist World Aid began publishing this

research in 2013, there has been a 32% increase in

companies who are tracing their inputs suppliers

and a 31% increase in companies who are tracing

their raw materials supplier.

Notwithstanding these improvements, traceability

remains a signiﬁcant challenge across the industry.

While 69% of companies could demonstrate

tracing all ﬁnal stage suppliers, only 18% have

traced all inputs suppliers, and just 8% have traced

all raw material suppliers. Although the majority of

companies have begun tracing suppliers at these

deeper stages of their supply chain, it is evident

that many still have no knowledge of where their

inputs and raw materials are being sourced. With

less visibility, comes greater risk. The prominence

of forced and child labour is well documented at

these earlier stages of production.

Transparency

Investment in transparency demonstrates a

company’s willingness to be accountable to

consumers, civil society, and workers; and makes

it easier for these groups to collaborate to ensure

that the rights of workers are upheld. There are

many examples of corporate transparency around

supply chain practices, but one of the most

signiﬁcant examples would be the publication

of a list of suppliers, that includes supplier

business names and addresses. The 2019 Ethical

Fashion Report has found that 37% of companies

have published a complete list of all ﬁnal stage

suppliers, increasing to 50% when including

companies that have published information about

at least some suppliers.

Despite the percentage of companies publishing

full supplier lists having more than doubled since

we began this research in 2013, transparency

remains an ongoing challenge in the industry. Low

transparency is one of the biggest determinants

for the receipt of a low grade, because companies

are graded based on a combination of publicly

available information and any information they are

willing to disclose to our researchers.

As mentioned previously, 75% of companies chose

to engage with the research process this year, with

most companies seeing value in the process of

being benchmarked and gaining feedback.

Several companies with no publicly available

information regarding their ethical sourcing

practices have chosen not to engage with the

research process, and so receive F grades in the

2019 Ethical Fashion Report. Without making

information known, it becomes impossible for

the public to know if these companies are doing

anything to combat exploitation in their supply

chains. A number of companies in this Report were

non-responsive, but still scored reasonable grades,

as high as a B, due to the amount of publicly

available information they published. For more

information about the research process and non-

responsive companies, refer to the methodology

(page 12). Non-responsive companies were also

given the opportunity to provide a statement

about why they chose not to engage with this

research. These statements are included on

page90.

But transparency is no longer an expectation only

driven by consumers, this expectation has also

been legislated in a number of countries. The USA,

France, the UK, and, now, Australia (through the

introduction of a Commonwealth Modern Slavery

Act) all require companies to publish details of the

systems they have in place to ensure that workers

aren’t being enslaved. You can read more about

the introduction of modern slavery legislation in

Australia on page 18.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

INDUSTRY CHALLENGES

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

INDUSTRY CHALLENGES

Living wage

A living wage is a wage that is sucient for

workers to be able to aord the basics (food, water,

healthcare, clothing, electricity, and education)

for themselves and their dependants. Yet most

garment sector workers receive wages well below

this ﬁgure. It comes as no surprise, then, that low

wages are among the chief concerns for workers.

The beneﬁts of a living wage are substantial. In fact,

payment of a living wage could transform the lives

of millions by allowing people to lift themselves out

of poverty and, at the same time, drive economic

growth within communities and nations. However,

it remains one of the most poorly assessed areas

ofour research.

Questions around living wage make up a signiﬁcant

portion of the Worker Empowerment section of

this research. Worker Empowerment is 2019 Ethical

Fashion Report’s lowest scoring section, with a

median grade of D. Just 5% of companies could

demonstrate that they were paying a living wage

toall workers at their ﬁnal stage of production.

While the industry still has a great deal of work

to do to in the area of living wage, small steps are

being taken. In 2019, 48% of companies assessed

reported that they had started to develop a living

wage methodology and 24% of companies had

published a commitment to pay a living wage.

For more information on the fashion industry’s

approach to tackling the continuing issue of living

wage, see page 19.

Environmental management

The environmental impact of the fashion industry

is signiﬁcant with the apparel industry accounting

for 10% of global emissions.

Up to 20,000 litres

of water is needed to produce 1 kg of cotton —

with it taking up to 2,700 litres to produce the

cotton needed to make a single T-shirt.

Globally,

humans are consuming 800 billion new pieces of

clothing per year, 400% more than we consumed

two decades ago. Australia is the second largest

consumer of new textiles after the US, averaging

27 kg of new textiles per year.

Even more

concerningly, Australians are currently disposing

of 6,000 kg of fashion and textile waste every ten

minutes, with the majority of this going to landﬁll.

It is the poor and vulnerable who feel the impact

of this environmental damage most acutely, with

the eects of landﬁll, water pollution and poor

chemical management impacting on the health

and wellbeing of workers throughout the apparel

supply chain.

This year, for the ﬁrst time, the Ethical Fashion

Report assesses the eort of companies to

mitigate their environmental impact. 11 questions

were asked in order to measure a company’s

impacts on climate, chemical management

practices, water usage, use of sustainable ﬁbres,

provision of take-back and repair programs, and,

ﬁnally, whether had completed an environmental

impact assessment.

Of these areas of concern, water use is one of the

most substantial issues. Up to 20,000 litres of

water is needed to produce 1kg of cotton — with

it taking up to 2,700 litres of water to produce a

single cotton T-shirt. We found that just 12% of

companies were collecting and benchmarking

water use data from all of their water intensive

facilities. When it comes to wastewater, again, just

12% of companies are monitoring the wastewater

from all wet-processing facilities to ensure it is not

environmentally hazardous.

Positively, an increased number of companies

are investing in more sustainable ﬁbres. Just

over a third of companies have assessed the

environmental impact of the ﬁbres they use and

are investing in more sustainable ﬁbres in their

product design and production as a result.

More information about the fashion industry’s

environmental impact can be found on page 22.

1010

Companies

are investing

in Responsible

Purchasing

Practices

companies

are investing

in Gender

Equality within

the supply

chain

Companies

received F

Companies

received A+

Companies

assessed

Median

grade

130

C+

A+

Policies

Traceability &

Transparency

Auditing &

Supplier relationships

C-

Environmental

Management

Worker

Empowerment

38%

of Companies saw an

improvement in their Grade

from the 2018 Report

2019 at

a glance

15%

17%

22%

Companies

are ready to

address and

Remediate

Child and

Forced Labour

some of the biggest gains

of Companies can

demonstrate paying a living

wage to all workers at Final

Stage facilities

2013 2019

Companies working

to trace where their

fabrics come from

49% 81%

2013 2019

Companies working to

trace where their raw

materials come from

17%

48%

61%

Changes in the

industry through

the years

There have been many

improvement in 2019,

such as...

of Companies are investing

in using sustainable bres

...but despite the progress,

signicant issues remain:

From 2013 to 2019 the percentage of

companies publishing full direct

supplier lists has increased

18%

37%

This section outlines the aims and scope of our

research, the process of data collection and

evaluation, and our company grading system.

Methodology

research considers ﬁve broad themes of social

responsibility and environmental impact: policies,

traceability and transparency, auditing and

supplier relationships, worker empowerment, and

environmental management (outlined on page 15).

This year marks the ﬁrst year that environmental

management metrics have been included in the

assessment criteria, expanding this research

from its purely labour rights focus. It is widely

understood that the fashion industry has a

considerable, and often negative, impact on the

The 2019 Ethical Fashion Report provides

a picture of ethical sourcing practices in the

fashion industry as a resource for consumers,

corporations, investors, and policymakers.

This research seeks to empower consumers

to make more informed and ethical choices in

purchasing fashion and footwear and provides

insight into supply chain governance for

investors. It also aims to assist companies with

benchmarking and learnings, as well as identify

issues for policymakers to address. By presenting

the performance of companies (relative to one

another) in an A+ to F grading system which is

updated on an annual basis, individual companies,

and the wider industry, are encouraged to engage

in continuous improvement with respect to their

ethical sourcing practices.

We recognise the fashion industry’s potential for

positive impact around the world. The ultimate

goal of this project is to work collaboratively

alongside companies in the fashion industry

to contribute to ending worker exploitation,

alleviating poverty, and building environmental

sustainability throughout the fashion industry.

Scope of the research

The 2019 Ethical Fashion Report Grading Tool

classiﬁes the fashion manufacturing supply chain

into three stages of production: ﬁnal stage, inputs

stage, and raw materials (outlined on page 15).

Across these three stages of production, this

METHODOLOGY

Statement on Non-Responsive Companies

Companies that are non-responsive, along

with those that do not provide any substantive

information, are indicated in the Report

and Guide with an asterisk (*) next to their

name. These companies are also given the

opportunity to provide a short statement as

to why they chose not to respond, found on

page90 of this report.

We acknowledge that many of the non-

responsive brands may be doing more to

improve their ethical sourcing that we have

been able to assess them on. However, if

brands do not disclose, or are unwilling to

disclose, what they are doing to ensure that

workers are not exploited in their supply

chains, then it becomes almost impossible for

consumers and the public to know if these

brands are investing suciently to mitigate

these risks.

Companies may prefer to disclose their supply

chain management practices publicly, instead

of responding to our survey (e.g. they might

be surveyed by multiple research projects or

they might prefer a single public disclosure,

rather than disclosing through the survey).

By assessing non-responsive companies on

publicly available information we can give

due credit to these eorts. In the history of

our research, non-responsive companies

have received a wide range of grades based

on their publicly available information. In the

2019 Ethical Fashion Report non-responsive

companies received grades ranging from a B

to an F.

environment. In order to ensure that the research

remains the fashion industry benchmark when

it comes to ethical and sustainable sourcing

environmental metrics were developed in 2018.

These metrics were initially weighted at 0%, to

ensure participating companies had adequate

lead time ahead of a new focus area being added

to the performance assessment process. From

this report onwards, the environmental metrics

will inform each company’s grade, contributing

to10%of the ﬁnal grade.

It is worth emphasising that Baptist World Aid

does not conduct site inspections of factories.

Therefore, company grades are not an assessment

of actual conditions in factories and farms, but

rather an analysis of the strength of a company’s

labour rights and environmental management

systems. This research relies on data that is publicly

available, alongside evidence of systems and

practices provided by the companies themselves.

Data collection and evaluation

As a proxy for the entire fashion supply chain,

the 2019 Ethical Fashion Report assesses a large

selection of companies on 44 speciﬁc criteria

across the ﬁve key themes, at three critical stages

of the supply chain.

The survey and the weightings applied through

the Grading Tool has been developed with input

from supply chain specialists, non-government

organisations, and company experts (see

‘acknowledgements’ on page 97). The criteria

contained within the Grading Tool draws upon

international standards, including those articulated

by the International Labour Organization, the

Sustainable Development Goals, and the United

Nation’s Guiding Principles for Business and

Human Rights. The Grading Tool will continue to

evolve over time to incorporate new learnings and

reﬂect changing industry best practice.

In conducting a company evaluation, our

researchers assess a company’s own publications,

alongside any relevant independent reports and

METHODOLOGY

Garment factory in Hung Yên,

data. Our researchers then send the ﬁndings

(marked against the assessment criteria) to the

company for comment and further input. This

input is then further reviewed. Baptist World Aid

seeks to engage with companies, collect evidence,

and understand their processes and systems;

however, we do not conduct site inspections as

part of the grading process.

Beyond engaging brands, our researchers also

work with relevant certiﬁers to get a better

understanding of what systems are covered by

their certiﬁcation. Where companies use these

certiﬁcations, information from the certiﬁcation

body is considered in the process of the

company’s assessment. Certiﬁcation bodies that

have been engaged with include Better Cotton

Initiative, the Global Organic Textile Standard,

Fairtrade and Ethical Clothing Australia.

Our researchers actively seek to engage

companies (and pursue contact with non-

responsive companies) using at least three

dierent mediums: phone calls, emails, and

letters. All non-responsive companies receive their

ﬁndings twice by post. Letters are also mailed to

the company’s Board Chair and CEO. This process

seeks to ensure that, in almost every instance

where a brand has not responded, it is because it

has intentionally chosen not to do so.

In 2019, 75% of brands engaged directly with this

research process.

METHODOLOGY

Policies Transparency

and Traceability

Auditing and Supplier

Relationships

Worker

Empowerment

(and living wage)

Environmental

Management

Why it matters:

Policies form the

standards that

brands want their

production to

adhere to. They

are the baseline

by which a brand

can measure the

effectiveness of

its overall efforts

to uphold worker

rights.

What we assess:

Provisions to

prohibit forced

labour and child

labour, allow

for freedom of

association and

protect worker

health and safety;

whether a brand

intends its policies

to cover the entire

production process;

whether the brand

is undertaking

important measures

towards improving

working conditions

in facilities.

Why it matters:

In order to ensure

that worker rights

are being upheld,

brands need to

know which facilities

are responsible for

the production of

their product.

What we assess:

How much of

the supply chain

a company has

traced; what it

does to monitor

and address

subcontracting;

what efforts it is

undertaking to

trace the remainder

of its supply

chain; a brand’s

transparency

and how willing

they are to be

held accountable

through the

information it shares

about it’s supply

chain.

Why it matters: Monitoring

facilities and building

relationships are critical to

ensuring policies are adhered

to and improvements in

working conditions are

being delivered. While

no monitoring process

is perfect, high quality

monitoring helps to provide

a better understanding of

the conditions of workers.

A focus on strengthening

relationships allows trust

building, and increases a

brand’s capacity to drive

change.

What we assess: What

percentage of production

facilities are audited;

whether unannounced and

offsite worker interviews

and anonymous worker

surveys are used; whether

checks are done on high risk

activities like labour brokers

and recruitment fees;

whether the brand is willing

to be transparent about its

results and remedial actions;

whether brands are actively

involved in building supplier

relationships through

consolidation, collaboration,

supplier training and long

term relationship building.

Why it matters: For a

labour rights system

to improve working

conditions, workers must

be empowered, allowed

a voice, and have their

most critical concerns

addressed. It is workers

themselves who have the

best visibility of working

conditions.

What we assess:

Whether workers are

able to unite through

democratic trade unions;

whether collective

bargaining agreements

have been established;

whether effective

grievance mechanisms

are in place; whether

workers are receiving a

living wage so they can

support their families; a

brand’s efforts in moving

towards paying a living

wage.

Why it matters: The

fashion supply chain

can cause significant

environmental

degradation, which

affects the wellbeing

of workers, the

communities they live

in, and their natural

environment. By

assessing the materials

and facilities they use

to make their products,

brands can take

informed steps to reduce

their environmental

impact from the farm to

the final item of clothing.

What we assess:

Whether the company

has done its own

assessment of the

environmental impact

throughout its supply

chain; the percentage

of sustainable materials

used; if the company has

collected data on water

use and chemical use in

its facilities; monitoring

systems to improve

chemical and water

management; whether

take-back and repair

programs have been

offered to customers.

What the research covers

The research collects and evaluates data

from fashion companies using the following

classiﬁcation of the supply chain and across

the following themes of social responsibility.

RAW MATERIALS

• Cotton (farming)

• Wool, etc (husbandry,

shearing etc)

• Crude Oil for synthetic

ﬁbres, plastics, etc

(extraction, reﬁning)

INPUTS PRODUCTION

• Textiles production

(ginning, spinning, knitting,

dying, embroidery)

• Leather (tanning)

• Plastic (processing,

moulding)

FINAL STAGE PRODUCTION

• Cut-Make-Trim (CMT)

manufacturing (cutting,

sewing, printing)

because it allows the benchmark of an ethically

managed supply change to shift as the industry

standard improves. Using an adjusted bell curve

rather than a ﬁxed standard, means that it is

industry practice (and not Baptist World Aid)

that sets the standard of ethical supply chain

management. Companies are incentivised to

continue improvements in order to align with the

progression of the industry.

Some company structures own several brands

with diering supply chain management systems

in place. In these cases, the 2019 Ethical Fashion

Report grades brands separately. Individual brands

corresponding to a single company are listed,

alongside their grade, in the Brand Index of this

Report (see page 45).

Grading

The grades awarded in the Report are a measure

of the eorts undertaken by each company to

mitigate the risks of forced labour, child labour,

worker exploitation, and environmental harm

throughout their supply chains. Higher grades

correspond to companies with labour rights

and environmental management systems that,

if implemented well, should reduce the risk and

extent of worker exploitation and environmental

harm in the production of that company’s

products. Low graded companies are those that

are not taking these initiatives, or those choosing

not to disclose if they are taking such initiatives.

It is important to note that a high grade does not

mean that a company has a supply chain which

is free from exploitation or environmental harm.

Rather, it is an indicator of the eorts the company

is undertaking and the strength of its systems to

reduce risk. Furthermore, the 2019 Ethical Fashion

Report’s grading methodology is designed

to spread companies out along an A+ to F

continuum, based on the relative strength of their

eorts and awarding grades on an adjusted bell

curve (i.e. the best performers receive A+ grades,

the worst receive F grades, with many others in

the middle).

The adjusted bell curve is a key element to support

this project’s advocacy purpose. It encourages

companies to continue working on improving

their supply chain management, as the bell curve

grades a company comparatively against industry

peers. This is preferable to a ﬁxed standard

Data veriﬁcation

To verify the data provided by companies,

company responses are reviewed and clariﬁcation

and supporting documentation are sought where

necessary. In some instances, the audit data

provided by companies is relied upon to verify

conditions and beneﬁts that workers receive.

Wherever possible, our researchers and company

representatives work through the survey questions

together, allowing both parties to be satisﬁed that

the data presented is an accurate representation

of the company’s policies and processes.

To ensure consistency in the assessment of

companies after completing the survey, company

responses are cross-checked by another member

of our research team.

Survey support document

2018 saw the introduction of the Survey Support

Document (previously referenced as the

“Assessment Support Document”). This document

was reviewed and updated after the release of

the 2018 Ethical Fashion Report. It was once

again provided to companies as part of this year’s

research process.

The Survey Support Document acts as a helpful

guide for companies. It includes a rationale for

each survey question, and examples of what

constitutes a strong labour rights system. The

Survey Support Document also details the

validation requirements that need to be adhered

to, in order to demonstrate that a system or policy

is in place.

METHODOLOGY

Baptist World Aid’s methodology

and grading process has been audited,

for detail please see page95 of the

Appendices.

This section looks are three areas that are currently having

a signiﬁcant inﬂuence on the fashion industry; The Modern

Slavery Act, Living Wages and Environmental concerns.

Industry Inﬂuences

For six years now, Baptist World Aid has called

on fashion companies to disclose their efforts

to address the risk of slavery in their supply

chains, reporting on these efforts through the

Ethical Fashion Report.

Through this research, we have become

increasingly aware of the critical role that

governments have to play in ending child labour

and exploitation in corporate supply chains. For this

reason, we have been resolute in our calls for supply

chain regulation in Australia and our organisation

has been invited to participate in the various

conversations and inquiries to achieve this end.

2018 saw the introduction of two important pieces

of anti-slavery legislation in Australia.

New South Wales Modern Slavery Act

In June 2018, New South Wales became the ﬁrst

Australian jurisdiction to introduce modern slavery

legislation.

The NSW Modern Slavery Act requires commercial

entities with an annual turnover of at least $50

million, and at least one employee in New South

Wales, to annually report on the structure of

their supply chain; key risk areas and mitigation

strategies; policies and due diligence processes

relating to modern slavery; and training practices

relating to modern slavery.

The NSW Modern Slavery Act also provides for

penalties of up to $1.1 million for non-compliance

or providing false or misleading information. It also

instates a state-level, independent Anti-Slavery

Commissioner — tasked with educating the public

on the issues of modern slavery and promoting

action to end it.

Commonwealth Modern Slavery Act

After years of advocacy from civil society groups,

including Baptist World Aid and our Coalition

partner, STOP THE TRAFFIK, Australia now has

a federal Modern Slavery Act. This is a welcome

ﬁrst step in addressing transparency and modern

slavery in corporate supply chains.

The Modern Slavery Act, which became eective

on 1 January 2019, requires entities that are

either based, or operating, in Australia, that have

an annual consolidated revenue of more than

$100million, to report annually on the risks of

modern slavery in their operations and supply

chains. This annual report, known as a ‘Modern

Slavery Statement’, must list the actions a

company has taken to assess and address those

risks, as well as gauge the quality of the company’s

response. This statement must be approved by the

company’s Board of Directors, or an equivalent,

and signed by a Company Director. Once

submitted, this statement will be made publicly

available on a central repository known as the

‘Modern Slavery Statements Register’

It is estimated that these requirements will aect

approximately 3,000 businesses.

While Baptist World Aid welcomes the

introduction of the Commonwealth Modern

Slavery Act, we acknowledge that more work

needs to be done to ensure it is as robust as

possible. We will continue to call for penalties for

companies that fail to comply with the reporting

requirement, and an Independent Commissioner

to ensure that the legislation is eectively

implemented.

Impact

There is no doubt that this new legislation will be

a catalyst for change in the business community.

We look forward to seeing how the fashion

industry responds, not only to these new legal

requirements placed upon it, but also to public

pressure, as consumers are presented with more

detailed information about how their favourite

brands produce their clothes.

We also anticipate that other groups within civil

society, like investors and boutique fund managers,

will now have a more direct avenue to both

engage with, and measure, a company’s appetite

for corporate social responsibility as it relates

to the issue of modern slavery. In turn, we are

hopeful that this will further drive improvements in

corporate practice.

Finally, this legislation adds signiﬁcant weight to

the eorts of Baptist World Aid in this space, as

it addresses several areas that we have — and

will continue to — assess companies on. There

are many brands in the fashion industry that

have worked collaboratively with Baptist World

Aid to reduce the risk of modern slavery in their

supply chains. These companies will now be well

positioned to report on their achievements to date.

INDUSTRY INFLUENCES

THE MODERN SLAVERY ACT

INDUSTRY INFLUENCES

LIVING WAGES

Not being paid a living wage is one of the most

signiﬁcant issues faced by fashion supply chain

workers

, as the beneﬁts of receiving a living

wage would be nothing short of life-changing.

The reality is, the payment of a living wage could

transform the lives of millions by allowing people

This results in minimum wages that are far below

what would regularly be considered a living wage.

In Bangladesh for example, living wage estimates

are 2.8 times its current minimum wage and, in

Vietnam, the current minimum wage is half of the

estimated living wage

Low wages and excessive working hours are

endemic and persistent issues in global supply

chains, which, all too often, leave full-time

workers, and their families, trapped in a cycle

of poverty. Baptist World Aid, through this

assessment of companies and their brands,

promotes the adoption of a living wage

that will meet a workers’ basic needs and

allow them to maintain a safe and decent

standard of living.

State of the industry

Fashion is a lucrative industry. The Australian

Fashion Industry alone, was worth close to

$23.5billion in 2018

. Its value is projected to

continue growing, with fast fashion, in particular,

expected to grow at 6.2% over the next ﬁve

years

.These proﬁts extend beyond Australia,

underpinning the economies of developing

countries such as Bangladesh, Cambodia, and

Vietnam, where garments are amongst the largest

exports.

But in the majority of circumstances, these

proﬁts do not reach the workers who make these

garments. This is because garment-producing

countries, in an eort to retain the investment of

foreign companies, frequently set minimum wages

too low. Fearing that higher prices, might drive

interested companies to competitor countries.

Cotton picker in Shayampet,

INDUSTRY INFLUENCES

LIVING WAGES

One of the most important ﬁrst steps a company

can take when seeking to pay its workers a living

wage, is deciding on a robust methodology to

help determine a ﬁgure for each region it sources

from. 48% of companies assessed by this report

received credit for taking this step. The majority

cited using the Anker Methodology.

ACT

ACT (Action, Collaboration, Transformation) is an

agreement between international brands, retailers,

manufacturers, and trade unions, to address the

issue of living wage in the textile and garment

supply chain. ACT aims to improve wages in

the fashion industry by establishing collective

bargaining in key garment and textile sourcing

countries, at an industry level, supported by world-

class manufacturing standards and responsible

purchasing practices.

ACT is a collaboration of global brands and the

Industrial Global Union, representing garment,

textile, and footwear workers from around the

globe. Of the 21 brands that are members of ACT,

ten are represented in the 2019 Ethical Fashion

Report:

civil society, consumers factory management, and

workers.

There are many initiatives currently working

to progress the payment of living wages, two

worth mentioning are the Anker Methodology, In

partnership with the Global Living Wage Coalition

(GLWC), and ACT.

Anker Methodology

The Anker Methodology deﬁnes a living wage as,

“Remuneration received for a standard work week

by a worker in a particular place sucient to

aord a decent standard of living for the worker

and her or his family. Elements of a decent

standard of living include food, water, housing,

education, health care, transport, clothing, and

other essential needs, including provision for

unexpected events

.”

Developed by academic researchers and

economists Martha and Richard Anker in

partnership with GLWC, the methodology has two

main components

1. Estimating the cost of a basic decent lifestyle

for workers and his/her family in a particular

geographical location; and

2. Determining whether the estimated living wage

is being paid to workers.

The Ankers have conducted robust research

to develop living wage calculations for a number

of regions across the Asia Paciﬁc and continue

to include more regions in its analysis, annually.

to lift themselves — and their families — out of

poverty and, at the same time, drive economic

growth within communities and nations.

However, the reality of paying living wages is

complex and dicult to implement. It is well

recognised that attaining a living wage is not

something that can be achieved by retailers alone.

It requires a multi-stakeholder approach, that

includes companies and their brands, government,

• Arcadia

• ASOS

• Canterbury

• Cotton on Group

• H&M

• Inditex

• Kmart Australia

• Next

• PVH

• Target

Garment factory in HCM City, Vietnam.

However, when looking at tangible beneﬁts

to workers, only 20% of companies could

demonstrate that they were paying a living wage

to some portion of their supply chain, with a

mere 5% of these companies paying a living wage

to all workers in their ﬁnal stage of production.

INDUSTRY INFLUENCES

LIVING WAGES

Members of ACT agree to the following

principles

•

A joint approach is needed where all participants

in global supply chains assume their respective

responsibilities in achieving freedom of

association, collective bargaining and living

wages.

•

Agreement on a living wage should be

reached through collective bargaining between

employers and workers and their representatives,

at industry level.

•

Workers must be free and able to exercise their

right to organise and bargain collectively in

accordance with ILO Conventions.

Collective bargaining is at the heart of ACT’s

work. ACT believes that eective freedom of

association will empower workers to negotiate

tailor-made solutions which allow both ﬂexibility

and security.

Corporate response

Baptist World Aid has observed an increasing

number of companies that are taking meaningful

action to work towards paying a living wage

to workers in their supply chains. 48% of

companies have started to develop a living

wage methodology for the regions they source

from. 24% of companies have published a level

of commitment to pay their workers a living

wage, demonstrating their willingness to be

held accountable and their recognition of the

importance of paying a living wage.

So,whilst the fashion industry’s progress towards

understanding the importance of a living wage is

promising, much more work needs to be done in

order to ensure workers receive the living wage

they deserve.

Workers in wool manufacturing plant in Bangladesh.

INDUSTRY INFLUENCES

ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS

Across the last six years, the Ethical Fashion

Report has assessed the labour rights

management systems of fashion companies

across the globe. In the 2018 Ethical Fashion

Report, we acknowledged that a “truly ethical”

company not only ensures their supply chain

empowers workers and pays them a living

wage, it also understands its impact on the

environment and manages its footprint to

keep waterways, the earth, and the

atmosphere healthy. Correspondingly, it is the

workers in the fashion supply chain that most

acutely feel the detrimental effects of poor

environmental management.

The signiﬁcant environmental impact of the

fashion industry — starting from the raw materials

stage and continuing across all stages, through

to the end-of-life of a garment — has been well

documented. The breadth of environmental issues

that the industry touches on is also wide, from

carbon emissions to water consumption, and

waste concerns

. Across time, the rapid growth

of production and consumption in the fashion

industry has seen the environmental impact of

the industry grow

. The depth, breadth, and rapid

scaling-up of the fashion industry’s environmental

impact, highlights that there is a need to

understand and address the issue.

Environmental and social ethics matter

deeply to consumers too. 86% of the general

population think companies should be addressing

social and environmental issues

. When looking

at GenZ — the generation that will account

for 40% of consumers by 2020 — this statistic

jumps to 94%

. The purchasing decisions of

consumers are already guided by their values

and this trend only looks set to grow. For the

fashion industry, increasing consumer concern

and the continued signiﬁcant environmental

impact of production signal a strong impetus

for change.

Environmental impact concerns

in the fashion industry

Like many other industries, the fashion industry’s

impact on the environment is diverse. Research

has documented direct impact on climate change

through high CO

emissions; signiﬁcant freshwater

withdrawal to grow ﬁbres and for the dyeing and

ﬁnishing process of fabrics; impacted ecosystem

quality through a range of forms of pollution; harm

to human health; and resource depletion

It is important to note that most of the

environmental impact caused by the fashion

industry occurs within its supply chains, most

notably at the raw materials and input stages

Therefore, companies which have put signiﬁcant

eort into tracing facilities deep in their supply

chain are at an advantage to understand and

improve environmental management practices.

The type and severity of impact that an item of

clothing will have depends signiﬁcantly on the

material that it is made from. Cotton, polyester,

neoprene, and recycled ﬁbres are made and

processed in very dierent ways and require

dierent solutions to mitigate their eect on the

environment. The fashion industry is a signiﬁcant

consumer of fresh water, using approximately

79 billion cubic metres per year

. Conversely,

synthetic ﬁbres made from plastic and chemically

processed plant materials use less water and land

to process, however they create other eects, such

as a signiﬁcantly higher greenhouse gas emission

footprint than cotton

. Companies therefore need

to take tailored approaches to reducing their

impact, however there are some common themes

of environmental impact across fashion supply

chains. Chemical use, water use, and the treatment

of wastewater are vital considerations when

managing inputs facilities, such as dyeing and

ﬁnishing facilities.

The impact of the fashion industry on the

environment varies signiﬁcantly depending on

which stage of production is being observed, what

raw material is used, and where the production is

taking place. In order to capture this complexity

and advocate for better practice in environmental

management, we asked fashion companies to

address aspects of environmental management

which were at the intersection of the impact and

the fashion industry’s ability to act.

Companies can (and should) also actively seek to

use ﬁbres that are available from more sustainable

sources, including those cultivated from less

water-intensive or chemical-intensive raw materials

and recycled ﬁbres.

Emissions

This year, we also asked, “Has the company

publicly announced a net-zero carbon emissions

reduction target by 2050 for its supply chain? Or

is it lobbying for this target in the countries that it

is operating in?”

Carbon emissions are a consequence of all stages

of the supply chain. The Paris Agreement is a

worldwide framework to address greenhouse

“What percentage of the company’s ﬁnal product

is made from sustainable ﬁbres?”

We recognise that ﬁbres have dierent impacts

depending on their type, source, and how they are

processed. Our ﬁrst question regarding materials

seeks to grow understanding of the top three

ﬁbres used by volume in a company’s supply

chain, then encourage implementation of that

understanding into the product design stage.

Environmental impact can thereby be prevented,

rather than treated after-the-fact. The percentage

of companies that have assessed the impact of

their top three ﬁbres and used these assessments

to inform changes in their design and production

increased by 7% in 2019.

Benchmarking environmental

management in the fashion industry

These are the metrics used to assess companies,

including the questions asked and a rationale

as to the signiﬁcance of each question. Of the

44questions asked overall in our Grading

Tool, 11were dedicated to environmental

management, contributing to 10% of a company’s

overall grade.

Governance

This year we asked, “Has the company undertaken

an assessment of its environmental impact and

risks throughout its supply chain?”

A clear starting point in managing the risks of

harmful environmental impact within the fashion

industry, is for companies to understand the

risks at play in their own supply chain. Company

decision-makers will be best situated to develop

a strategic approach to managing environmental

matters, when they are aware of the current

environmental impact of their company and the

possible environmental risks throughout its

supply chain.

Materials

We asked companies two questions related to the

materials used in their supply chain. These were:

“Has the company assessed the environmental

impact of its top three ﬁbres and materials used

in its apparel products and implemented learnings

from this assessment into product design and

production?” and;

INDUSTRY INFLUENCES

ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS

Better Work Factory in Vietnam.

INDUSTRY INFLUENCES

ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS

including testing, were being used to ensure that

ﬁnal products complied with the RSL.

Secondly, and deeper into the supply chain, a

manufacturing restricted substance list (MRSL)

deﬁnes banned and restricted hazardous

substances to prevent their use and discharge into

the environment during manufacturing. Again, it

was important for us to see that quality assurance

systems were in place, such as monitoring of

chemical management systems and water quality.

Since our preliminary analysis of companies in

2018, we have seen a 14% increase in companies

checking compliance with their MRSL.

Water use

This year we asked, “For what percentage of water

intensive facilities has the company collected and

benchmarked water use data?” and;

“Has the company used the above data to

implement a water use plan?”

Garment production is water-intensive. Our ﬁrst

question aims to increase company understanding

of actual and ideal water usage in water-intensive

facilities throughout their supply chain, while the

following question aims to encourage companies

to implement these learnings.

Wastewater

Similar to the above questions, we also sought

to explore wastewater management through the

following questions:

gases emissions, including carbon emissions.

The net-zero carbon emissions reduction target

aligns with the Paris Agreement. We believe that

company commitment to this target does two

things: ﬁrstly, it indicates to governments that

the private sector endorses and seeks to align its

practices with the Paris Agreement; and secondly,

it sets a target for companies to bring their supply

chain energy usage into line with. To acknowledge

that companies may be taking a range of diered

actions to this end, we noted in our assessment

that companies may alternatively, or additionally,

engage on this issue with the government in the

countries where they operate through various

forms of lobbying. There has been a 10% increase

this year in the number of companies receiving full

credit through publicly committing to a target or

lobbying governments.

Chemical use

Regarding chemical use, we asked two key

questions of companies this year. These were:

“Does the company have a restricted substances

list against which it tests compliance?” and;

“Does the company have a manufacturing

restricted substances list against which it tests

compliance?”

Firstly, a restricted substance list (RSL) deﬁnes the

permitted levels of chemical content and chemical

exposure for ﬁnal products being produced by

a company. It was important for us to see that

not only was this RSL being communicated to

suppliers, but that quality assurance systems,

“For what percentage of wet-processing facilities

has the company collected wastewater quality

data?” and;

“Of these, do all have wastewater improvement

strategies?”

Wet-processing facilities include those that

undertake viscose-manufacturing, weaving,

dyeing, printing, and ﬁnishing processes. These

facilities are more likely to have euent that is

environmentally hazardous, if not treated prior to

release into the environment.

Wastewater management can be achieved

through wastewater treatment systems, inputs

management, wastewater quality testing,

standards development and implementation, and a

combination of the above.

The number of companies using wastewater

improvement strategies has grown this year. For

companies which are collecting wastewater quality

data on their facilities, only 15% do not have

improvement strategies implemented in any facility.

Material/product waste

The 2018 assessment also recognises that

textile waste is a major and growing problem.

We therefore asked a ﬁnal question to this end,

namely, “Does the company make available to

customers a take-back and/or repair program?”.

Take-back programs have the potential to lead

to textile recycling into new textiles, insulation,

and other products. Repair programs allow for

longevity of garment use.

Policies

This section evaluates the policies that fashion companies have in place to

address the risk of worker exploitation in supplier and subcontracted factories.

Most companies have now adopted policies which set the minimum working

conditions they expect of their suppliers and factories. Policies are the ﬁrst step

to creating a robust supply chain management system.

Regular and excessive overtime is

a signiﬁcant and ongoing issue for

worker welfare in the global fashion

industry. Long hours reduce worker

safety, as most workplace accidents

happen when workers are tired. Long

hours also place undue stress on a

large number of workers. Excessive

overtime is often driven by low and

insucient wages and pressure from

managers to extend working hours

or meet deadlines. The majority of

companies assessed have codes that

include standards addressing limits

on overtime.

Women represent about 80% of

global garment workers. Despite

this, gender-based discrimination in

recruitment, and sexual harassment,

are widespread in the workplace. Of

note, is that all countries in the Asia-

Paciﬁc record a gender pay gap. It is

therefore important that companies

proactively implement policies

and clear strategies to address the

vulnerability and discrimination faced

by female workers in their supply

chain.

We found that roughly a third of

companies surveyed do have such

systems in place. While a healthy

start, this is an area that requires

further industry attention.

A Code of Conduct includes the

basic worker rights which supplier

factories are expected to observe.

At a minimum, a good code of

conduct will include the ILO’s Four

Fundamental Principles and Rights

at Work. This prohibits child labour;

forced labour; discrimination;

and guarantees worker rights to

freedom of association and collective

bargaining.

Among the companies assessed,

87% have Codes of Conduct

that include at least these basic

principles.

By stating that their code applies to

multiple levels of their supply chain,

companies are accepting that their

sphere of responsibility is not limited

to their ﬁnal stage manufacturers.

The deeper, more removed levels of

the supply chain are at greatest risk

of worker exploitation, which makes

eorts to ensure that these suppliers

operate in line with Code standards

critical.

33% of companies reported

applying their Code of Conduct

to multiple levels of their supply

chain, including to the level of raw

material production, while a further

43% reported making eorts to

insist standards within their Code

of Conduct are adhered to as far as

their fabric production suppliers.

Does the company have a code

that addresses the ILO Four

Fundamental Principles and

Rights at Work?

Does the code apply to multiple

levels of the supply chain, including

the raw materials level? (Partial =

applies to inputs production)

Does the code prohibit the use of

regular and excessive overtime?

Does the company have a policy

addressing gender inequality in the

supply chain, including a strategy

to address discrimination faced by

women in the apparel industry?

POLICIES

INDUSTRY OVERVIEW

Key:

YES PARTIAL NO

YES 87% YES 33% YES 69% YES 32%

AS Colour – Purchasing Practises

AS Colour is committed to ensuring ethical

purchasing practises. Through regular factory visits

and engaging in open dialogue with its suppliers,

AS Colour hopes to encourage more discussions

about supplier challenges as well as its own.

In line with industry-wide experience, the

overriding feedback to come out of this open

dialogue has been that the fast fashion buying

cycle remains the biggest challenge. This is one

reason that AS Colour chooses to operate outside

of this sphere, developing its buying calendar

in collaboration with suppliers, so as to ensure

enough buer time and stock to accommodate

the setbacks which can occur in complex and

people intensive supply chains. Additionally, AS

Colour continues to invest its time and resource

inunderstanding actual production lead-times.

Adherence to these processes is governed by the

founder of AS Colour, who, having established

these principles himself, continues to have a

hands on approach signing o any new suppliers,

overseeing order placement and timelines, and

promoting a culture of continuous improvement

from both within the company’s operation as well

as from its suppliers.

Finally, this year, AS Colour has invested in joining

Amfori (a business association which promotes

open and sustainable trade). It has also employed

an ethical sourcing specialist, whose dual role is

to work with the AS Colour buying team, as well

as raising awareness with its retail team, who are

increasingly being approached by customers who

are interested in AS Colour’s ethical stance and

organic products.

“Whilst many supplier challenges at times seem

daunting (or outside the scope of inﬂuence) for

a relatively small business such as ours, the fact

remains that their problems ultimately impact on

our workers and our production. For these reasons,

we have always believed it important to invest the

time to ensure we are aware of the bigger picture,

to evolve our business and purchasing practises to

oer support and solutions where we can, and, as

a responsible industry practitioner, work to build

our inﬂuence.”

AS Colour

New Balance – Gender Strategy

Across the world, women comprise the majority

of the footwear and garment manufacturing

workforce. In an eort to improve health, literacy,

and healthcare access for women factory

workers in Vietnam, New Balance has partnered

with one of its key suppliers, Business for Social

Responsibility, to implement their HERHealth

program.

Through HERHealth, 2,000 women workers

received training and participated in peer

education programs on nutrition, reproductive

health, pre and post-natal care, and early detection

of breast cancer. Participants reported enjoying

the training on nutrition — an area impacting

workers beyond the factory with their eating

decisions impacting on the health of their families.

One supplier reported that the worker knowledge

on health issues had increased and that they’d also

experienced a decrease in worker turnover.

New Balance plans to take the learnings from

this project to further develop and inform their

strategy on women’s empowerment and gender

in their supply chain. At the time of writing this

report, a ﬁnal impact assessment of the program

was underway.

POLICIES

BEST PRACTICE HIGHLIGHTS

Transparency and Traceability

This section measures the degree to which a company has traced

its suppliers at three key stages of production: ﬁnal stage, inputs

and raw materials. It also looks at how transparent the company

is with respect to the location and nature of its suppliers.

TRANSPARENCY AND TRACEABILITY

INDUSTRY OVERVIEW

While most companies trace and audit their

suppliers to ensure that basic working conditions

are adhered to, it takes a particularly mature

approach to transparency and social responsibility

to admit that suppliers do not always meet

standards set for them. Consequently, only 29% of

companies shared data about their broad auditing

results with the general public. We believe that

admissions of noncompliance do not represent

failures in social compliance; but rather, an

important step towards greater transparency and

accountability that will drive improved working

conditions. It is the companies that are unable to

identify or admit to concerns in their supply chain

that are most hampered from improving.

Tracing the location of suppliers is an important

way in which a company can begin to take

responsibility for working conditions in its supply

chain. It’s almost impossible for companies to know

that suppliers are adhering to Code standards if

they do not know who their suppliers are.

70% of companies have traced all of their ﬁnal

stage facilities, but the level of traceability tapers

for the more removed parts of the supply chain,

particularly inputs and raw materials suppliers. It

is in the parts of the supply chain, such as these,

which sit outside of the purview of companies,

that the risk of worker exploitation is both higher

and least likely to be remedied.

Publishing supplier lists is a way that companies

can demonstrate to workers, consumers, and the

public, that they are committed to being held

accountable to the workers in their supply chain.

Transparency deepens the credibility of claims

companies make about their supply chain systems

and engenders trust. Of the companies assessed,

37% (up from 16% in 2013) published a full list

of their ﬁnal stage suppliers along with factory

addresses. A further 15% received partial credit for

disclosing a portion of their supplier list.

Are broad auditing results shared publicly? Has the company traced 100% of all of its

facilities for the following stages of production

(partial = some traced)?

Is there a public list of supplier facilities

(including names and addresses)?

FINAL

STAGE

YES 29%

INPUTS

YES 8%

RAW

MATERIALS

YES 1%

FINAL

STAGE

YES 70%

INPUTS

YES 18%

RAW

MATERIALS

YES 8%

FINAL

STAGE

YES 37%

INPUTS

YES 15%

RAW

MATERIALS

YES 5%

Key:

YES PARTIAL NO

TRANSPARENCY AND TRACEABILITY

INDUSTRY OVERVIEW

Does the company ensure that there is either

no subcontracting or that all subcontracted

production adheres to code standards at the ﬁnal

stage of production?

It is common for direct suppliers to subcontract

orders out to other facilities. Where these

subcontractors are unauthorised or unmonitored,

the possibility that workers will be exploited

increases substantially. This remains one of the

greatest areas of risk in the global fashion industry

supply chain. In acknowledgement of this, 63% of

companies assessed have taken some steps at the

ﬁnal production stage, to ensure that either, there

is no subcontracting, or that all subcontracted

production adheres to the standards laid out in

their Code of Conduct.

Does the company ensure that there is either

no subcontracting or that all subcontracted

production adheres to code standards at the ﬁnal

stage of production?

FINAL

STAGE

YES 63%

INPUTS

YES 27%

RAW

MATERIALS

YES 26%

Key:

YES PARTIAL NO

Patagonia – Down Sourcing

While cotton is one of the most used ﬁbres in

garment production, there are a number of other

raw materials that companies need to be tracing

in order to ensure they are upholding ethical

standards from raw material ﬁbre to factory.

Down has become a prominently used material,

particularly in the outdoor apparel sector. There

are many challenges in ensuring ethically sourced

down.

Patagonia have been pioneers in the tracing of

down products used in their garments. Starting in

2007, when an environmental impact assessment

of its raw materials identiﬁed the inhumane

treatment of birds throughout the global poultry

industry.

Birds in the down supply chain can be forced

fed (for foie gras), live plucked, and variously

mistreated throughout their lives — up to, and

including, processing at the slaughterhouse.

Patagonia believes it is not acceptable for animals

to suer in the name of performance, luxury,

or fashion, which led them to help develop

the Traceable Down Standard, as well as the

Responsible Wool Standard (RWS), alongside

other likeminded brands, animal welfare NGOs,

and certiﬁcation bodies.

Patagonia became the ﬁrst brand certiﬁed to

these two animal welfare standards, which seek to

set the highest bar for animal welfare within the

ﬁber supply chain.

“Down is a by-product of the food industry,

and the down we buy comes exclusively from

slaughterhouses. After it is collected from geese

that have been killed for their meat, we follow it

through washing, sorting, and processing facilities

to ensure proper traceability and segregation from

untraceable down. We continue our audits all the

way to the garment factory, where we make sure

our certiﬁed traceable down is stored separately

from that of other brands, so we can ensure it is

TRANSPARENCY AND TRACEABILITY

BEST PRACTICE HIGHLIGHTS

certiﬁed down which is used in our clothing. Audits

then continue to our distribution centre, where the

down garments arrive, are checked in, and stored

and packaged to send out to our customers,

following the Traceable Down Standard brand

requirements. It’s a lot of work. But this is how we

help ensure the birds whose down we use in our

products have been treated humanely.”

Patagonia

TRANSPARENCY AND TRACEABILITY

BEST PRACTICE HIGHLIGHTS

Outland Denim – Transparency efforts

Transparency is an essential part of Outland

Denim’s brand identity on a moral, customer,

and industry level. Its foundations are built on a

desire to eradicate human tracking by oering

opportunity to those in vulnerable communities,

in the form of training, stable employment, living

wage, and education.

Transparency ensures that the practises of Outland

Denim are continuously, internally scrutinised and

held to the highest standard. It ensures that its

ethos of #ZeroExploitation remains a constant,

and that the success of Outland Denim and its

sta does not come at the detriment of other

people or the planet.

For customers of Outland Denim, transparency

provides a connection to the maker that isn’t

traditionally visible (much less, felt) in fashion.

An increase in education surrounding the lifestyle

and working conditions of garment workers

has made consumers cautious of brands. Until

it goes without saying that a garment was

manufactured with respect to the maker and the

environment, transparency is key in building this

trust with customers who want to purchase from

brands that mirror not only their style but their

values, too.

Finally, at an industry level, transparency is a

way for Outland Denim to demonstrate the

eectiveness and power of its business model

to other businesses who are on the journey to a

more responsible supply chain or social enterprise

model. It gives Outland Denim an avenue to

collaborate on solutions that will change the way

garments are manufactured in the fashion industry.

“Culture, location and values are factors that

contribute to the type of response we receive from

suppliers on the topic of transparency. It can be a

new, daunting concept to some suppliers when we

ask to put information about their company online.

To encourage their support in our endeavours,

we explain the value Outland Denim places on

transparency, and we invite the supplier to set the

bar high with us. We believe transparency is crucial

to produce genuinely ethical fashion, so we seek to

align with suppliers that hold these same values —

desiring to transform the industry from the inside

out.”

Leisl Lancaster, Social and Environmental

Impact Manager, Outland Denim

Outland Denim seamstresses.

This section focusses on how a company manages its

relationship with suppliers to ensure working conditions

meet the standards set out in its policies. It evaluates

audit processes, as well as training and other industry

collaboration efforts that continue to support factories to

better understand and provide decent working conditions.

Auditing and Supplier

Relationships

AUDITING AND SUPPLIER RELATIONSHIPS

INDUSTRY OVERVIEW

Once a company has traced the location of

suppliers, audits are a useful tool to better

understand the working conditions in their

facilities, and to identify instances of worker

exploitation. There is great diversity in the quality

of audits and their capacity to eectively capture

a true representation of working conditions.

Brands can opt for third party or internal audits,

and many use a combination of the two. Neither

is necessarily better or worse than the other.

Audits work best at improving working conditions

when coupled with eective corrective action

plans, strong supplier relationships, training

programs on worker rights, and, perhaps most

importantly, instruments to hear worker voice,

like union engagement and eective grievance

mechanisms. While it is good to see that over half

of the companies surveyed know all of their ﬁnal

stage producers, only 2% know all of their raw

material suppliers.

Unannounced audits gain a more accurate picture

of everyday operations in factories because factory

managers, and others in positions of inﬂuence,

have less warning time to hide abuses. Workers are

also more likely to feel freer to express concerns

about their workplace when they are interviewed

osite, and away from factory management, or

surveyed anonymously. These three measures

signiﬁcantly aect the quality of audits conducted.

Only 11% of companies reported auditing all of their

cut-make-trim facilities with either unannounced

visits, osite worker interviews,

or anonymous worker surveys each year.

Corrective action plans (CAPs) are the main

tool used for driving compliance against audit

standards. Too often however, CAPs are raised

on the same series of issues, in repeated audits.

Full and timely resolution of these CAPs remains

elusive, particularly for issues pertaining to wages

and overtime.

The ﬁndings of this report conﬁrm this practice,

with only 6% of companies able to demonstrate

that when CAPs are raised regarding wage and

overtime issues in their ﬁnal stage facilities, they

are resolved within 12 months.

What percentage of facilities are audited over a

2-year period by trained social auditors (internal

and/or third party)?

What percentage of companies audit all of their

ﬁnal stage facilites with unannounced audits,

anonymous worker surveys or off-site worker

interviews per year?

Are corrective action plans pertaining to wages

and/or overtime resolved within 12 months?

Key:

YES PARTIAL NO

FINAL

STAGE

YES 57%

INPUTS

YES 17%

RAW

MATERIALS

YES 2%

FINAL

STAGE

YES 6%

FINAL

STAGE

YES 11%

INPUTS

YES 3%

INPUTS

YES 6%

RAW

MATERIALS

YES 0%

RAW

MATERIALS

YES 0%

AUDITING AND SUPPLIER RELATIONSHIPS

INDUSTRY OVERVIEW

Education and awareness are essential for bringing

change to the industry. Buyers, suppliers and

factory managers each play key roles in the supply

chain and have the opportunity to both identify

risks in supply chains and set terms to prevent

them. Companies that provide human rights and

risk training to their buyers, suppliers and factory

managers increase their awareness of these issues,

and their ability to prevent and address them

where they may exist.

We are pleased to see 48% of surveyed companies

invested in this training, with a further 25% gaining

partial credit for some form of similar training

program.

For brands to drive changes in working conditions

in factories, it is critical that they build leverage

and deepen supplier relationships. Relationships

build trust and provide a secure environment for

companies and suppliers to invest in improving

working conditions. Increasing leverage by

consolidating a company’s supplier base, or by

collaborating with others in the industry, improves

the capacity for a company to advance positive

change in the facilities it sources from. In contrast,

pursuing short term contracts based only on price

and product speciﬁcations can incentivise poor

working conditions. 45% of companies are fully

invested in improving leverage and relationship

with suppliers.

Preferred supplier programs reward suppliers

with additional orders, and longer relationships

for performing against key performance criteria,

including social criteria. These programs represent

an eective tool for companies to drive ongoing

labour rights improvements amongst its suppliers

and to identify and strategically invest in those

suppliers that are most able to uphold worker

rights.

It is also a positive tool for suppliers, as it rewards

their eorts to invest in workers, creating greater

stability for them, and better conditions for their

workers.

We’re pleased to see that 38% of surveyed

companies had a preferred supplier program that

oered incentive to suppliers to have a strong

labour rights record.

Does the company invest in training buyers

and suppliers/factory managers, in order to

increase awareness of human rights and health

and safety risks?

Does the company actively improve leverage

and relationships with suppliers, through supplier

consolidation and/or industry collaboration?

Does that company have a preferred supplier

program by which suppliers are incentivised by

strong labour rights records?

Key:

YES PARTIAL NO

FINAL

STAGE

YES 48%

INPUTS

YES 24%

RAW

MATERIALS

YES 8%

FINAL

STAGE

YES 38%

FINAL

STAGE

YES 45%

INPUTS

YES 20%

INPUTS

YES 29%

RAW

MATERIALS

YES 25%

RAW

MATERIALS

YES 25%

KOOKAI – Supplier Relationships

KOOKAÏ is a family owned women’s fashion label.

The Australian and New Zealand retail boutiques

and online stores oer styles which are designed

in-house at its Melbourne studio.

Dissatisﬁed by the working conditions of some of

the factories it had visited internationally, KOOKAÏ

decided to open its own manufacturing facilities.

13 years ago, a factory was established in Fiji

(being the homeland of one of the founders). This

gave KOOKAÏ visibility over its supply chain and

enabled the founders of the business to contribute

to the education, training, and employment of

Fijian people.

Three years ago, KOOKAÏ opened another factory

in Sri Lanka. KOOKAÏ now employs almost 1,000

Fijian residents and 600 Sri Lankan residents.

Owning and operating its own factories, where

the vast majority of its Australian and New

Zealand garments are made, allows KOOKAÏ to

ensure production is carried out in an ethical and

sustainable way. KOOKAÏ has full transparency of

the working environment of those who produce its

garments, with regular visits and communication

between Melbourne Head Oce and the factories.

KOOKAÏ is committed to the prosperity and

wellbeing of its employees and oers its factory

employees a range of beneﬁts. These include

ongoing training and mentoring programs,

education on social issues, free health checks, a

full-time counsellor on site available to employees,

a safe workplace with security on site, transport

for employees, and food or meals at subsidized

prices.

Its Fiji factory was awarded the Employer of

Choice Award at the Women in Business Awards

in 2018.

Bangladesh Accord – Industry Collaboration

Following the Rana Plaza building collapse in April

2013, a number of clothing companies, unions, and

aliates began their work towards a safer ready-

made garment industry by signing the ﬁve-year,

legally-binding Accord on Fire and Building Safety

in Bangladesh (The Accord).

In the ﬁve years following its implementation,

signiﬁcant improvements were made in the

areas of ﬁre and building safety, with over 85%

of identiﬁed hazards being resolved as part of

The Accord’s remediation process. Furthermore,

workplace programs to educate and empower

Bangladeshi factory workers, such as a complaints

mechanism, have also been implemented as part

of The Accord. This impacts on large numbers

of Bangladeshi factory workers, with more than

two million people, in over 1,600 factories, being

covered by The Accord.

Last year, the process of handing over

responsibility for The Accord’s continued

implementation, to a national regulatory body,

began. As such, the 2018 Transition Accord

was put into eect on 1 June 2018. Signed by

global unions and over 200 companies, the

2018 Transition Accord serves to continue this

AUDITING AND SUPPLIER RELATIONSHIPS

BEST PRACTICE HIGHLIGHTS

important work, as well as facilitate its handover

to the Government of Bangladesh Remediation

and Coordination Cell. Its primary objective is to

ensure that workplace safety remains a priority

forBangladeshi factory workers.

Without eective collaboration between all

signatories, it would not have been possible

to achieve this level of impact. The ongoing

leadership of brands in this process is crucial

toensuring that factories remain in a position

todeliver worker rights and safety.

Signatories to The Accord in the 2019 Ethical

Fashion Report:

• Adidas

• Aldi

• APG & Co

• Arcadia Group

• Big W

• Cotton On Group

• Desigworks

• Forever New

• Fruit of the Loom

• H&M

• Hugo Boss

• Inditex

• Kmart Australia

• Marks & Spencer

• Next

• Puma

• PVH Corp

• Sussan Group

• Target Australia’

• UNIQLO

This section focuses on how workers are empowered to make

their collective voice heard in the supply chain through trade unions,

collective bargaining agreements, and grievance mechanisms.

Worker Empowerment

WORKER EMPOWERMENT

INDUSTRY OVERVIEW

Freedom of association and the right to collective

bargaining are together one of the ILO’s Four

Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work.

Eective recognition of these rights empowers

workers to negotiate decent working conditions

and fairer wages. Disappointingly, too few facilities

in the apparel industry actually have an eective,

democratically elected trade union. This is a

practical limit on the expression of the right to

join or not join a worker representative body.

Just 1 in 5 companies could demonstrate the

presence of trade unions and/or collective

bargaining agreements in the majority of ﬁnal

stage facilites. This still stands in sharp contrast

to the 87% of companies whose policies uphold

the right to freedom of association and collective

bargaining. It appears that while auditors routinely

ask workers if they feel they are free to express

this right, companies are less robust in checking

for the presence of avenues for workers to do so

inpractice.

Grievance mechanisms enable workers to voice

concerns about violations to their rights and safety

and to remedy them within the factory. Many

companies rightly ask factories to establish internal

grievance mechanisms for workers to resolve

complaints directly with their employers.

It is important that workers are additionally

provided with an avenue to express their concerns

to a third party, particularly since the factory may

be responsible for the abuse and may have already

refused to rectify it. An alternative avenue for

raising grievances is also necessary because audits

only capture a snapshot of what is occurring in

factories. Of the companies assessed, 71% reported

providing workers in a portion of their supply

chain with access to some form of grievance

mechanism.

Documented cases of child and forced labour have

been associated with every stage of the global

fashion industry supply chain. It is important that

brands have a remediation plan in place so that

they are in a good position to respond to the risk

of these worst forms of abuse occurring in their

supply chain. If child labour is found, companies

should, ideally, be prepared to ﬁnd a way to

remove them from the situation, provide for the

child’s education, and replace the lost income

to the family. If forced labour is found, brands

should facilitate the individual’s reintegration into

the labour market and transition to decent work

with compensation for any unpaid wages. Of the

companies assessed, 35% reported having systems

or policies in place to rehabilitate child or forced

labourers if they were discovered in their ﬁnal

stage facilities, with a further 28% reporting some

less formal commitments to action in this area.

Are democratically elected unions in at least 50%

of ﬁnal stage facilities? (partial = some)

Does the company have a functioning

grievance mechanism which workers can access

anonymously and in their native language?

Does the company have any systems or policies

in place to rehabilitate child or forced labourers

if discovered?

Key:

YES PARTIAL NO

FINAL

STAGE

YES 20%

FINAL

STAGE

YES 33%

FINAL

STAGE

YES 35%

INPUTS

YES 25%

RAW

MATERIALS

YES 5%

Kathmandu – Grievance Mechanism

Previously, Kathmandu’s grievance mechanism

relied on its factory workers — the majority of

whom do not understand English or use email —

to contact the company using an email address,

which was written in English.

Similarly, the only time workers were interviewed

about grievances was during an audit when they

were taken aside to speak privately with the

auditor, but this often occurred in full view of their

management. Unsurprisingly, Kathmandu received

zero contact to its grievance email address

and workers rarely communicated they were

unhappy, unsafe, or concerned about their working

conditions when interviewed.

Kathmandu has since recognised that workers

needed to be able to communicate with them in

their own language and by means which were

more accessible. The majority of Kathmandu’s

workers are based in China and use social media

platform — WeChat — to share their experiences,

make purchases, and communicate with others.

So, Kathmandu cleverly added a WeChat QR code

to every Code of Conduct posted in every facility

making its product. This simple solution means that

workers can now use their mobile phones to scan a

code and communicate directly and conﬁdentially

with the company in their own language, using a

tool they are familiar with.

Furthermore, in collaboration with its social auditing

partner, ELEVATE, Kathmandu also began using

Laborlink, a mobile platform that establishes a two-

way communication channel for workers to share

their views in real-time. As part of every full audit,

Kathmandu now includes an anonymous worker

survey, which can be completed after hours on their

own mobile phones, through the Laborlink portal.

This provides the company with clearer visibility of

worker well-being throughout its supply chain.

“Both of these tools have led to an increase in

communication from workers and the discovery of

several grievances. In one example, we were alerted

to the fact that one supplier was subcontracting

the production of our apparel to an unauthorised

factory. This information helped us to align ﬁve

other global brands using the same supplier and,

together, we had much greater inﬂuence. By

cooperating, we were able to facilitate immediate

action and transparency on behalf of the supplier.

This ultimately led to an investment in the

management systems, an improvement in working

conditions, and a change in understanding and

attitude that was in keeping with our own values

and best practice.”

Kathmandu

ACT – Living Wage Initiative

ACT (Action, Collaboration, Transformation) is an

agreement between international brands, retailers,

manufacturers, and trade unions, to address the

issue of living wage in the textile and garment

supply chain.

By establishing collective bargaining, at industry

level, in key sourcing countries, supported

by world-class manufacturing standards and

responsible purchasing practices, ACT aims

to empower workers to negotiate tailor-made

solutions. which allow both ﬂexibility and security.

“It’s a groundbreaking collaboration and the only

way forward to create lasting systematic change.”

H&M

“Inditex became a founding member of ACT

because we have always believed that we

must work collaboratively to bring sustainable

improvements to working conditions and living

wages in the garment supply chain.”

Inditex

“We’re always looking to better understand the

reasons behind poor labour practices and to

ultimately create long-term improvements in

workers’ lives. That’s why we partner with a range

of expert organisations, industry groups, and other

brands on projects, like ACT, that are designed to

help us do just that.”

ASOS

“As a proud member of ACT, the Cotton On Group

is committed to working collaboratively with fellow

signatories towards the establishment of industry

wide collective bargaining to create positive

change to the way wages and working conditions

are set. This will directly support the Group’s own

journey toward paying fair wages.”

Cotton On Group

Of the 21 brands that are members of ACT, nine

are represented in the 2019 Ethical Fashion Report.

See a full list of ACT members featured in this

report on page 20.

WORKER EMPOWERMENT

BEST PRACTICE HIGHLIGHTS

This section assesses a company’s environmental management

system, focusing on how well the company understands the impact

supply chain practices have on the environment and how they manage

its footprint to keep waterways, the earth, and the atmosphere healthy.

Environmental Management

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

INDUSTRY OVERVIEW

We recognise that ﬁbres have dierent impacts

depending on their type, source and how they are

processed. Our ﬁrst question regarding materials

seeks to grow understanding of the top 3 ﬁbres

used by volume in a company’s supply chain,

and then encourage implementation of that

understanding into the product design stage.

Environmental impacts can thereby be prevented,

rather than treated after-the-fact

The percentage of companies that have assessed

the impact of their top 3 ﬁbres and used these

assessments to inform changes in their design and

production increased by 7% in 2019.

Companies can and should also actively

seek to use the ﬁbres that are available from

more sustainable sources than those that are

conventionally sourced, including ﬁbres cultivated

from less water- or chemical-intensive raw

materials and recycled ﬁbres.

A clear starting point in managing the risks

of harmful environmental impacts of a supply

chain is for companies to understand the risks

at play in their own supply chain. Company

decision-makers will be best situated to develop

a strategic approach to managing environmental

matters when they understand their company’s

environmental impacts and risks throughout the

supply chain.

Wet-processing facilities include those that

undertake viscose-manufacturing, weaving,

dyeing, printing and ﬁnishing processes. These

facilities are more likely to have euent that is

environmentally hazardous if not treated prior

to release into the environment.

Wastewater management can be achieved

through wastewater treatment systems, inputs

management, wastewater quality testing,

standards development and implementation,

and a combination of the above.

The number of companies using wastewater

improvement strategies has grown this year.

For companies which are collecting wastewater

quality data on their facilities, only 15% have no

improvement strategies implemented in any

facility — a decrease of 5% from 2018.

Is 100% of the Companies ﬁnal product made

from sustainable ﬁbres? (partial = some)

Has the Company undertaken an assessment of

it’s environmental impacts and risks throughout

the supply chain?

Has the company collected and benchmarked

water use data for all water intensive facilities?

FINAL

STAGE

YES 5%

YES 38%

Key:

YES PARTIAL NO

FINAL

STAGE

YES 12%

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

INDUSTRY OVERVIEW

We also recognised in our assessment this

year that textile waste is a major and growing

problem. We therefore asked a ﬁnal question in

our assessment to this end; namely, “Does the

company make available to customers a take-back

and/or repair program?”.

Take back programs have the potential to lead

to textile recycling into new textiles, insulation

and other products. Repair programs allow for

longevity of garment use. 27% of companies had

developed a take-back or repair program, with a

further 11% taking steps to develop such programs.

Does the brand make available to customers

a take-back and/ or repair program?

FINAL

STAGE

YES 27%

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

BEST PRACTICE HIGHLIGHTS

Gorman – Sustainable ﬁbres

Gorman’s use of sustainable ﬁbres came about as

a result of its research on the impact of cotton on

the environment. In response to its ﬁndings, the

company made a conscious decision to introduce

organic cotton to lessen the environmental and

social impact of their cotton range. This happened

in 2008, when awareness about the environmental

impact of cotton was not as widespread as

it is today.

Initially, Gorman received a lot of positive attention

about its organic range, but discovered that

converting this consumer interest into action was

a much slower process. More than a decade later,

Gorman reports that the wider community is more

educated about environmental risks than it used to

be. Today, there is a growing market of conscious

consumers who are looking for more sustainable

wardrobe options.

Gorman also seeks to use other environmentally

sustainable fabrics in its range, which, in 2017/2018,

included recycled wool and recycled PET.

Jeanswest – Managing water

use in the supply chain

Tracking and improving water use in the

supply chain has been an increasing priority for

Jeanswest in recent years. This is because the

company recognises that it’s crucial to have initial

benchmarks in place, to be able to assess risk

and make progress going forward.

While benchmarking water use is already a

process in place for the majority of Jeanswest

suppliers, the company’s biggest challenge will

be to ensure continuous improvement in this

area. This will necessitate working closely with its

factory partners in the years ahead.

“We’re prepared for this to be a lengthy process,

working closely with our suppliers. Water is one of

the most valuable resources we have on this planet

and, as an industry, we need to look at how to best

reduce our impact.

Since implementing this strategy, we have

benchmarks and a starting point to work from.

Which, in itself, is a success.”

Jeanswest

Huffer – Take-back program

Huer collect and distribute pre-owned down or

puer jackets to those who need them. Down and

Puer Jackets can be donated at any Huer store,

in exchange for a $50 voucher towards a new

Huer Down Jacket. All collected jackets are then

donated to local charites.

This initiative was conceived by a Huer team

member who wanted to encourage a more

ethical alternative for people who were buying

Huer Jackets when they already owned one.

The initiative aims to collect jackets that might

otherwise lie around at home, or end up in landﬁll,

and donate them to charities who will then

distribute them to those in need.

“It’s our responsibility to care for this world. We

aspire to leave it a better place than when we

arrived. Our social responsibility lives within our

people. It’s our social responsibility to all — we

have each other’s back — from retail sta through

to the talented makers that craft all aspects of

our down products, both near and far. At Huer,

we take this seriously so commit to the highest of

manufacturing standards oering, down garments

we know customers will not only love, but also

have the conﬁdence to wear knowing they have

been made in accordance with the internationally

recognised Responsible Down Standard.”

Huer.

HanesBrands – Energy management

and environmental stewardship

In 2007, HanesBrands launched a comprehensive

energy management policy lead by the company’s

CEO. The aim of the policy was to advance two

key goals:

1) formalising the company’s commitment to

mitigating its environmental footprint, and

2) generating cost savings through energy

eciency.

Because HanesBrands believes that environmental

stewardship is good business.

Since its launch, employee adoption has seen it

ﬂourish — reducing greenhouse gas emissions by

28 percent, water use by 30 percent, and saving

more than $10 million annually through enhanced

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

BEST PRACTICE HIGHLIGHTS

energy eciency. The company reinforces the

value of environmental stewardship by using some

of these cost savings to fund community

improvement projects, undertaken by employee

volunteers. Employees have refurbished schools

and hospitals, created after-school programs,

conducted tree plantings and beach clean-ups,

initiated community water and energy projects,

Garment factory in HCM City, Vietnam.

and received medical and surgery support as part

of HanesBrands’ Green for Good program.

The company has 2020 goals to reduce carbon

emissions by 40 percent, reduce water use by

50percent, achieve zero landﬁll, and source clean

energy for 40 percent of its worldwide needs. In

recognition of its achievements, Hanesbrands

earned an A– rating and scored in the top

6percent of nearly 7,000 companies that

participated in the Carbon Disclosure Project

(CDP) 2018 Climate Change Report.

Good environmental stewardship will remain a key

focus for HanesBrands going forward.

Brand Index

This section lists grades for the 480 brands associated

with the 130 companies assessed in this report. While

some companies assessed are a single-brand company,

others hold multiple brands.

BRAND INDEX

GRADES BY COMPANY

Parent Company Brand Grade

Abercrombie & Fitch* Abercrombie & Fitch*

D–

Abercrombie & Fitch* Hollister Co.*

D–

Abercrombie & Fitch* Gilly Hicks*

D–

Abercrombie & Fitch* Abercrombie Kids*

D–

adidas adidas

adidas Reebok

ALDI Stores Aldi

B–

ALDI Stores Barely Basics

B–

ALDI Stores Barely Essentials

B–

ALDI Stores Crane Performance

B–

ALDI Stores Crane Snow Extreme

B–

ALDI Stores Crane

B–

ALDI Stores INOC

B–

ALDI Stores Serra

B–

ALDI Stores Lily and Dan

B–

ALDI Stores Torque

B–

ALDI Stores Workzone

B–

ALDI Stores West Bay

B–

ALDI Stores Higgledee Baby

B–

ALDI Stores Higgledee

B–

Ally Fashion* Ally Fashion*

Anthea Crawford* Anthea Crawford*

APG & CO SABA

A–

APG & CO Sportscraft

A–

APG & CO Jag

A–

Arcadia Group Burton Menswear

C+

Arcadia Group Dorothy Perkins

C+

Arcadia Group Evans

C+

Arcadia Group Miss Selfridge

C+

Parent Company Brand Grade

Arcadia Group Topshop

C+

Arcadia Group Topman

C+

Arcadia Group Wallis

C+

Arcadia Group Outﬁt

C+

Arcadia Group Outﬁt Kids

C+

AS COLOUR AS Colour

A–

ASICS ASICS

ASICS Ontisuka Tiger

ASICS ASICS Tiger

ASICS HAGLOFS

ASOS ASOS DESIGN

ASOS ASOS EDITION

ASOS ASOS WHITE

ASOS ASOS MADE IN KENYA

ASOS ASOS 4505

ASOS ASOS collabs

ASOS Supply

ASOS Made In.

ASOS Venture Brands

ASOS Reclaimed Vintage

ASOS Crooked Tongues

ASOS Noak

ASOS Heart and Dagger

ASOS Collusion

Baby City* Baby City*

Bardot Pty Ltd Bardot

D+

Bardot Pty Ltd Bardot Junior

D+

Barkers Clothing* Barkers*

C+

Bec and Bridge* Bec and Bridge*

Parent Company Brand Grade

Ben Sherman Australia Ben Sherman

D+

Best & Less Edited

Best & Less Best & Less

Best & Less Edited Plus

Best & Less Mango

Best & Less Tilt

Best & Less Mantaray

Best & Less Breakers

Best & Less Bad Boy

Best & Less Baby Baby

Best & Less Baby Berry

Betts Group Betts

Betts Group Airﬂex

Betts Group Zu

Big W Big W

B–

Big W Denim1964

B–

Big W B–Collection

B–

Big W Wave Zone

B–

Big W Joe & Co.

B–

Big W Brilliant Basic

B–

Big W B Athletic

B–

Big W Black Smith

B–

Big W Circuit

B–

Big W Circuit Curve

B–

Big W Dymples

B–

Big W Layla & Co

B–

Big W Avella

B–

Big W Emerson

B–

Big W MB by Michelle Bridges

B–

A–B

* = non-responsive companies

Parent Company Brand Grade

Bloch* Bloch*

Blue Illusion Blue Illusion

C+

Boardriders Quicksilver

C–

Boardriders Billabong

C–

Boardriders Roxy

C–

Boardriders DC Shoes

C–

Boardriders RVCA

C–

Boardriders Element

C–

Boardriders Von Zipper

C–

Boardriders Xcel

C–

Boden Boden

C+

Boohoo Boohoo

C–

Boohoo boohooMAN

C–

Boohoo PrettyLittleThing

C–

Boohoo Nasty Gal

C–

Brand Collective (Apparel) Elka Collective

Brand Collective (Apparel) Elwood

Brand Collective (Apparel) Mossimo

Brand Collective (Footwear) Hush Puppies

C+

Brand Collective (Footwear) Julius Marlow

C+

Brand Collective (Footwear) Grosby

C+

Brand Collective (Footwear) Clarks

C+

Brand Collective (Footwear) Volley

C+

Camilla and Marc* Camilla and Marc*

Camilla and Marc* C&M*

Canterburyof NZ Canterburyof NZ

C+

City Chic Collective City Chic

B+

Coles* Mix*

D+

Coles* Coles*

D+

Parent Company Brand Grade

Cotton On Group Cotton On

A–

Cotton On Group Cotton On Kids

A–

Cotton On Group Body

A–

Cotton On Group Rubi

A–

Cotton On Group Factorie

A–

Cotton On Group Typo

A–

Cotton On Group Supre

A–

Country Road Group Country Road

A–

Country Road Group MIMCO

A–

Country Road Group Trenery

A–

Country Road Group Witchery

A–

Country Road Group Politix

A–

Cue Clothing Co* Cue*

C–

Cue Clothing Co* Dion Lee*

C–

David Jones Milana

David Jones Alta Linea

David Jones Agenda

David Jones David Jones

David Jones David Jones Classic Collection

David Jones Organic Baby by David Jones

David Jones David Jones Junior

Decjuba* Decjuba*

D–

Designworks Republic

C+

Designworks Suburban

C+

Designworks Review Kids

C+

Designworks Mooks

C+

Designworks Sista

C+

Designworks B.O.D.

C+

Etiko Etiko

A+

Parent Company Brand Grade

Ezibuy Ezibuy

D+

Ezibuy Capture

D+

Ezibuy Emerge

D+

Ezibuy Gracehill

D+

Ezibuy Capture European

D+

Ezibuy Heine

D+

Ezibuy Sara

D+

Ezibuy Euro Edit

D+

Ezibuy Together

D+

Ezibuy Mia Lucce

D+

Ezibuy South Cape

D+

Ezibuy Urban

D+

Factory X Pulp Fashion

B–

Factory X Autonomy

B–

Factory X Alannah Hill

B–

Factory X Dangerﬁeld

B–

Factory X Jack London

B–

Factory X Claude Maus

B–

Factory X L’URV

B–

Factory X Princess Highway

B–

Factory X Revival

B–

Farmers* Farmers*

Fast Future Brands Valleygirl

Fast Future Brands TEMPT

Fast Future Brands Mirrou

Forever 21* Forever 21*

D–

Forever New Forever New

Freeset T-Shirts Freeset T-Shirts

A+

Fruit of the Loom* Vanity Fair*

D+

* = non-responsive companies

BRAND INDEX

GRADES BY COMPANY

B–F

Parent Company Brand Grade

Hanesbrands Razza Matazz

Hanesbrands Red Robin

Hanesbrands Rio

Hanesbrands Sheridan

Hanesbrands Sheer Relief

Hanesbrands Voodoo

Hanesbrands Bali

Hanesbrands Barely There

Hanesbrands Wonderbra

Hanesbrands C9 by Champion

Hanesbrands Maidenform

Hanesbrands Gear for Sports

Hanesbrands DIM

Hanesbrands Knights Apparel

Hanesbrands GTM

Hanesbrands Leggs

Hot Springs* P.E. Nation*

Hot Springs* Lover*

Hot Springs* Cooper St*

Hot Springs* Rebecca Vallance*

Hot Springs* Jasmine & Will*

House of Quirky MinkPink

House of Quirky Staple

House of Quirky Twiin

Huer Huer

B–

Hugo Boss Group Boss

C+

Hugo Boss Group Hugo

C+

Hugo Boss Group Boss Orange

C+

Hugo Boss Group Boss Green

C+

Parent Company Brand Grade

Gildan Activewear Silks

A–

Gildan Activewear Therapy Plus

A–

Gildan Activewear Kushyfoot

A–

Gildan Activewear Peds

A–

Gorman Gorman

H&M H&M

B+

H&M Monki

B+

H&M COS

B+

H&M Weekday

B+

H&M Cheap Monday

B+

H&M Other Stories

B+

H&M Arket

B+

Hallenstein Glasson Holdings Hallenstein Brothers

B+

Hallenstein Glasson Holdings Glassons

B+

Hanesbrands JMS

Hanesbrands Alternative Apparel

Hanesbrands Berlei

Hanesbrands Bonds

Hanesbrands Bras N Things

Hanesbrands Champion

Hanesbrands Dunlopillo

Hanesbrands Fairydown

Hanesbrands Hanes

Hanesbrands Hestia

Hanesbrands Explorer

Hanesbrands Jockey (AU and NZ)

Hanesbrands Kayser

Hanesbrands Playtex

Hanesbrands Platinum

Parent Company Brand Grade

Fruit of the Loom* Fruit of the Loom*

D+

Fruit of the Loom* Spalding*

D+

Fruit of the Loom* Russel Athletic*

D+

Gap Inc. GAP

Gap Inc. Banana Republic

Gap Inc. Old Navy

Gap Inc. Athleta

Gap Inc. Intermix

Gazal* Gazal*

D–

General Pants Group General Pants Group

General Pants Group Arvust

General Pants Group Alice in the Eve

General Pants Group Ksubi

General Pants Group Insight

General Pants Group Subtitled

General Pants Group Don’t Ask Amanda

General Pants Group Neon Hart

General Pants Group BNWR

General Pants Group Standard

General Pants Group GP Tees

General Pants Group Candidate

General Pants Group GP Co Basics

Gildan Activewear Gildan

A–

Gildan Activewear American Apparel

A–

Gildan Activewear Anvil

A–

Gildan Activewear Comfort Colors

A–

Gildan Activewear Alstyle

A–

Gildan Activewear Gold Toe

A–

Gildan Activewear Secret

A–

BRAND INDEX

GRADES BY COMPANY

F–H

* = non-responsive companies

Parent Company Brand Grade

Lorna Jane Lorna Jane

C+

Lowes* Lowes*

Lowes* Beare & Ley*

lululemon athletica Lululemon Athletica

A–

Macpac Macpac

B–

Marks & Spencer Marks & Spencer

B+

Max* Max*

Merric Apparel NZ* Merric*

Mighty Good Group Mighty Good Undies

A+

Munro Footwear Group I love Billy

Munro Footwear Group Silent D by Django & Juliette

Munro Footwear Group Django & Juliette

Munro Footwear Group Top End

Munro Footwear Group Mollini

Munro Footwear Group Gamins

Munro Footwear Group Colorado

Munro Footwear Group Cinori

Munro Footwear Group Diana Ferrari

Munro Footwear Group Supersoft by Diana Ferrari

Munro Footwear Group Isabella Rossi

Munro Footwear Group Lynx

Munro Footwear Group Wanted

Munro Footwear Group Midas

Myer Myer

B–

Myer Basque

B–

Myer Piper

B–

Myer Blaq

B–

Myer Reserve

B–

Myer AHG

B–

Parent Company Brand Grade

Hunting & Fishing NZ Hunting & Fishing NZ

D+

Icebreaker Icebreaker

A+

Inditex Zara

Inditex Zara Home

Industrie Industrie

A–

Industrie Indie kids

A–

Industrie Roler

A–

Jeanswest Jeanswest

B+

JETS JETS Swimwear

Just Group Just Jeans

C+

Just Group Jay Jays

C+

Just Group Jacqui E

C+

Just Group Portmans

C+

Just Group Dotti

C+

Just Group Peter Alexander

C+

K&K K&K

C–

Karen Walker* Karen Walker*

Kate Sylvester* Kate Sylvester*

D+

Kathmandu Kathmandu

Kmart Australia Kmart

B+

Kookai Kookai

A–

Kowtow Kowtow

A+

L Brands PINK

L Brands Victoria’s Secret

Lacoste Lacoste

C–

Levi Strauss & Co* Levi’s Signature*

Levi Strauss & Co* Dockers*

Levi Strauss & Co* Denizen*

Liminal Apparel Liminal Apparel

A+

BRAND INDEX

GRADES BY COMPANY

H–N

Parent Company Brand Grade

Myer Vue

B–

Myer Heritage

B–

Myer Regatta

B–

Myer Tokito

B–

Myer Miss Shop

B–

Myer Sprout

B–

Myer Milkshake

B–

Myer Soho

B–

Myer Chloe & Lola

B–

Myer Trent Nathan

B–

Nature Baby Nature Baby

A–

New Balance New Balance

Next Next

B–

Next Lipsy

B–

Next Label/Mix

B–

Nike Nike

B–

Nike Converse

B–

Nike Hurley

B–

Nike Jordan Brand

B–

Nobody Denim Nobody Denim

A–

Noni B Group Rockmans

Noni B Group Beme

Noni B Group W.Lane

Noni B Group Table Eight

Noni B Group Amber Rose

Noni B Group Noni B

Noni B Group Liz Jordan

Noni B Group Millers

Noni B Group Katies

* = non-responsive companies

Parent Company Brand Grade

PVH Corp* Olga by Warners*

C+

PVH Corp* Georey Beene*

C+

PVH Corp* True & Co.*

C+

R.M. Williams R.M. Williams

B–

Ralph Lauren* Ralph Lauren*

C–

Ralph Lauren* RLX*

C–

Ralph Lauren* American Living*

C–

Ralph Lauren* Chaps*

C–

Ralph Lauren* Club Monaco*

C–

Retail Apparel Group Tarocash

C+

Retail Apparel Group yd.

C+

Retail Apparel Group Connor

C+

Retail Apparel Group Johnny Bigg

C+

Retail Apparel Group Rockwear

C+

Rip Curl Rip Curl

B+

Rodd & Gunn Rodd & Gunn

A–

RREPP Rrepp

RUBY Apparel Ruby

Seafolly Seafolly

Seed Heritage Seed Heritage

C–

Showpo* Showpo*

Simon de Winter Group Simon de Winter

D+

Simon de Winter Group Darn Tough

D+

Sussan Group Sussan

Sussan Group Suzanne Grae

Sussan Group Sportsgirl

Swanndri NZ Swanndri

C+

3 Wise Men Limited* 3 Wise Men*

T&T Fashions* T&T*

Parent Company Brand Grade

Noni B Group Autograph

Noni B Group Maggie T

Noni B Group Rivers

Noni B Group Crossroads

Nudie Jeans Co. Nudie Jeans Co..

B+

Oroton Group Oroton

C+

Outland Denim Outland Denim

A+

Oxford Oxford

Pagani Pagani

C–

Patagonia Patagonia

Pavement United Brands* Pavement*

Pavement United Brands* Lemonade*

Pavement United Brands* Non Sense*

Pavement United Brands* Petals*

Pavement United Brands* Pom Pom*

Pavement United Brands* Co Co Beach*

Pavement United Brands* Zom–B*

Pavement United Brands* Scram*

Pavement United Brands* Wax*

Postie+ Postie

Puma Puma

Puma Cobra Golf

PVH Corp* Calvin Klein*

C+

PVH Corp* Tommy Hilﬁger*

C+

PVH Corp* Van Heusen*

C+

PVH Corp* IZOD*

C+

PVH Corp* ARROW*

C+

PVH Corp* Speedo*

C+

PVH Corp* Warner’s*

C+

Parent Company Brand Grade

Target Australia Target

The Baby Factory* The Baby Factory*

The Iconic* Atmos&Here *

C+

The Iconic* The Iconic*

C+

The Iconic* Spurr*

C+

The Iconic* Staple Superior*

C+

The Iconic* Double Oak Mills*

C+

The Iconic* H-Wood*

C+

The Iconic* Dazie*

C+

The PAS Group Limited Yarra Trail

C–

The PAS Group Limited Review

C–

The PAS Group Limited Marco Polo

C–

The PAS Group Limited Black Pepper

C–

The PAS Group Limited Extra Pepper

C–

The PAS Group Limited Breakaway

C–

The PAS Group Limited Equus

C–

The Warehouse Group Active Intent

B–

The Warehouse Group Amco

B–

The Warehouse Group An’D

B–

The Warehouse Group Back Country

B–

The Warehouse Group Basics Brand

B–

The Warehouse Group Basics Maternity

B–

The Warehouse Group Beach Works

B–

The Warehouse Group Blue Denim Co

B–

The Warehouse Group Debut

B–

The Warehouse Group Garage

B–

The Warehouse Group H&H

B–

The Warehouse Group Intrepid

B–

The Warehouse Group Kate Madison

B–

BRAND INDEX

GRADES BY COMPANY

N–T

* = non-responsive companies

Parent Company Brand Grade

The Warehouse Group Match

B–

The Warehouse Group Maya

B–

The Warehouse Group Navigator South

B–

The Warehouse Group Pickaberry

B–

The Warehouse Group Rivet

B–

The Warehouse Group Schooltex

B–

The Warehouse Group Urban Equip

B–

The Warehouse Group The Warehouse

B–

Tigerlily* Tigerlily*

D–

Tree of Life Tree of Life

Tree of Life Peace Angel

Trelise Cooper* Cooper by Trelise*

Trelise Cooper* little trelise*

Trelise Cooper* Trelise Cooper*

UNIQLO UNIQLO

B+

VF Corp Jansport

VF Corp Bulwark

VF Corp Lee

VF Corp Rustler

VF Corp Majestic

VF Corp Nautica

VF Corp Wrangler

VF Corp Eagle Creek

VF Corp The North Face

VF Corp RIDERS by LEE

VF Corp Reef

VF Corp Kipling

VF Corp Red Kap

VF Corp Horace Small

Parent Company Brand Grade

VF Corp Napapiriji

VF Corp Eastpak

VF Corp VANS

VF Corp Timberland

VF Corp Rock & Republic

VF Corp Williamson Dickie

VF Corp Smartwool

VF Corp VF Outlet

Voyager Distributing Co* Jump*

Voyager Distributing Co* Kachel*

Voyager Distributing Co* Ping Pong*

Wish Designs Pty Ltd* Wish*

Workwear Group King Gee

Workwear Group Hard Yakka

WORLD* WORLD*

D–

Zimmermann Zimmermann

B–

BRAND INDEX

GRADES BY COMPANY

T–Z

* = non-responsive companies

BRAND INDEX

GRADES BY BRAND

A–B

Brand Parent Company Grade

Abercrombie & Fitch* Abercrombie & Fitch*

D–

Abercrombie Kids* Abercrombie & Fitch*

D–

Active Intent The Warehouse Group

B–

adidas adidas

Agenda David Jones

AHG Myer

B–

Airﬂex Betts Group

Alannah Hill Factory X

B–

Aldi ALDI Stores

B–

Alice in the Eve General Pants Group

Ally Fashion* Ally Fashion*

Alstyle Gildan Activewear

A–

Alta Linea David Jones

Alternative Apparel Hanesbrands

Amber Rose Noni B Group

Amco The Warehouse Group

B–

American Apparel Gildan Activewear

A–

American Living* Ralph Lauren*

C–

An’D The Warehouse Group

B–

Anthea Crawford* Anthea Crawford*

Anvil Gildan Activewear

A–

Arket H&M

B+

ARROW* PVH Corp*

C+

Arvust General Pants Group

AS Colour AS COLOUR

A–

ASICS ASICS

ASICS Tiger ASICS

ASOS 4505 ASOS

ASOS collabs ASOS

Brand Parent Company Grade

ASOS DESIGN ASOS

ASOS EDITION ASOS

ASOS MADE IN KENYA ASOS

ASOS WHITE ASOS

Athleta Gap Inc.

Atmos&Here * The Iconic*

C+

Autograph Noni B Group

Autonomy Factory X

B–

Avella Big W

B–

B Athletic Big W

B–

B.O.D. Designworks

C+

Baby Baby Best & Less

Baby Berry Best & Less

Baby City* Baby City*

Back Country The Warehouse Group

B–

Bad Boy Best & Less

Bali Hanesbrands

Banana Republic Gap Inc.

Bardot Bardot Pty Ltd

D+

Bardot Junior Bardot Pty Ltd

D+

Barely Basics ALDI Stores

B–

Barely Essentials ALDI Stores

B–

Barely There Hanesbrands

Barkers* Barkers Clothing*

C+

Basics Brand The Warehouse Group

B–

Basics Maternity The Warehouse Group

B–

Basque Myer

B–

B-Collection Big W

B–

Beach Works The Warehouse Group

B–

Brand Parent Company Grade

Beare & Ley* Lowes*

Bec and Bridge* Bec and Bridge*

Beme Noni B Group

Ben Sherman Ben Sherman Australia

D+

Berlei Hanesbrands

Best & Less Best & Less

Betts Betts Group

Big W Big W

B–

Billabong Boardriders

C–

Black Pepper The PAS Group Limited

C–

Black Smith Big W

B–

Blaq Myer

B–

Bloch* Bloch*

Blue Denim Co The Warehouse Group

B–

Blue Illusion Blue Illusion

C+

BNWR General Pants Group

Boden Boden

C+

Body Cotton On Group

A–

Bonds Hanesbrands

Boohoo Boohoo

C–

boohooMAN Boohoo

C–

Boss Hugo Boss Group

C+

Boss Green Hugo Boss Group

C+

Boss Orange Hugo Boss Group

C+

Bras N Things Hanesbrands

Breakaway The PAS Group Limited

C–

Breakers Best & Less

Brilliant Basic Big W

B–

Bulwark VF Corp

* = non-responsive companies

BRAND INDEX

GRADES BY BRAND

B–G

Brand Parent Company Grade

Burton Menswear Arcadia Group

C+

C&M* Camilla and Marc*

C9 by Champion Hanesbrands

Calvin Klein* PVH Corp*

C+

Candidate General Pants Group

Canterburyof NZ Canterburyof NZ

C+

Capture Ezibuy

D+

Capture European Ezibuy

D+

Camilla and Marc* Camilla and Marc*

Champion Hanesbrands

Chaps* Ralph Lauren*

C–

Cheap Monday H&M

B+

Chloe & Lola Myer

B–

Cinori Munro Footwear Group

Circuit Big W

B–

Circuit Curve Big W

B–

City Chic City Chic Collective

B+

Clarks Brand Collective (Footwear)

C+

Claude Maus Factory X

B–

Club Monaco* Ralph Lauren*

C–

Co Co Beach* Pavement United Brands*

Cobra Golf Puma

Coles* Coles*

D+

Collusion ASOS

Colorado Munro Footwear Group

Comfort Colors Gildan Activewear

A–

Connor Retail Apparel Group

C+

Converse Nike

B–

Cooper by Trelise* Trelise Cooper*

Brand Parent Company Grade

Cooper St* Hot Springs*

COS H&M

B+

Cotton On Cotton On Group

A–

Cotton On Kids Cotton On Group

A–

Country Road Country Road Group

A–

Crane ALDI Stores

B–

Crane Performance ALDI Stores

B–

Crane Snow Extreme ALDI Stores

B–

Crooked Tongues ASOS

Crossroads Noni B Group

Cue* Cue Clothing Co*

C–

Dangerﬁeld Factory X

B–

Darn Tough Simon de Winter Group

D+

David Jones David Jones

David Jones Classic Collection David Jones

David Jones Junior David Jones

Dazie* The Iconic*

C+

DC Shoes Boardriders

C–

Debut The Warehouse Group

B–

Decjuba* Decjuba*

D–

Denim1964 Big W

B–

Denizen* Levi Strauss & Co*

Diana Ferrari Munro Footwear Group

DIM Hanesbrands

Dion Lee* Cue Clothing Co*

C–

Django & Juliette Munro Footwear Group

Dockers* Levi Strauss & Co*

Don’t Ask Amanda General Pants Group

Dorothy Perkins Arcadia Group

C+

Brand Parent Company Grade

Dotti Just Group

C+

Double Oak Mills* The Iconic*

C+

Dunlopillo Hanesbrands

Dymples Big W

B–

Eagle Creek VF Corp

Eastpak VF Corp

Edited Best & Less

Edited Plus Best & Less

Element Boardriders

C–

Elka Collective Brand Collective (Apparel)

Elwood Brand Collective (Apparel)

Emerge Ezibuy

D+

Emerson Big W

B–

Equus The PAS Group Limited

C–

Etiko Etiko

A+

Euro Edit Ezibuy

D+

Evans Arcadia Group

C+

Explorer Hanesbrands

Extra Pepper The PAS Group Limited

C–

Ezibuy Ezibuy

D+

Factorie Cotton On Group

A–

Fairydown Hanesbrands

Farmers* Farmers*

Forever 21* Forever 21*

D–

Forever New Forever New

Freeset T-Shirts Freeset T-Shirts

A+

Fruit of the Loom* Fruit of the Loom*

D+

Gamins Munro Footwear Group

GAP Gap Inc.

* = non-responsive companies

Brand Parent Company Grade

Garage The Warehouse Group

B–

Gazal* Gazal*

D–

Gear for Sports Hanesbrands

General Pants Group General Pants Group

Georey Beene* PVH Corp*

C+

Gildan Gildan Activewear

A–

Gilly Hicks* Abercrombie & Fitch*

D–

Glassons Hallenstein Glasson Holdings

B+

Gold Toe Gildan Activewear

A–

Gorman Gorman

GP Co Basics General Pants Group

GP Tees General Pants Group

Gracehill Ezibuy

D+

Grosby Brand Collective (Footwear)

C+

GTM Hanesbrands

H&H The Warehouse Group

B–

H&M H&M

B+

HAGLOFS ASICS

Hallenstein Brothers Hallenstein Glasson Holdings

B+

Hanes Hanesbrands

Hard Yakka Workwear Group

Heart and Dagger ASOS

Heine Ezibuy

D+

Heritage Myer

B–

Hestia Hanesbrands

Higgledee ALDI Stores

B–

Higgledee Baby ALDI Stores

B–

Hollister Co.* Abercrombie & Fitch*

D–

Horace Small VF Corp

Brand Parent Company Grade

Huer Huer

B–

Hugo Hugo Boss Group

C+

Hunting & Fishing NZ Hunting & Fishing NZ

D+

Hurley Nike

B–

Hush Puppies Brand Collective (Footwear)

C+

H-Wood* The Iconic*

C+

I love Billy Munro Footwear Group

Icebreaker Icebreaker

A+

Indie kids Industrie

A–

Industrie Industrie

A–

INOC ALDI Stores

B–

Insight General Pants Group

Intermix Gap Inc.

Intrepid The Warehouse Group

B–

Isabella Rossi Munro Footwear Group

IZOD* PVH Corp*

C+

Jack London Factory X

B–

Jacqui E Just Group

C+

Jag APG & CO

A–

Jansport VF Corp

Jasmine & Will* Hot Springs*

Jay Jays Just Group

C+

Jeanswest Jeanswest

B+

JETS Swimwear JETS

JMS Hanesbrands

Jockey (AU and NZ) Hanesbrands

Joe & Co. Big W

B–

Johnny Bigg Retail Apparel Group

C+

Jordan Brand Nike

B–

Brand Parent Company Grade

Julius Marlow Brand Collective (Footwear)

C+

Jump* Voyager Distributing Co*

Just Jeans Just Group

C+

K&K K&K

C–

Kachel* Voyager Distributing Co*

Karen Walker* Karen Walker*

Kate Madison The Warehouse Group

B–

Kate Sylvester* Kate Sylvester*

D+

Kathmandu Kathmandu

Katies Noni B Group

Kayser Hanesbrands

King Gee Workwear Group

Kipling VF Corp

Kmart Kmart Australia

B+

Knights Apparel Hanesbrands

Kookai Kookai

A–

Kowtow Kowtow

A+

Ksubi General Pants Group

Kushyfoot Gildan Activewear

A–

Label/Mix Next

B–

Lacoste Lacoste

C–

Layla & Co Big W

B–

Lee VF Corp

Leggs Hanesbrands

Lemonade* Pavement United Brands*

Levi’s Signature* Levi Strauss & Co*

Lily and Dan ALDI Stores

B–

Liminal Apparel Liminal Apparel

A+

Lipsy Next

B–

BRAND INDEX

GRADES BY BRAND

G–L

* = non-responsive companies

Brand Parent Company Grade

little trelise* Trelise Cooper*

Liz Jordan Noni B Group

Lorna Jane Lorna Jane

C+

Lover* Hot Springs*

Lowes* Lowes*

Lululemon Athletica lululemon athletica

A–

L’URV Factory X

B–

Lynx Munro Footwear Group

Macpac Macpac

B–

Made In. ASOS

Maggie T Noni B Group

Maidenform Hanesbrands

Majestic VF Corp

Mango Best & Less

Mantaray Best & Less

Marco Polo The PAS Group Limited

C–

Marks & Spencer Marks & Spencer

B+

Match The Warehouse Group

B–

Max* Max*

Maya The Warehouse Group

B–

MB by Michelle Bridges Big W

B–

Merric* Merric Apparel NZ*

Mia Lucce Ezibuy

D+

Midas Munro Footwear Group

Mighty Good Undies Mighty Good Group

A+

Milana David Jones

Milkshake Myer

B–

Millers Noni B Group

MIMCO Country Road Group

A–

Brand Parent Company Grade

MinkPink House of Quirky

Mirrou Fast Future Brands

Miss Selfridge Arcadia Group

C+

Miss Shop Myer

B–

Mix* Coles*

D+

Mollini Munro Footwear Group

Monki H&M

B+

Mooks Designworks

C+

Mossimo Brand Collective (Apparel)

Myer Myer

B–

Napapiriji VF Corp

Nasty Gal Boohoo

C–

Nature Baby Nature Baby

A–

Nautica VF Corp

Navigator South The Warehouse Group

B–

Neon Hart General Pants Group

New Balance New Balance

Next Next

B–

Nike Nike

B–

Noak ASOS

Nobody Denim Nobody Denim

A–

Non Sense* Pavement United Brands*

Noni B Noni B Group

Nudie Jeans Co. Nudie Jeans co

B+

Old Navy Gap Inc.

Olga by Warners* PVH Corp*

C+

Ontisuka Tiger ASICS

Organic Baby by David Jones David Jones

Oroton Oroton Group

C+

Brand Parent Company Grade

Other Stories H&M

B+

Outﬁt Arcadia Group

C+

Outﬁt Kids Arcadia Group

C+

Outland Denim Outland Denim

A+

Oxford Oxford

P.E. Nation* Hot Springs*

Pagani Pagani

C–

Patagonia Patagonia

Pavement* Pavement United Brands*

Peace Angel Tree of Life

Peds Gildan Activewear

A–

Petals* Pavement United Brands*

Peter Alexander Just Group

C+

Pickaberry The Warehouse Group

B–

Ping Pong* Voyager Distributing Co*

PINK L Brands

Piper Myer

B–

Platinum Hanesbrands

Playtex Hanesbrands

Politix Country Road Group

A–

Pom Pom* Pavement United Brands*

Portmans Just Group

C+

Postie Postie+

PrettyLittleThing Boohoo

C–

Princess Highway Factory X

B–

Pulp Fashion Factory X

B–

Puma Puma

Quicksilver Boardriders

C–

R.M. Williams R.M. Williams

B–

BRAND INDEX

GRADES BY BRAND

L–R

* = non-responsive companies

Brand Parent Company Grade

Ralph Lauren* Ralph Lauren*

C–

Razza Matazz Hanesbrands

Rebecca Vallance* Hot Springs*

Reclaimed Vintage ASOS

Red Kap VF Corp

Red Robin Hanesbrands

Reebok adidas

Reef VF Corp

Regatta Myer

B–

Republic Designworks

C+

Reserve Myer

B–

Review The PAS Group Limited

C–

Review Kids Designworks

C+

Revival Factory X

B–

RIDERS by LEE VF Corp

Rio Hanesbrands

Rip Curl Rip Curl

B+

Rivers Noni B Group

Rivet The Warehouse Group

B–

RLX* Ralph Lauren*

C–

Rock & Republic VF Corp

Rockmans Noni B Group

Rockwear Retail Apparel Group

C+

Rodd & Gunn Rodd & Gunn

A–

Roler Industrie

A–

Roxy Boardriders

C–

Rrepp RREPP

Rubi Cotton On Group

A–

Ruby RUBY Apparel

Brand Parent Company Grade

Russel Athletic* Fruit of the Loom*

D+

Rustler VF Corp

RVCA Boardriders

C–

SABA APG & CO

A–

Sara Ezibuy

D+

Schooltex The Warehouse Group

B–

Scram* Pavement United Brands*

Seafolly Seafolly

Secret Gildan Activewear

A–

Seed Heritage Seed Heritage

C–

Serra ALDI Stores

B–

Sheer Relief Hanesbrands

Sheridan Hanesbrands

Showpo* Showpo*

Silent D by Django & Juliette Munro Footwear Group

Silks Gildan Activewear

A–

Simon de Winter Simon de Winter Group

D+

Sista Designworks

C+

Smartwool VF Corp

Soho Myer

B–

South Cape Ezibuy

D+

Spalding* Fruit of the Loom*

D+

Speedo* PVH Corp*

C+

Sportscraft APG & CO

A–

Sportsgirl Sussan Group

Sprout Myer

B–

Spurr* The Iconic*

C+

Standard General Pants Group

Staple House of Quirky

BRAND INDEX

GRADES BY BRAND

R–T

* = non-responsive companies

Brand Parent Company Grade

Staple Superior* The Iconic*

C+

Subtitled General Pants Group

Suburban Designworks

C+

Supersoft by Diana Ferrari Munro Footwear Group

Supply ASOS

Supre Cotton On Group

A–

Sussan Sussan Group

Suzanne Grae Sussan Group

Swanndri Swanndri NZ

C+

3 Wise Men* 3 Wise Men Limited*

T&T* T&T Fashions*

Table Eight Noni B Group

Target Target Australia

Tarocash Retail Apparel Group

C+

TEMPT Fast Future Brands

The Baby Factory* The Baby Factory*

The Iconic* The Iconic*

C+

The North Face VF Corp

The Warehouse The Warehouse Group

B–

Therapy Plus Gildan Activewear

A–

Tigerlily* Tigerlily*

D–

Tilt Best & Less

Timberland VF Corp

Together Ezibuy

D+

Tokito Myer

B–

Tommy Hilﬁger* PVH Corp*

C+

Top End Munro Footwear Group

Topman Arcadia Group

C+

Topshop Arcadia Group

C+

Brand Parent Company Grade

Torque ALDI Stores

B–

Tree of Life Tree of Life

Trelise Cooper* Trelise Cooper*

Trenery Country Road Group

A–

Trent Nathan Myer

B–

True & Co.* PVH Corp*

C+

Twiin House of Quirky

Typo Cotton On Group

A–

UNIQLO UNIQLO

B+

Urban Ezibuy

D+

Urban Equip The Warehouse Group

B–

Valleygirl Fast Future Brands

Van Heusen* PVH Corp*

C+

Vanity Fair* Fruit of the Loom*

D+

VANS VF Corp

Venture Brands ASOS

VF Outlet VF Corp

Victoria’s Secret L Brands

Volley Brand Collective (Footwear)

C+

Von Zipper Boardriders

C–

Voodoo Hanesbrands

Vue Myer

B–

W.Lane Noni B Group

Wallis Arcadia Group

C+

Wanted Munro Footwear Group

Warner’s* PVH Corp*

C+

Wave Zone Big W

B–

Brand Parent Company Grade

Wax* Pavement United Brands*

Weekday H&M

B+

West Bay ALDI Stores

B–

Williamson Dickie VF Corp

Wish* Wish Designs Pty Ltd*

Witchery Country Road Group

A–

Wonderbra Hanesbrands

Workzone ALDI Stores

B–

WORLD* WORLD*

D–

Wrangler VF Corp

Xcel Boardriders

C–

Yarra Trail The PAS Group Limited

C–

yd. Retail Apparel Group

C+

Zara Inditex

Zara Home Inditex

Zimmermann Zimmermann

B–

Zom-B* Pavement United Brands*

Zu Betts Group

BRAND INDEX

GRADES BY BRAND

T–Z

* = non-responsive companies

BRAND INDEX

BRANDS RANKED HIGHEST TO LOWEST

Parent Company Brand Grade

Country Road Group Trenery

A–

Country Road Group Witchery

A–

Country Road Group Politix

A–

Gildan Activewear Gildan

A–

Gildan Activewear American Apparel

A–

Gildan Activewear Anvil

A–

Gildan Activewear Comfort Colors

A–

Gildan Activewear Alstyle

A–

Gildan Activewear Gold Toe

A–

Gildan Activewear Secret

A–

Gildan Activewear Silks

A–

Gildan Activewear Therapy Plus

A–

Gildan Activewear Kushyfoot

A–

Gildan Activewear Peds

A–

Industrie Industrie

A–

Industrie Indie kids

A–

Industrie Roler

A–

Kookai Kookai

A–

lululemon athletica Lululemon Athletica

A–

Nature Baby Nature Baby

A–

Nobody Denim Nobody Denim

A–

Rodd & Gunn Rodd & Gunn

A–

City Chic Collective City Chic

B+

H&M H&M

B+

H&M Monki

B+

H&M COS

B+

H&M Weekday

B+

H&M Cheap Monday

B+

H&M Other Stories

B+

Parent Company Brand Grade

Hanesbrands Voodoo

Hanesbrands Bali

Hanesbrands Barely There

Hanesbrands Wonderbra

Hanesbrands C9 by Champion

Hanesbrands Maidenform

Hanesbrands Gear for Sports

Hanesbrands DIM

Hanesbrands Knights Apparel

Hanesbrands GTM

Hanesbrands Leggs

Inditex Zara

Inditex Zara Home

Kathmandu Kathmandu

Patagonia Patagonia

RREPP Rrepp

APG & CO SABA

A–

APG & CO Sportscraft

A–

APG & CO Jag

A–

AS COLOUR AS Colour

A–

Cotton On Group Cotton On

A–

Cotton On Group Cotton On Kids

A–

Cotton On Group Body

A–

Cotton On Group Rubi

A–

Cotton On Group Factorie

A–

Cotton On Group Typo

A–

Cotton On Group Supre

A–

Country Road Group Country Road

A–

Country Road Group MIMCO

A–

Parent Company Brand Grade

Etiko Etiko

A+

Freeset T-Shirts Freeset T-Shirts

A+

Icebreaker Icebreaker

A+

Kowtow Kowtow

A+

Liminal Apparel Liminal Apparel

A+

Mighty Good Group Mighty Good Undies

A+

Outland Denim Outland Denim

A+

adidas adidas

adidas Reebok

Hanesbrands JMS

Hanesbrands Alternative Apparel

Hanesbrands Berlei

Hanesbrands Bonds

Hanesbrands Bras N Things

Hanesbrands Champion

Hanesbrands Dunlopillo

Hanesbrands Fairydown

Hanesbrands Hanes

Hanesbrands Hestia

Hanesbrands Explorer

Hanesbrands Jockey (AU and NZ)

Hanesbrands Kayser

Hanesbrands Playtex

Hanesbrands Platinum

Hanesbrands Razza Matazz

Hanesbrands Red Robin

Hanesbrands Rio

Hanesbrands Sheridan

Hanesbrands Sheer Relief

* = non-responsive companies

BRAND INDEX

BRANDS RANKED HIGHEST TO LOWEST

Parent Company Brand Grade

David Jones David Jones Junior

Forever New Forever New

Gap Inc. GAP

Gap Inc. Banana Republic

Gap Inc. Old Navy

Gap Inc. Athleta

Gap Inc. Intermix

General Pants Group General Pants Group

General Pants Group Arvust

General Pants Group Alice in the Eve

General Pants Group Ksubi

General Pants Group Insight

General Pants Group Subtitled

General Pants Group Don’t Ask Amanda

General Pants Group Neon Hart

General Pants Group BNWR

General Pants Group Standard

General Pants Group GP Tees

General Pants Group Candidate

General Pants Group GP Co Basics

Gorman Gorman

Karen Walker* Karen Walker*

L Brands PINK

L Brands Victoria’s Secret

Levi Strauss & Co* Levi’s Signature*

Levi Strauss & Co* Dockers*

Levi Strauss & Co* Denizen*

New Balance New Balance

Puma Puma

Parent Company Brand Grade

H&M Arket

B+

Hallenstein Glasson Holdings Hallenstein Brothers

B+

Hallenstein Glasson Holdings Glassons

B+

Jeanswest Jeanswest

B+

Kmart Australia Kmart

B+

Marks & Spencer Marks & Spencer

B+

Nudie Jeans Co. Nudie Jeans Co..

B+

Rip Curl Rip Curl

B+

UNIQLO UNIQLO

B+

ASOS ASOS DESIGN

ASOS ASOS EDITION

ASOS ASOS WHITE

ASOS ASOS MADE IN KENYA

ASOS ASOS 4505

ASOS ASOS collabs

ASOS Supply

ASOS Made In.

ASOS Venture Brands

ASOS Reclaimed Vintage

ASOS Crooked Tongues

ASOS Noak

ASOS Heart and Dagger

ASOS Collusion

David Jones Milana

David Jones Alta Linea

David Jones Agenda

David Jones David Jones

David Jones David Jones Classic Collection

David Jones Organic Baby by David Jones

Parent Company Brand Grade

Puma Cobra Golf

Seafolly Seafolly

Sussan Group Sussan

Sussan Group Suzanne Grae

Sussan Group Sportsgirl

Target Australia Target

VF Corp Jansport

VF Corp Bulwark

VF Corp Lee

VF Corp Rustler

VF Corp Majestic

VF Corp Nautica

VF Corp Wrangler

VF Corp Eagle Creek

VF Corp The North Face

VF Corp RIDERS by LEE

VF Corp Reef

VF Corp Kipling

VF Corp Red Kap

VF Corp Horace Small

VF Corp Napapiriji

VF Corp Eastpak

VF Corp VANS

VF Corp Timberland

VF Corp Rock & Republic

VF Corp Williamson Dickie

VF Corp Smartwool

VF Corp VF Outlet

ALDI Stores Aldi

B–

* = non-responsive companies

BRAND INDEX

BRANDS RANKED HIGHEST TO LOWEST

Parent Company Brand Grade

Factory X Autonomy

B–

Factory X Alannah Hill

B–

Factory X Dangerﬁeld

B–

Factory X Jack London

B–

Factory X Claude Maus

B–

Factory X L’URV

B–

Factory X Princess Highway

B–

Factory X Revival

B–

Huer Huer

B–

Macpac Macpac

B–

Myer Myer

B–

Myer Basque

B–

Myer Piper

B–

Myer Blaq

B–

Myer Reserve

B–

Myer AHG

B–

Myer Vue

B–

Myer Heritage

B–

Myer Regatta

B–

Myer Tokito

B–

Myer Miss Shop

B–

Myer Sprout

B–

Myer Milkshake

B–

Myer Soho

B–

Myer Chloe & Lola

B–

Myer Trent Nathan

B–

Next Next

B–

Next Lipsy

B–

Next Label/Mix

B–

Parent Company Brand Grade

ALDI Stores Barely Basics

B–

ALDI Stores Barely Essentials

B–

ALDI Stores Crane Performance

B–

ALDI Stores Crane Snow Extreme

B–

ALDI Stores Crane

B–

ALDI Stores INOC

B–

ALDI Stores Serra

B–

ALDI Stores Lily and Dan

B–

ALDI Stores Torque

B–

ALDI Stores Workzone

B–

ALDI Stores West Bay

B–

ALDI Stores Higgledee Baby

B–

ALDI Stores Higgledee

B–

Big W Big W

B–

Big W Denim1964

B–

Big W B-Collection

B–

Big W Wave Zone

B–

Big W Joe & Co.

B–

Big W Brilliant Basic

B–

Big W B Athletic

B–

Big W Black Smith

B–

Big W Circuit

B–

Big W Circuit Curve

B–

Big W Dymples

B–

Big W Layla & Co

B–

Big W Avella

B–

Big W Emerson

B–

Big W MB by Michelle Bridges

B–

Factory X Pulp Fashion

B–

Parent Company Brand Grade

Nike Nike

B–

Nike Converse

B–

Nike Hurley

B–

Nike Jordan Brand

B–

R.M. Williams R.M. Williams

B–

The Warehouse Group Active Intent

B–

The Warehouse Group Amco

B–

The Warehouse Group An’D

B–

The Warehouse Group Back Country

B–

The Warehouse Group Basics Brand

B–

The Warehouse Group Basics Maternity

B–

The Warehouse Group Beach Works

B–

The Warehouse Group Blue Denim Co

B–

The Warehouse Group Debut

B–

The Warehouse Group Garage

B–

The Warehouse Group H&H

B–

The Warehouse Group Intrepid

B–

The Warehouse Group Kate Madison

B–

The Warehouse Group Match

B–

The Warehouse Group Maya

B–

The Warehouse Group Navigator South

B–

The Warehouse Group Pickaberry

B–

The Warehouse Group Rivet

B–

The Warehouse Group Schooltex

B–

The Warehouse Group Urban Equip

B–

The Warehouse Group The Warehouse

B–

Zimmermann Zimmermann

B–

Arcadia Group Burton Menswear

C+

Arcadia Group Dorothy Perkins

C+

* = non-responsive companies

Parent Company Brand Grade

Arcadia Group Evans

C+

Arcadia Group Miss Selfridge

C+

Arcadia Group Topshop

C+

Arcadia Group Topman

C+

Arcadia Group Wallis

C+

Arcadia Group Outﬁt

C+

Arcadia Group Outﬁt Kids

C+

Barkers Clothing* Barkers*

C+

Blue Illusion Blue Illusion

C+

Boden Boden

C+

Brand Collective (Footwear) Hush Puppies

C+

Brand Collective (Footwear) Julius Marlow

C+

Brand Collective (Footwear) Grosby

C+

Brand Collective (Footwear) Clarks

C+

Brand Collective (Footwear) Volley

C+

Canterburyof NZ Canterburyof NZ

C+

Designworks Republic

C+

Designworks Suburban

C+

Designworks Review Kids

C+

Designworks Mooks

C+

Designworks Sista

C+

Designworks B.O.D.

C+

Hugo Boss Group Boss

C+

Hugo Boss Group Hugo

C+

Hugo Boss Group Boss Orange

C+

Hugo Boss Group Boss Green

C+

Just Group Just Jeans

C+

Just Group Jay Jays

C+

Just Group Jacqui E

C+

BRAND INDEX

BRANDS RANKED HIGHEST TO LOWEST

Parent Company Brand Grade

Just Group Portmans

C+

Just Group Dotti

C+

Just Group Peter Alexander

C+

Lorna Jane Lorna Jane

C+

Oroton Group Oroton

C+

PVH Corp* Calvin Klein*

C+

PVH Corp* Tommy Hilﬁger*

C+

PVH Corp* Van Heusen*

C+

PVH Corp* IZOD*

C+

PVH Corp* ARROW*

C+

PVH Corp* Speedo*

C+

PVH Corp* Warner’s*

C+

PVH Corp* Olga by Warners*

C+

PVH Corp* Georey Beene*

C+

PVH Corp* True & Co.*

C+

Retail Apparel Group Tarocash

C+

Retail Apparel Group yd.

C+

Retail Apparel Group Connor

C+

Retail Apparel Group Johnny Bigg

C+

Retail Apparel Group Rockwear

C+

Swanndri NZ Swanndri

C+

The Iconic* Atmos&Here *

C+

The Iconic* The Iconic*

C+

The Iconic* Spurr*

C+

The Iconic* Staple Superior*

C+

The Iconic* Double Oak Mills*

C+

The Iconic* H-Wood*

C+

The Iconic* Dazie*

C+

Anthea Crawford* Anthea Crawford*

Parent Company Brand Grade

ASICS ASICS

ASICS Ontisuka Tiger

ASICS ASICS Tiger

ASICS HAGLOFS

Best & Less Edited

Best & Less Best & Less

Best & Less Edited Plus

Best & Less Mango

Best & Less Tilt

Best & Less Mantaray

Best & Less Breakers

Best & Less Bad Boy

Best & Less Baby Baby

Best & Less Baby Berry

Brand Collective (Apparel) Elka Collective

Brand Collective (Apparel) Elwood

Brand Collective (Apparel) Mossimo

House of Quirky MinkPink

House of Quirky Staple

House of Quirky Twiin

JETS JETS Swimwear

Max* Max*

Postie+ Postie

RUBY Apparel Ruby

Tree of Life Tree of Life

Tree of Life Peace Angel

Workwear Group King Gee

Workwear Group Hard Yakka

Boardriders Quicksilver

C–

* = non-responsive companies

Parent Company Brand Grade

Boardriders Billabong

C–

Boardriders Roxy

C–

Boardriders DC Shoes

C–

Boardriders RVCA

C–

Boardriders Element

C–

Boardriders Von Zipper

C–

Boardriders Xcel

C–

Boohoo Boohoo

C–

Boohoo boohooMAN

C–

Boohoo PrettyLittleThing

C–

Boohoo Nasty Gal

C–

Cue Clothing Co* Cue*

C–

Cue Clothing Co* Dion Lee*

C–

K&K K&K

C–

Lacoste Lacoste

C–

Pagani Pagani

C–

Ralph Lauren* Ralph Lauren*

C–

Ralph Lauren* RLX*

C–

Ralph Lauren* American Living*

C–

Ralph Lauren* Chaps*

C–

Ralph Lauren* Club Monaco*

C–

Seed Heritage Seed Heritage

C–

The PAS Group Limited Yarra Trail

C–

The PAS Group Limited Review

C–

The PAS Group Limited Marco Polo

C–

The PAS Group Limited Black Pepper

C–

The PAS Group Limited Extra Pepper

C–

The PAS Group Limited Breakaway

C–

The PAS Group Limited Equus

C–

BRAND INDEX

BRANDS RANKED HIGHEST TO LOWEST

* = non-responsive companies

Parent Company Brand Grade

Bardot Pty Ltd Bardot

D+

Bardot Pty Ltd Bardot Junior

D+

Ben Sherman Australia Ben Sherman

D+

Coles* Mix*

D+

Coles* Coles*

D+

Ezibuy Ezibuy

D+

Ezibuy Capture

D+

Ezibuy Emerge

D+

Ezibuy Gracehill

D+

Ezibuy Capture European

D+

Ezibuy Heine

D+

Ezibuy Sara

D+

Ezibuy Euro Edit

D+

Ezibuy Together

D+

Ezibuy Mia Lucce

D+

Ezibuy South Cape

D+

Ezibuy Urban

D+

Fruit of the Loom* Vanity Fair*

D+

Fruit of the Loom* Fruit of the Loom*

D+

Fruit of the Loom* Spalding*

D+

Fruit of the Loom* Russel Athletic*

D+

Hunting & Fishing NZ Hunting & Fishing NZ

D+

Kate Sylvester* Kate Sylvester*

D+

Simon de Winter Group Simon de Winter

D+

Simon de Winter Group Darn Tough

D+

Betts Group Betts

Betts Group Airﬂex

Betts Group Zu

Fast Future Brands Valleygirl

Parent Company Brand Grade

Fast Future Brands TEMPT

Fast Future Brands Mirrou

Munro Footwear Group I love Billy

Munro Footwear Group Silent D by Django & Juliette

Munro Footwear Group Django & Juliette

Munro Footwear Group Top End

Munro Footwear Group Mollini

Munro Footwear Group Gamins

Munro Footwear Group Colorado

Munro Footwear Group Cinori

Munro Footwear Group Diana Ferrari

Munro Footwear Group Supersoft by Diana Ferrari

Munro Footwear Group Isabella Rossi

Munro Footwear Group Lynx

Munro Footwear Group Wanted

Munro Footwear Group Midas

Noni B Group Rockmans

Noni B Group Beme

Noni B Group W.Lane

Noni B Group Table Eight

Noni B Group Amber Rose

Noni B Group Noni B

Noni B Group Liz Jordan

Noni B Group Millers

Noni B Group Katies

Noni B Group Autograph

Noni B Group Maggie T

Noni B Group Rivers

BRAND INDEX

BRANDS RANKED HIGHEST TO LOWEST

Parent Company Brand Grade

Noni B Group Crossroads

Oxford Oxford

Abercrombie & Fitch* Abercrombie & Fitch*

D–

Abercrombie & Fitch* Hollister Co.*

D–

Abercrombie & Fitch* Gilly Hicks*

D–

Abercrombie & Fitch* Abercrombie Kids*

D–

Decjuba* Decjuba*

D–

Forever 21* Forever 21*

D–

Gazal* Gazal*

D–

Tigerlily* Tigerlily*

D–

WORLD* WORLD*

D–

Ally Fashion* Ally Fashion*

Baby City* Baby City*

Bec and Bridge* Bec and Bridge*

Bloch* Bloch*

Camilla and Marc* Camilla and Marc*

Camilla and Marc* C&M*

Farmers* Farmers*

Hot Springs* P.E. Nation*

Hot Springs* Lover*

Hot Springs* Cooper St*

Hot Springs* Rebecca Vallance*

Hot Springs* Jasmine & Will*

Lowes* Lowes*

Lowes* Beare & Ley*

Merric Apparel NZ* Merric*

Pavement United Brands* Pavement*

Pavement United Brands* Lemonade*

Pavement United Brands* Non Sense*

Parent Company Brand Grade

Pavement United Brands* Petals*

Pavement United Brands* Pom Pom*

Pavement United Brands* Co Co Beach*

Pavement United Brands* Zom-B*

Pavement United Brands* Scram*

Pavement United Brands* Wax*

Showpo* Showpo*

3 Wise Men Limited* 3 Wise Men*

T&T Fashions* T&T*

The Baby Factory* The Baby Factory*

Trelise Cooper* Cooper by Trelise*

Trelise Cooper* little trelise*

Trelise Cooper* Trelise Cooper*

Voyager Distributing Co* Jump*

Voyager Distributing Co* Kachel*

Voyager Distributing Co* Ping Pong*

Wish Designs Pty Ltd* Wish*

* = non-responsive companies

This section provides a breakdown of the data behind

each grade for the 130 companies assessed in the

Report. The data is presented in a section-by-section

and question-by-question breakdown.

Survey Data

SURVEY DATA

POLICIES

A–K

* = non-responsive companies

Key:

YES PARTIAL NO

OVERALL GRADE

D-

B-

A-

C+

A-

D+

C+

D+

B-

C+

C-

C+

C-

C+

B+

D+

A-

C-

D-

C+

A+

D+

B-

D-

A+

D+

D-

A-

B+

B-

C+

D+

A+

A-

B+

C+

C-

D+

B+

A-

A+

Abercrombie & Fitch*

adidas

ALDI Stores

Ally Fashion*

Anthea Crawford*

APG & Co.

Arcadia Group

AS Colour

ASICS

ASOS

Baby City*

Bardot

Barkers Clothing*

Bec and Bridge*

Ben Sherman Australia

Best & Less

Betts Group

Big W

Bloch*

Blue Illusion

Boardriders

Boden

Boohoo

Brand Collective (Apparel)

Brand Collective (Footwear)

Camilla and Marc*

Canterbury NZ

City Chic Collective

Coles*

Cotton On Group

Country Road Group

Cue

David Jones

Decjuba*

Designworks

Etiko

Ezibuy

Factory X

Farmers*

Fast Future Brands

Forever 21*

Forever New

Freeset T-Shirts

Fruit of the Loom*

Gap Inc.

Gazal*

General Pants Group

Gildan Activewear

Gorman

H&M

Hallenstein Glasson Holdings

Hanesbrands

Hot Springs*

House of Quirky

Huer

Hugo Boss Group

Hunting & Fishing NZ

Icebreaker

Inditex

Industrie

Jeanswest

JETS

Just Group

K&K

Karen Walker*

Kate Sylvester*

Kathmandu

Kmart Australia

Kookai

Kowtow

POLICIES GRADE

B-

A+

A-

A+

A-

A+

A-

A+

A-

A+

A-

A+

A-

A+

B+

A+

A-

A+

A-

A+

CODE OF CONDUCT

Does the brand have a Code of Conduct for

suppliers that covers the ILO Four

Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work?

Does the code prohibit the use of regular

and excessive overtime?

Are suppliers required to ensure freedom of

movement for employees and their right to

enter and leave employment willingly and

voluntarily? E.g. suppliers are prohibited

from withholding employee identity

documents, including passports.

Does the code include provisions to protect

worker health and safety?

Does the code apply to multiple levels ofthe

supply chain including the raw materials

level?

Is the code included in supplier contracts?

POLICIES

Does the brand have a policy addressing

gender inequality in the supply chain,

including a strategy to address

discrimination faced by women in the

apparel industry?

Does the brand have a policy on responsible

purchasing practices in relation to supplier

engagement that aims to improve working

conditions?

SURVEY DATA

POLICIES

L–Z

* = non-responsive companies

Key:

YES PARTIAL NO

OVERALL GRADE

C-

A+

C+

A-

B-

B+

A+

B-

A-

B-

A-

B+

C+

A+

C-

C+

B-

C-

C+

B+

A-

C-

D+

C+

C-

B-

D-

B+

D-

B-

L Brands

Lacoste

Levi Strauss & Co.*

Liminal Apparel

Lorna Jane

Lowes*

Lululemon Athletica

Macpac

Marks & Spencer

Max*

Merric Apparel NZ*

Mighty Good Group

Munro Footwear Group

Myer

Nature Baby

New Balance

Nike

Nobody Denim

Noni B Group

Nudie Jeans Co.

Oroton Group

Outland Denim

Oxford

Pagani

Patagonia

Pavement United Brands*

Postie+

Puma

PVH Corp.*

R.M. Williams

Ralph Lauren*

Retail Apparel Group

Rip Curl

Rodd & Gunn

RREPP

Ruby Apparel

Seafolly

Seed Heritage

Showpo*

Simon de Winter Group

Sussan Group

Swanndri NZ

3 Wise Men Ltd.*

T&T Fashions*

Target Australia

The Baby Factory*

The Iconic*

The PAS Group

The Warehouse Group

Tigerlily*

Tree of Life

Trelise Cooper*

UNIQLO

VF Corp.

Voyager Distributing Co.*

Wish Designs*

Workwear Group

WORLD*

Zimmermann

POLICIES GRADE

A+

B-

A+

A-

A+

A-

A+

C-

B+

A+

CODE OF CONDUCT

Does the brand have a Code of Conduct for

suppliers that covers the ILO Four

Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work?

Does the code prohibit the use of regular

and excessive overtime?

Are suppliers required to ensure freedom of

movement for employees and their right to

enter and leave employment willingly and

voluntarily? E.g. suppliers are prohibited

from withholding employee identity

documents, including passports.

Does the code include provisions to protect

worker health and safety?

Does the code apply to multiple levels ofthe

supply chain including the raw materials

level?

Is the code included in supplier contracts?

POLICIES

Does the brand have a policy addressing

gender inequality in the supply chain,

including a strategy to address

discrimination faced by women in the

apparel industry?

Does the brand have a policy on responsible

purchasing practices in relation to supplier

engagement that aims to improve working

conditions?

SURVEY DATA

TRACEABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY FINAL STAGE PRODUCTION

A–K

* = non-responsive companies

Key:

YES PARTIAL NO

N/A

100% 76–99% 51–75% 26–50% 1–25% 0%

OVERALL GRADE

D–

B–

A–

C+

A–

D+

C+

D+

B–

C+

C–

C+

C–

C+

B+

D+

A–

C–

D–

C+

A+

D+

B–

D–

A+

D+

D–

A–

B+

B–

C+

D+

A+

A–

B+

C+

C–

D+

B+

A–

A+

Abercrombie & Fitch*

adidas

ALDI Stores

Ally Fashion*

Anthea Crawford*

APG & Co.

Arcadia Group

AS Colour

ASICS

ASOS

Baby City*

Bardot

Barkers Clothing*

Bec and Bridge*

Ben Sherman Australia

Best & Less

Betts Group

Big W

Bloch*

Blue Illusion

Boardriders

Boden

Boohoo

Brand Collective (Apparel)

Brand Collective (Footwear)

Camilla and Marc*

Canterbury of NZ

City Chic Collective

Coles*

Cotton On Group

Country Road Group

Cue

David Jones

Decjuba*

Designworks

Etiko

Ezibuy

Factory X

Farmers*

Fast Future Brands

Forever 21*

Forever New

Freeset T–Shirts

Fruit of the Loom*

Gap Inc.

Gazal*

General Pants Group

Gildan Activewear

Gorman

H&M

Hallenstein Glasson Holdings

Hanesbrands

Hot Springs*

House of Quirky

Huer

Hugo Boss Group

Hunting & Fishing NZ

Icebreaker

Inditex

Industrie

Jeanswest

JETS

Just Group

K&K

Karen Walker*

Kate Sylvester*

Kathmandu

Kmart Australia

Kookai

Kowtow

TRACEABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY GRADE

D–

A+

A–

D+

A+

A–

C–

B+

C–

C+

D+

B+

C+

C–

B+

C–

C+

A–

C+

A+

B+

C+

D+

A–

A+

B+

A–

B–

B+

A+

B+

A–

C+

B–

C–

A+

A–

A+

TRACEABILITY

Approximately what percentage of

factories has the brand traced?

1–25%

100%

76–99%

100%

76–99%

100%

76–99%

100%

76–99%

100%

51–75%

100%

1–25%

100%

51–75%

100%

1–25%

51–75%

1–25%

100%

1–25%

100%

1–25%

100%

76–99%

100%

76–99%

100%

If not fully traced, is brand involved in a

tracing project to locate unknown

suppliers?

Does the brand ensure that there is either

no subcontracting or that all subcontracted

production adheres to code standards?

Does the brand track suppliers’ use of

temporary or contract workers?

Has the brand conducted a labour rights

risk assessment of its supply chain to

improve its labour rights management

system?

TRANSPARENCY

Is there a public list of supplier factories?

Does the public list contain detailed

indicators about each factory?

Are broad monitoring results shared

publicly

FINAL STAGE

PRODUCTION

SURVEY DATA

TRACEABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY FINAL STAGE PRODUCTION

L–Z

* = non-responsive companies

Key:

YES PARTIAL NO

N/A

100% 76–99% 51–75% 26–50% 1–25% 0%

OVERALL GRADE

C–

A+

C+

A–

B–

B+

A+

B–

A–

B–

A–

B+

C+

A+

C–

C+

B–

C–

C+

B+

A–

C–

D+

C+

C–

B–

D–

B+

D–

B–

L Brands

Lacoste

Levi Strauss & Co.*

Liminal Apparel

Lorna Jane

Lowes*

Lululemon Athletica

Macpac

Marks & Spencer

Max*

Merric Apparel NZ*

Mighty Good Group

Munro Footwear Group

Myer

Nature Baby

New Balance

Nike

Nobody Denim

Noni B Group

Nudie Jeans Co.

Oroton Group

Outland Denim

Oxford

Pagani

Patagonia

Pavement United Brands*

Postie+

Puma

PVH Corp.*

R.M. Williams

Ralph Lauren*

Retail Apparel Group

Rip Curl

Rodd & Gunn

RREPP

Ruby Apparel

Seafolly

Seed Heritage

Showpo*

Simon de Winter Group

Sussan Group

Swanndri NZ

3 Wise Men Ltd.*

T&T Fashions*

Target Australia

The Baby Factory*

The Iconic*

The PAS Group

The Warehouse Group

Tigerlily*

Tree of Life

Trelise Cooper*

UNIQLO

VF Corp.

Voyager Distributing Co*

Wish Designs*

Workwear Group

WORLD*

Zimmermann

TRACEABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY GRADE

B+

C–

A–

A+

B–

A+

C+

A–

B+

A–

A+

D+

C+

A+

B–

A+

D–

A–

B+

A–

B–

A+

C–

D+

A–

B–

C+

TRACEABILITY

Approximately what percentage of

factories has the brand traced?

100%

51–75%

100%

1–25%

100%

76–99%

100%

76–99%

100%

51–75%

100%

1–25%

100%

51–75%

100%

76–99%

100%

76–99%

100%

If not fully traced, is brand involved in a

tracing project to locate unknown

suppliers?

Does the brand ensure that there is either

no subcontracting or that all

subcontracted production adheres to code

standards?

Does the brand track suppliers’ use of

temporary or contract workers?

Has the brand conducted a labour rights

risk assessment of its supply chain to

improve its labour rights management

system?

TRANSPARENCY

Is there a public list of supplier factories?

Does the public list contain detailed

indicators about each factory?

Are broad monitoring results shared

publicly

FINAL STAGE

PRODUCTION

SURVEY DATA

TRACEABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY INPUTS PRODUCTION

A–K

* = non-responsive companies

Key:

YES PARTIAL NO

N/A

100% 76–99% 51–75% 26–50% 1–25% 0%

INPUTS

PRODUCTION

OVERALL GRADE

D–

B–

A–

C+

A–

D+

C+

D+

B–

C+

C–

C+

C–

C+

B+

D+

A–

C–

D–

C+

A+

D+

B–

D–

A+

D+

D–

A–

B+

B–

C+

D+

A+

A–

B+

C+

C–

D+

B+

A–

A+

Abercrombie & Fitch*

adidas

ALDI Stores

Ally Fashion*

Anthea Crawford*

APG & Co.

Arcadia Group

AS Colour

ASICS

ASOS

Baby City*

Bardot

Barkers Clothing*

Bec and Bridge*

Ben Sherman Australia

Best & Less

Betts Group

Big W

Bloch*

Blue Illusion

Boardriders

Boden

Boohoo

Brand Collective (Apparel)

Brand Collective (Footwear)

Camilla and Marc*

Canterbury of NZ

City Chic Collective

Coles*

Cotton On Group

Country Road Group

Cue

David Jones

Decjuba*

Designworks

Etiko

Ezibuy

Factory X

Farmers*

Fast Future Brands

Forever 21*

Forever New

Freeset T–Shirts

Fruit of the Loom*

Gap Inc.

Gazal*

General Pants Group

Gildan Activewear

Gorman

H&M

Hallenstein Glasson Holdings

Hanesbrands

Hot Springs*

House of Quirky

Huer

Hugo Boss Group

Hunting & Fishing NZ

Icebreaker

Inditex

Industrie

Jeanswest

JETS

Just Group

K&K

Karen Walker*

Kate Sylvester*

Kathmandu

Kmart Australia

Kookai

Kowtow

TRACEABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY GRADE

D–

A+

A–

D+

A+

A–

C–

B+

C–

C+

D+

B+

C+

C–

B+

C–

C+

A–

C+

A+

B+

C+

D+

A–

A+

B+

A–

B–

B+

A+

B+

A–

C+

B–

C–

A+

A–

A+

TRACEABILITY

Approximately what percentage of

factories has the brand traced?

1–25%

76–99%

1–25%

100%

1–25%

26–50%

51–75%

1–25%

26–50%

1–25%

26–50%

51–75%

1–25%

26–50%

100%

76–99%

51–75%

100%

1–25%

51–75%

1–25%

26–50%

100%

1–25%

26–50%

1–25%

76–99%

100%

1–25%

76–99%

26–50%

51–75%

76–99%

26–50%

76–99%

1–25%

100%

26–50%

76–99%

26–50%

76–99%

1–25%

76–99%

26–50%

100%

If not fully traced, is brand involved in a

tracing project to locate unknown

suppliers?

Does the brand ensure that there is either

no subcontracting or that all subcontracted

production adheres to code standards?

Does the brand track suppliers’ use of

temporary or contract workers?

Has the brand conducted a labour rights

risk assessment of its supply chain to

improve its labour rights management

system?

TRANSPARENCY

Is there a public list of supplier factories?

Does the public list contain detailed

indicators about each factory?

Are broad monitoring results shared

publicly

SURVEY DATA

TRACEABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY INPUTS PRODUCTION

L–Z

* = non-responsive companies

Key:

YES PARTIAL NO

N/A

100% 76–99% 51–75% 26–50% 1–25% 0%

INPUTS

PRODUCTION

OVERALL GRADE

C–

A+

C+

A–

B–

B+

A+

B–

A–

B–

A–

B+

C+

A+

C–

C+

B–

C–

C+

B+

A–

C–

D+

C+

C–

B–

D–

B+

D–

B–

L Brands

Lacoste

Levi Strauss & Co.*

Liminal Apparel

Lorna Jane

Lowes*

Lululemon Athletica

Macpac

Marks & Spencer

Max*

Merric Apparel NZ*

Mighty Good Group

Munro Footwear Group

Myer

Nature Baby

New Balance

Nike

Nobody Denim

Noni B Group

Nudie Jeans Co.

Oroton Group

Outland Denim

Oxford

Pagani

Patagonia

Pavement United Brands*

Postie+

Puma

PVH Corp.*

R.M. Williams

Ralph Lauren*

Retail Apparel Group

Rip Curl

Rodd & Gunn

RREPP

Ruby Apparel

Seafolly

Seed Heritage

Showpo*

Simon de Winter Group

Sussan Group

Swanndri NZ

3 Wise Men Ltd.*

T&T Fashions*

Target Australia

The Baby Factory*

The Iconic*

The PAS Group

The Warehouse Group

Tigerlily*

Tree of Life

Trelise Cooper*

UNIQLO

VF Corp.

Voyager Distributing Co.*

Wish Designs*

Workwear Group

WORLD*

Zimmermann

TRACEABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY GRADE

B+

C–

A–

A+

B–

A+

C+

A–

B+

A–

A+

D+

C+

A+

B–

A+

D–

A–

B+

A–

B–

A+

C–

D+

A–

B–

C+

TRACEABILITY

Approximately what percentage of

factories has the brand traced?

76–99%

1–25%

76–99%

100%

1–25%

100%

76–99%

100%

1–25%

76–99%

1–25%

100%

51–75%

1–25%

100%

1–25%

76–99%

100%

1–25%

76–99%

26–50%

1–25%

100%

76–99%

100%

76–99%

100%

51–75%

76–99%

1–25%

76–99%

100%

1–25%

26–50%

51–75%

26–50%

76–99%

26–50%

76–99%

If not fully traced, is brand involved in a

tracing project to locate unknown

suppliers?

Does the brand ensure that there is either

no subcontracting or that all subcontracted

production adheres to code standards?

Does the brand track suppliers’ use of

temporary or contract workers?

Has the brand conducted a labour rights

risk assessment of its supply chain to

improve its labour rights management

system?

TRANSPARENCY

Is there a public list of supplier factories?

Does the public list contain detailed

indicators about each factory?

Are broad monitoring results shared

publicly

SURVEY DATA

TRACEABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY RAW MATERIALS PRODUCTION

A–K

* = non-responsive companies

Key:

YES PARTIAL NO

N/A

100% 76–99% 51–75% 26–50% 1–25% 0%

OVERALL GRADE

D–

B–

A–

C+

A–

D+

C+

D+

B–

C+

C–

C+

C–

C+

B+

D+

A–

C–

D–

C+

A+

D+

B–

D–

A+

D+

D–

A–

B+

B–

C+

D+

A+

A–

B+

C+

C–

D+

B+

A–

A+

Abercrombie & Fitch*

adidas

ALDI Stores

Ally Fashion*

Anthea Crawford*

APG & Co.

Arcadia Group

AS Colour

ASICS

ASOS

Baby City*

Bardot

Barkers Clothing*

Bec and Bridge*

Ben Sherman Australia

Best & Less

Betts Group

Big W

Bloch*

Blue Illusion

Boardriders

Boden

Boohoo

Brand Collective (Apparel)

Brand Collective (Footwear)

Camilla and Marc*

Canterbury of NZ

City Chic Collective

Coles*

Cotton On Group

Country Road Group

Cue

David Jones

Decjuba*

Designworks

Etiko

Ezibuy

Factory X

Farmers*

Fast Future Brands

Forever 21*

Forever New

Freeset T–Shirts

Fruit of the Loom*

Gap Inc.

Gazal*

General Pants Group

Gildan Activewear

Gorman

H&M

Hallenstein Glasson Holdings

Hanesbrands

Hot Springs*

House of Quirky

Huer

Hugo Boss Group

Hunting & Fishing NZ

Icebreaker

Inditex

Industrie

Jeanswest

JETS

Just Group

K&K

Karen Walker*

Kate Sylvester*

Kathmandu

Kmart Australia

Kookai

Kowtow

TRACEABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY GRADE

D–

A+

A–

D+

A+

A–

C–

B+

C–

C+

D+

B+

C+

C–

B+

C–

C+

A–

C+

A+

B+

C+

D+

A–

A+

B+

A–

B–

B+

A+

B+

A–

C+

B–

C–

A+

A–

A+

TRACEABILITY

Approximately what percentage

offactories has the brand traced?

76–99%

100%

1–25%

51–75%

1–25%

51–75%

1–25%

100%

1–25%

26–50%

1–25%

100%

1–25%

76–99%

1–25%

51–75%

1–25%

51–75%

76–99%

26–50%

100%

If not fully traced, is brand involved in

atracing project to locate unknown

suppliers?

Does the brand ensure that there is

either no subcontracting or that all

subcontracted production adheres

tocode standards?

Does the brand track suppliers’ use

oftemporary or contract workers?

Has the brand conducted a labour rights

risk assessment of its supply chain to

improve its labour rights management

system?

TRANSPARENCY

Is there a public list of supplier factories?

Does the public list contain detailed

indicators about each factory?

Are broad monitoring results shared

publicly

RAW

MATERIALS

PRODUCTION

SURVEY DATA

TRACEABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY RAW MATERIALS PRODUCTION

L–Z

* = non-responsive companies

Key:

YES PARTIAL NO

N/A

100% 76–99% 51–75% 26–50% 1–25% 0%

OVERALL GRADE

C–

A+

C+

A–

B–

B+

A+

B–

A–

B–

A–

B+

C+

A+

C–

C+

B–

C–

C+

B+

A–

C–

D+

C+

C–

B–

D–

B+

D–

B–

L Brands

Lacoste

Levi Strauss & Co.*

Liminal Apparel

Lorna Jane

Lowes*

Lululemon Athletica

Macpac

Marks & Spencer

Max*

Merric Apparel NZ*

Mighty Good Group

Munro Footwear Group

Myer

Nature Baby

New Balance

Nike

Nobody Denim

Noni B Group

Nudie Jeans Co.

Oroton Group

Outland Denim

Oxford

Pagani

Patagonia

Pavement United Brands*

Postie+

Puma

PVH Corp.*

R.M. Williams

Ralph Lauren*

Retail Apparel Group

Rip Curl

Rodd & Gunn

RREPP

Ruby Apparel

Seafolly

Seed Heritage

Showpo*

Simon de Winter Group

Sussan Group

Swanndri NZ

3 Wise Men Ltd.*

T&T Fashions*

Target Australia

The Baby Factory*

The Iconic*

The PAS Group

The Warehouse Group

Tigerlily*

Tree of Life

Trelise Cooper*

UNIQLO

VF Corp.

Voyager Distributing Co*

Wish Designs*

Workwear Group

WORLD*

Zimmermann

TRACEABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY GRADE

B+

C–

A–

A+

B–

A+

C+

A–

B+

A–

A+

D+

C+

A+

B–

A+

D–

A–

B+

A–

B–

A+

C–

D+

A–

B–

C+

TRACEABILITY

Approximately what percentage

offactories has the brand traced?

1–25%

100%

1–25%

100%

26–50%

100%

1–25%

100%

26–50%

1–25%

26–50%

100%

1–25%

51–75%

76–99%

51–75%

1–25%

100%

1–25%

If not fully traced, is brand involved in

a tracing project to locate unknown

suppliers?

Does the brand ensure that there is

either no subcontracting or that all

subcontracted production adheres

tocode standards?

Does the brand track suppliers’ use

oftemporary or contract workers?

Has the brand conducted a labour rights

risk assessment of its supply chain to

improve its labour rights management

system?

TRANSPARENCY

Is there a public list of supplier factories?

Does the public list contain detailed

indicators about each factory?

Are broad monitoring results shared

publicly

RAW

MATERIALS

PRODUCTION

SURVEY DATA

AUDITING AND SUPPLIER RELATIONSHIPS FINAL STAGE PRODUCTION

A–K

* = non-responsive companies

Key:

YES PARTIAL NO

N/A

100% 76–99% 51–75% 26–50% 1–25% 0%

OVERALL GRADE

D–

B–

A–

C+

A–

D+

C+

D+

B–

C+

C–

C+

C–

C+

B+

D+

A–

C–

D–

C+

A+

D+

B–

D–

A+

D+

D–

A–

B+

B–

C+

D+

A+

A–

B+

C+

C–

D+

B+

Abercrombie & Fitch*

adidas

ALDI Stores

Ally Fashion*

Anthea Crawford*

APG & Co.

Arcadia Group

AS Colour

ASICS

ASOS

Baby City*

Bardot

Barkers Clothing*

Bec and Bridge*

Ben Sherman Australia

Best & Less

Betts Group

Big W

Bloch*

Blue Illusion

Boardriders

Boden

Boohoo

Brand Collective (Apparel)

Brand Collective (Footwear)

Camilla and Marc*

Canterbury of NZ

City Chic Collective

Coles*

Cotton On Group

Country Road Group

Cue

David Jones

Decjuba*

Designworks

Etiko

Ezibuy

Factory X

Farmers*

Fast Future Brands

Forever 21*

Forever New

Freeset T–Shirts

Fruit of the Loom*

Gap Inc.

Gazal*

General Pants Group

Gildan Activewear

Gorman

H&M

Hallenstein Glasson Holdings

Hanesbrands

Hot Springs*

House of Quirky

Huer

Hugo Boss Group

Hunting & Fishing NZ

Icebreaker

Inditex

Industrie

Jeanswest

JETS

Just Group

K&K

Karen Walker*

Kate Sylvester*

Kathmandu

Kmart Australia

AUDITING AND SUPPLIER RELATIONSHIPS GRADE

D–

B+

B–

C–

A–

D–

D+

C–

C+

D+

A–

C–

C+

A–

C–

C+

A+

C+

B–

A+

C+

C–

A+

B+

D+

B–

D+

D–

A–

B+

AUDITING

What percentage of facilities are audited over a

2-year period by trained social auditors (internal

and/or third party)?

51–75%

100%

51–75%

100%

76–99%

100%

76–99%

51–75%

100%

76–99%

51–75%

26–50%

1–25%

100%

76–99%

100%

51–75%

100%

1–25%

76–99%

51–75%

76–99%

100%

76–99%

51–75%

100%

26–50%

100%

What percentage of facilities are internally

audited by staff with social audit training?

26–50%

51–75%

1–25%

26–50%

76–99%

1–25%

76–99%

1–25%

51–75%

1–25%

76–99%

26–50%

100%

1–25%

26–50%

1–25%

76–99%

51–75%

100%

26–50%

100%

1–25%

76–99%

26–50%

1–25%

51–75%

1–25%

What percentage of facilities are audited by

third party auditors that specialise in labour

standards?

51–75%

1–25%

100%

26–50%

100%

51–75%

1–25%

51–75%

100%

76–99%

100%

76–99%

100%

26–50%

51–75%

100%

1–25%

100%

76–99%

26–50%

1–25%

100%

76–99%

26–50%

100%

1–25%

26–50%

1–25%

100%

1–25%

51–75%

26–50%

100%

51–75%

100%

76–99%

100%

76–99%

51–75%

100%

26–50%

100%

What percentage of facilities are audited with

unannounced audits, anonymous worker

surveys or off-site worker interviews per year?

26–50%

1–25%

100%

76–99%

1–25%

100%

76–99%

1–25%

51–75%

26–50%

76–99%

100%

1–25%

100%

1–25%

51–75%

1–25%

51–75%

1–25%

100%

26–50%

100%

1–25%

100%

76–99%

1–25%

100%

1–25%

100%

1–25%

26–50%

1–25%

Are suppliers monitored for their use of labour

brokers and recruitment fees?

What percentage of corrective action plans

pertaining to wages and/or overtime are

resolved within 12 months?

76–99%

26–50%

1–25%

76–99%

51–75%

100%

1–25%

100%

26–50%

1–25%

26–50%

76–99%

1–25%

51–75%

1–25%

76–99%

SUPPLIER RELATIONSHIPS

Does the brand invest in training buyers and

suppliers/factory managers, in order to increase

awareness of human rights and health and

safety risks?

Does the company actively improve leverage

and relationships with suppliers, through

supplier consolidation and industry collaboration?

Does that company have a preferred supplier

program by which suppliers are incentivised by

strong labour rights records?

For companies more than 10 years old: What

proportion of suppliers has the company

sourced from for at least 5years?

76–99%

51–75%

76–99%

26–50%

76–99%

51–75%

76–99%

26–50%

1–25%

76–99%

51–75%

26–50%

51–75%

76–99%

26–50%

76–99%

51–75%

100%

51–75%

26–50%

100%

76–99%

51–75%

26–50%

51–75%

26–50%

76–99%

51–75%

76–99%

26–50%

76–99%

1–25%

76–99%

26–50%

FINAL STAGE

PRODUCTION

SURVEY DATA

AUDITING AND SUPPLIER RELATIONSHIPS FINAL STAGE PRODUCTION

* = non-responsive companies

Key:

YES PARTIAL NO

N/A

100% 76–99% 51–75% 26–50% 1–25% 0%

OVERALL GRADE

A–

A+

C–

C+

A+

A–

B–

B+

A+

B–

A–

B–

A–

B+

C+

A+

C–

C+

B–

C–

C+

B+

A–

C–

D+

C+

C–

B–

D–

B+

D–

B–

Kookai

Kowtow

L Brands

Lacoste

Levi Strauss & Co.*

Lorna Jane

Liminal Apparel

Lowes*

Lululemon Athletica

Macpac

Marks & Spencer

Max*

Merric Apparel NZ*

Mighty Good Group

Munro Footwear Group

Myer

Nature Baby

New Balance

Nike

Nobody Denim

Noni B Group

Nudie Jeans Co.

Oroton Group

Outland Denim

Oxford

Pagani

Patagonia

Pavement United Brands*

Postie+

Puma

PVH Corp.*

R.M. Williams

Ralph Lauren*

Retail Apparel Group

Rip Curl

Rodd & Gunn

RREPP

Ruby Apparel

Seafolly

Seed Heritage

Showpo*

Simon de Winter Group

Sussan Group

Swanndri NZ

3 Wise Men Ltd*

T&T Fashions*

Target Australia

The Baby Factory*

The Iconic*

The PAS Group

The Warehouse Group

Tigerlily*

Tree of Life

Trelise Cooper*

UNIQLO

VF Corp.

Voyager Distributing Co.*

Wish Designs*

Workwear Group

WORLD*

Zimmermann

AUDITING AND SUPPLIER RELATIONSHIPS GRADE

A–

B+

D+

B–

B+

A+

B–

B+

D–

A–

C+

B–

B+

B–

A+

C–

D+

B–

B+

C–

B+

C–

D+

B+

D+

C–

B–

B+

C+

AUDITING

What percentage of facilities are audited over a

2-year period by trained social auditors (internal

and/or third party)?

100%

76–99%

100%

76–99%

100%

76–99%

100%

26–50%

100%

76–99%

100%

76–99%

100%

76–99%

100%

76–99%

100%

76–99%

100%

26–50%

100%

51–75%

100%

76–99%

1–25%

76–99%

100%

What percentage of facilities are internally

audited by staff with social audit training?

100%

26–50%

100%

76–99%

26–50%

100%

1–25%

51–75%

76–99%

26–50%

76–99%

100%

51–75%

76–99%

26–50%

1–25%

51–75%

100%

1–25%

100%

26–50%

1–25%

100%

1–25%

What percentage of facilities are audited by

third party auditors that specialise in labour

standards?

100%

76–99%

26–50%

76–99%

26–50%

100%

1–25%

100%

26–50%

100%

1–25%

26–50%

100%

76–99%

100%

1–25%

100%

26–50%

1–25%

100%

76–99%

100%

26–50%

100%

51–75%

100%

51–75%

100%

1–25%

76–99%

1–25%

76–99%

100%

What percentage of facilities are audited with

unannounced audits, anonymous worker

surveys or off-site worker interviews per year?

1–25%

26–50%

1–25%

100%

1–25%

76–99%

1–25%

100%

1–25%

26–50%

1–25%

76–99%

1–25%

51–75%

76–99%

100%

51–75%

26–50%

1–25%

51–75%

1–25%

100%

51–75%

1–25%

26–50%

1–25%

76–99%

1–25%

76–99%

Are suppliers monitored for their use of labour

brokers and recruitment fees?

What percentage of corrective action plans

pertaining to wages and/or overtime are

resolved within 12 months?

100%

76–99%

1–25%

100%

26–50%

76–99%

51–75%

1–25%

76–99%

1–25%

SUPPLIER RELATIONSHIPS

Does the brand invest in training buyers and

suppliers/factory managers, in order to increase

awareness of human rights and health and

safety risks?

Does the company actively improve leverage

and relationships with suppliers, through

supplier consolidation and industry collaboration?

Does that company have a preferred supplier

program by which suppliers are incentivised by

strong labour rights records?

For companies more than 10 years old: What

proportion of suppliers has the company

sourced from for at least 5years?

76–99%

51–75%

76–99%

1–25%

100%

N/A

76–99%

51–75%

1–25%

51–75%

N/A

51–75%

26–50%

51–75%

100%

51–75%

26–50%

100%

N/A

1–25%

100%

76–99%

26–50%

76–99%

100%

N/A

76–99%

51–75%

100%

76–99%

26–50%

100%

76–99%

26–50%

1–25%

76–99%

26–50%

76–99%

FINAL STAGE

PRODUCTION

K–Z

SURVEY DATA

AUDITING AND SUPPLIER RELATIONSHIPS INPUTS PRODUCTION

A–K

* = non-responsive companies

Key:

YES PARTIAL NO

N/A

100% 76–99% 51–75% 26–50% 1–25% 0%

OVERALL GRADE

D–

B–

A–

C+

A–

D+

C+

D+

B–

C+

C–

C+

C–

C+

B+

D+

A–

C–

D–

C+

A+

D+

B–

D–

A+

D+

D–

A–

B+

B–

C+

D+

A+

A–

B+

C+

C–

D+

B+

Abercrombie & Fitch*

adidas

ALDI Stores

Ally Fashion*

Anthea Crawford*

APG & Co.

Arcadia Group

AS Colour

ASICS

ASOS

Baby City*

Bardot

Barkers Clothing*

Bec and Bridge*

Ben Sherman Australia

Best & Less

Betts Group

Big W

Bloch*

Blue Illusion

Boardriders

Boden

Boohoo

Brand Collective (Apparel)

Brand Collective (Footwear)

Camilla and Marc*

Canterbury of NZ

City Chic Collective

Coles*

Cotton On Group

Country Road Group

Cue

David Jones

Decjuba*

Designworks

Etiko

Ezibuy

Factory X

Farmers*

Fast Future Brands

Forever 21*

Forever New

Freeset T–Shirts

Fruit of the Loom*

Gap Inc.

Gazal*

General Pants Group

Gildan Activewear

Gorman

H&M

Hallenstein Glasson Holdings

Hanesbrands

Hot Springs*

House of Quirky

Huer

Hugo Boss Group

Hunting & Fishing NZ

Icebreaker

Inditex

Industrie

Jeanswest

JETS

Just Group

K&K

Karen Walker*

Kate Sylvester*

Kathmandu

Kmart Australia

AUDITING AND SUPPLIER RELATIONSHIPS GRADE

D–

B+

B–

C–

A–

D–

D+

C–

C+

D+

A–

C–

C+

A–

C–

C+

A+

C+

B–

A+

C+

C–

A+

B+

D+

B–

D+

D–

A–

B+

AUDITING

What percentage of facilities are audited over a

2-year period by trained social auditors (internal

and/or third party)?

1–25%

26–50%

1–25%

51–75%

1–25%

51–75%

26–50%

1–25%

100%

26–50%

1–25%

51–75%

100%

51–75%

26–50%

1–25%

100%

1–25%

26–50%

100%

76–99%

26–50%

100%

51–75%

76–99%

1–25%

100%

1–25%

26–50%

1–25%

100%

51–75%

100%

What percentage of facilities are internally

audited by staff with social audit training?

26–50%

1–25%

26–50%

1–25%

100%

1–25%

76–99%

1–25%

26–50%

100%

1–25%

76–99%

26–50%

1–25%

26–50%

1–25%

What percentage of facilities are audited by

third party auditors that specialise in labour

standards?

1–25%

51–75%

1–25%

51–75%

1–25%

100%

26–50%

1–25%

51–75%

1–25%

51–75%

26–50%

1–25%

100%

1–25%

100%

76–99%

26–50%

1–25%

100%

51–75%

100%

51–75%

1–25%

100%

51–75%

1–25%

26–50%

1–25%

100%

51–75%

100%

What percentage of facilities are audited with

unannounced audits, anonymous worker

surveys or off-site worker interviews per year?

1–25%

51–75%

26–50%

100%

1–25%

51–75%

1–25%

100%

1–25%

100%

1–25%

100%

26–50%

100%

1–25%

Are suppliers monitored for their use of labour

brokers and recruitment fees?

What percentage of corrective action plans

pertaining to wages and/or overtime are

resolved within 12 months?

1–25%

76–99%

51–75%

1–25%

76–99%

1–25%

76–99%

SUPPLIER RELATIONSHIPS

Does the brand invest in training buyers and

suppliers/factory managers, in order to increase

awareness of human rights and health and

safety risks?

Does the company actively improve leverage

and relationships with suppliers, through

supplier consolidation and industry collaboration?

Does that company have a preferred supplier

program by which suppliers are incentivised by

strong labour rights records?

For companies more than 10 years old: What

proportion of suppliers has the company

sourced from for at least 5years?

26–50%

51–75%

76–99%

1–25%

76–99%

51–75%

1–25%

26–50%

76–99%

26–50%

76–99%

1–25%

100%

1–25%

51–75%

100%

1–25%

51–75%

1–25%

76–99%

51–75%

1–25%

100%

1–25%

51–75%

26–50%

INPUTS

PRODUCTION

SURVEY DATA

AUDITING AND SUPPLIER RELATIONSHIPS INPUTS PRODUCTION

K–Z

* = non-responsive companies

Key:

YES PARTIAL NO

N/A

100% 76–99% 51–75% 26–50% 1–25% 0%

OVERALL GRADE

A–

A+

C–

A+

C+

A–

B–

B+

A+

B–

A–

B–

A–

B+

C+

A+

C–

C+

B–

C–

C+

B+

A–

C–

D+

C+

C–

B–

D–

B+

D–

B–

Kookai

Kowtow

L Brands

Lacoste

Levi Strauss & Co.*

Liminal Apparel

Lorna Jane

Lowes*

Lululemon Athletica

Macpac

Marks & Spencer

Max*

Merric Apparel NZ*

Mighty Good Group

Munro Footwear Group

Myer

Nature Baby

New Balance

Nike

Nobody Denim

Noni B Group

Nudie Jeans Co.

Oroton Group

Outland Denim

Oxford

Pagani

Patagonia

Pavement United Brands*

Postie+

Puma

PVH Corp.*

R.M. Williams

Ralph Lauren*

Retail Apparel Group

Rip Curl

Rodd & Gunn

RREPP

Ruby Apparel

Seafolly

Seed Heritage

Showpo*

Simon de Winter Group

Sussan Group

Swanndri NZ

3 Wise Men Ltd.*

T&T Fashions*

Target Australia

The Baby Factory*

The Iconic*

The PAS Group

The Warehouse Group

Tigerlily*

Tree of Life

Trelise Cooper*

UNIQLO

VF Corp.

Voyager Distributing Co.*

Wish Designs*

Workwear Group

WORLD*

Zimmermann

AUDITING AND SUPPLIER RELATIONSHIPS GRADE

A–

B+

D+

B–

B+

B–

A+

B–

B+

D–

A–

C+

B–

B+

B–

A+

C–

D+

B–

B+

C–

B+

C–

D+

B+

D+

C–

B–

B+

C+

AUDITING

What percentage of facilities are audited over a

2-year period by trained social auditors (internal

and/or third party)?

1–25%

76–99%

1–25%

76–99%

100%

76–99%

1–25%

100%

1–25%

100%

1–25%

26–50%

100%

76–99%

51–75%

1–25%

76–99%

1–25%

100%

76–99%

26–50%

100%

76–99%

1–25%

51–75%

100%

26–50%

76–99%

26–50%

51–75%

What percentage of facilities are internally

audited by staff with social audit training?

1–25%

26–50%

100%

76–99%

26–50%

1–25%

76–99%

26–50%

51–75%

1–25%

26–50%

76–99%

1–25%

100%

1–25%

What percentage of facilities are audited by

third party auditors that specialise in labour

standards?

100%

76–99%

1–25%

76–99%

26–50%

100%

1–25%

100%

1–25%

100%

1–25%

26–50%

100%

26–50%

1–25%

100%

26–50%

100%

76–99%

1–25%

51–75%

100%

1–25%

26–50%

76–99%

1–25%

51–75%

What percentage of facilities are audited with

unannounced audits, anonymous worker

surveys or off-site worker interviews per year?

1–25%

100%

1–25%

100%

51–75%

1–25%

26–50%

1–25%

Are suppliers monitored for their use of labour

brokers and recruitment fees?

What percentage of corrective action plans

pertaining to wages and/or overtime are

resolved within 12 months?

100%

1–25%

100%

26–50%

51–75%

1–25%

76–99%

SUPPLIER RELATIONSHIPS

Does the brand invest in training buyers and

suppliers/factory managers, in order to increase

awareness of human rights and health and

safety risks?

Does the company actively improve leverage

and relationships with suppliers, through

supplier consolidation and industry collaboration?

Does that company have a preferred supplier

program by which suppliers are incentivised by

strong labour rights records?

For companies more than 10 years old: What

proportion of suppliers has the company

sourced from for at least 5years?

76–99%

26–50%

51–75%

1–25%

N/A

26–50%

76–99%

N/A

1–25%

26–50%

51–75%

1–25%

26–50%

76–99%

1–25%

76–99%

26–50%

51–75%

100%

N/A

26–50%

51–75%

100%

76–99%

100%

26–50%

100%

26–50%

1–25%

51–75%

76–99%

INPUTS

PRODUCTION

SURVEY DATA

AUDITING AND SUPPLIER RELATIONSHIPS RAW MATERIALS PRODUCTION

A–K

* = non-responsive companies

Key:

YES PARTIAL NO

N/A

100% 76–99% 51–75% 26–50% 1–25% 0%

OVERALL GRADE

D–

B–

A–

C+

A–

D+

C+

D+

B–

C+

C–

C+

C–

C+

B+

D+

A–

C–

D–

C+

A+

D+

B–

D–

A+

D+

D–

A–

B+

B–

C+

D+

A+

A–

B+

C+

C–

D+

B+

Abercrombie & Fitch*

adidas

ALDI Stores

Ally Fashion*

Anthea Crawford*

APG & Co.

Arcadia Group

AS Colour

ASICS

ASOS

Baby City*

Bardot

Barkers Clothing*

Bec and Bridge*

Ben Sherman Australia

Best & Less

Betts Group

Big W

Bloch*

Blue Illusion

Boardriders

Boden

Boohoo

Brand Collective (Apparel)

Brand Collective (Footwear)

Camilla and Marc*

Canterbury of NZ

City Chic Collective

Coles*

Cotton On Group

Country Road Group

Cue

David Jones

Decjuba*

Designworks

Etiko

Ezibuy

Factory X

Farmers*

Fast Future Brands

Forever 21*

Forever New

Freeset T–Shirts

Fruit of the Loom*

Gap Inc.

Gazal*

General Pants Group

Gildan Activewear

Gorman

H&M

Hallenstein Glasson Holdings

Hanesbrands

Hot Springs*

House of Quirky

Huer

Hugo Boss Group

Hunting & Fishing NZ

Icebreaker

Inditex

Industrie

Jeanswest

JETS

Just Group

K&K

Karen Walker*

Kate Sylvester*

Kathmandu

Kmart Australia

AUDITING AND SUPPLIER RELATIONSHIPS GRADE

D–

B+

B–

C–

A–

D–

D+

C–

C+

D+

A–

C–

C+

A–

C–

C+

A+

C+

B–

A+

C+

C–

A+

B+

D+

B–

D+

D–

A–

B+

AUDITING

What percentage of facilities are audited over a

2-year period by trained social auditors (internal

and/or third party)?

1–25%

26–50%

1–25%

100%

1–25%

51–75%

1–25%

What percentage of facilities are internally

audited by staff with social audit training?

1–25%

What percentage of facilities are audited by

third party auditors that specialise in labour

standards?

1–25%

26–50%

1–25%

100%

1–25%

51–75%

1–25%

What percentage of facilities are audited with

unannounced audits, anonymous worker

surveys or off-site worker interviews per year?

1–25%

26–50%

1–25%

Are suppliers monitored for their use of labour

brokers and recruitment fees?

What percentage of corrective action plans

pertaining to wages and/or overtime are

resolved within 12 months?

1–25%

51–75%

1–25%

SUPPLIER RELATIONSHIPS

Does the brand invest in training buyers and

suppliers/factory managers, in order to increase

awareness of human rights and health and

safety risks?

Does the company actively improve leverage

and relationships with suppliers, through

supplier consolidation and industry collaboration?

Does that company have a preferred supplier

program by which suppliers are incentivised by

strong labour rights records?

For companies more than 10 years old: What

proportion of suppliers has the company

sourced from for at least 5years?

1–25%

26–50%

1–25%

100%

1–25%

76–99%

1–25%

RAW

MATERIALS

PRODUCTION

SURVEY DATA

AUDITING AND SUPPLIER RELATIONSHIPS RAW MATERIALS PRODUCTION

K–Z

* = non-responsive companies

Key:

YES PARTIAL NO

N/A

100% 76–99% 51–75% 26–50% 1–25% 0%

OVERALL GRADE

A–

A+

C–

A+

C+

A–

B–

B+

A+

B–

A–

B–

A–

B+

C+

A+

C–

C+

B–

C–

C+

B+

A–

C–

D+

C+

C–

B–

D–

B+

D–

B–

Kookai

Kowtow

L Brands

Lacoste

Levi Strauss & Co.*

Liminal Apparel

Lorna Jane

Lowes*

Lululemon Athletica

Macpac

Marks & Spencer

Max*

Merric Apparel NZ*

Mighty Good Group

Munro Footwear Group

Myer

Nature Baby

New Balance

Nike

Nobody Denim

Noni B Group

Nudie Jeans Co.

Oroton Group

Outland Denim

Oxford

Pagani

Patagonia

Pavement United Brands*

Postie+

Puma

PVH Corp.*

R.M. Williams

Ralph Lauren*

Retail Apparel Group

Rip Curl

Rodd & Gunn

RREPP

Ruby Apparel

Seafolly

Seed Heritage

Showpo*

Simon de Winter Group

Sussan Group

Swanndri NZ

3 Wise Men Ltd.*

T&T Fashions*

Target Australia

The Baby Factory*

The Iconic*

The PAS Group

The Warehouse Group

Tigerlily*

Tree of Life

Trelise Cooper*

UNIQLO

VF Corp.

Voyager Distributing Co.*

Wish Designs*

Workwear Group

WORLD*

Zimmermann

AUDITING AND SUPPLIER RELATIONSHIPS GRADE

A–

B+

D+

B–

B+

B–

A+

B–

B+

D–

A–

C+

B–

B+

B–

A+

C–

D+

B–

B+

C–

B+

C–

D+

B+

D+

C–

B–

B+

C+

AUDITING

What percentage of facilities are audited over a

2-year period by trained social auditors (internal

and/or third party)?

100%

1–25%

51–75%

1–25%

76–99%

1–25%

What percentage of facilities are internally

audited by staff with social audit training?

1–25%

51–75%

1–25%

What percentage of facilities are audited by

third party auditors that specialise in labour

standards?

100%

1–25%

51–75%

1–25%

76–99%

1–25%

What percentage of facilities are audited with

unannounced audits, anonymous worker

surveys or off-site worker interviews per year?

1–25%

Are suppliers monitored for their use of labour

brokers and recruitment fees?

What percentage of corrective action plans

pertaining to wages and/or overtime are

resolved within 12 months?

SUPPLIER RELATIONSHIPS

Does the brand invest in training buyers and

suppliers/factory managers, in order to increase

awareness of human rights and health and

safety risks?

Does the company actively improve leverage

and relationships with suppliers, through

supplier consolidation and industry collaboration?

Does that company have a preferred supplier

program by which suppliers are incentivised by

strong labour rights records?

For companies more than 10 years old: What

proportion of suppliers has the company

sourced from for at least 5years?

26–50%

N/A

1–25%

N/A

1–25%

76–99%

N/A

1–25%

N/A

100%

RAW

MATERIALS

PRODUCTION

SURVEY DATA

WORKER EMPOWERMENT FINAL STAGE PRODUCTION

A–K

* = non-responsive companies

Key:

YES PARTIAL NO 100% 76–99% 51–75% 26–50% 1–25% 0%

OVERALL GRADE

D–

B–

A–

C+

A–

D+

C+

D+

B–

C+

C–

C+

C–

C+

B+

D+

A–

C–

D–

C+

A+

D+

B–

D–

A+

D+

D–

A–

B+

B–

C+

D+

A+

A–

B+

C+

C–

D+

B+

A–

A+

Abercrombie & Fitch*

adidas

ALDI Stores

Ally Fashion*

Anthea Crawford*

APG & Co.

Arcadia Group

AS Colour

ASICS

ASOS

Baby City*

Bardot

Barkers Clothing*

Bec and Bridge*

Ben Sherman Australia

Best & Less

Betts Group

Big W

Bloch*

Blue Illusion

Boardriders

Boden

Boohoo

Brand Collective (Apparel)

Brand Collective (Footwear)

Camilla and Marc*

Canterbury of NZ

City Chic Collective

Coles*

Cotton On Group

Country Road Group

Cue

David Jones

Decjuba*

Designworks

Etiko

Ezibuy

Factory X

Farmers*

Fast Future Brands

Forever 21*

Forever New

Freeset T–Shirts

Fruit of the Loom*

Gap Inc.

Gazal*

General Pants Group

Gildan Activewear

Gorman

H&M

Hallenstein Glasson Holdings

Hanesbrands

Hot Springs*

House of Quirky

Huer

Hugo Boss Group

Hunting & Fishing NZ

Icebreaker

Inditex

Industrie

Jeanswest

JETS

Just Group

K&K

Karen Walker*

Kate Sylvester*

Kathmandu

Kmart Australia

Kookai

Kowtow

WORKER EMPOWERMENT GRADE

B–

D–

C–

B–

D–

B–

D–

C–

D–

D+

D–

C–

C+

D+

C–

A+

C–

A+

D–

D+

C+

C–

C+

B+

D–

A–

B+

D+

D–

C–

B+

C–

B–

A–

WAGES

Has the company developed a living wage

methodology and calculated a living wage

for each region that it operates in?

Has the brand published a commitment to

pay living wages, which is timebound and

measurable, including a methodology or

benchmark?

What percentage of facilities have projects

to improve wages?

26–50%

100%

1–25%

51–75%

1–25%

26–50%

1–25%

26–50%

100%

1–25%

100%

1–25%

51–75%

26–50%

1–25%

76–99%

51–75%

1–25%

76–99%

51–75%

76–99%

26–50%

1–25%

100%

What percentage of facilities pay a living

wage?

100%

1–25%

26–50%

1–25%

100%

1–25%

100%

1–25%

51–75%

26–50%

51–75%

1–25%

26–50%

WORKER VOICE

What percentage of facilities are known to

have independent democratically elected

trade unions and/or collective bargaining

agreements?

1–25%

100%

76–99%

1–25%

26–50%

1–25%

26–50%

1–25%

76–99%

100%

1–25%

100%

1–25%

100%

1–25%

26–50%

1–25%

51–75%

1–25%

26–50%

76–99%

1–25%

76–99%

26–50%

76–99%

1–25%

51–75%

76–99%

Are all workers trained on their rights

regarding freedom of association?

Does the company have a functioning

grievance mechanism which workers can

access annonymously and in their native

language?

Are workers trained on their rights and

entitlements, including how to use

grievance mechanisms?

CHILD & FORCED LABOR REMEDIATION PLAN

Where child labour and/or forced labour is

found to exist, does the company consult

with credible civil society organisations in

developing a plan for redress?

FINAL STAGE

PRODUCTION

SURVEY DATA

WORKER EMPOWERMENT FINAL STAGE PRODUCTION

L–Z

* = non-responsive companies

Key:

YES PARTIAL NO 100% 76–99% 51–75% 26–50% 1–25% 0%

OVERALL GRADE

C–

A+

C+

A–

B–

B+

A+

B–

A–

B–

A–

B+

C+

A+

C–

C+

B–

C–

C+

B+

A–

C–

D+

C+

C–

B–

D–

B+

D–

B–

L Brands

Lacoste

Levi Strauss & Co.*

Liminal Apparel

Lorna Jane

Lowes*

Lululemon Athletica

Macpac

Marks & Spencer

Max*

Merric Apparel NZ*

Mighty Good Group

Munro Footwear Group

Myer

Nature Baby

New Balance

Nike

Nobody Denim

Noni B Group

Nudie Jeans Co.

Oroton Group

Outland Denim

Oxford

Pagani

Patagonia

Pavement United Brands*

Postie+

Puma

PVH Corp.*

R.M. Williams

Ralph Lauren*

Retail Apparel Group

Rip Curl

Rodd & Gunn

RREPP

Ruby Apparel

Seafolly

Seed Heritage

Showpo*

Simon de Winter Group

Sussan Group

Swanndri NZ

3 Wise Men Ltd.*

T&T Fashions*

Target Australia

The Baby Factory*

The Iconic*

The PAS Group

The Warehouse Group

Tigerlily*

Tree of Life

Trelise Cooper*

UNIQLO

VF Corp.

Voyager Distributing Co.*

Wish Designs*

Workwear Group

WORLD*

Zimmermann

WORKER EMPOWERMENT GRADE

D+

D–

A+

C–

B–

D+

A+

D+

B–

D–

B+

B–

D+

A+

D–

C–

D+

D–

D+

B–

B+

D+

D–

C+

D+

C–

D–

D+

C+

WAGES

Has the company developed a living wage

methodology and calculated a living wage

for each region that it operates in?

Has the brand published a commitment to

pay living wages, which is timebound and

measurable, including a methodology or

benchmark?

What percentage of facilities have projects

to improve wages?

1–25%

100%

1–25%

100%

26–50%

1–25%

51–75%

1–25%

26–50%

100%

51–75%

1–25%

100%

1–25%

26–50%

1–25%

What percentage of facilities pay a living

wage?

100%

1–25%

100%

51–75%

1–25%

100%

1–25%

26–50%

1–25%

WORKER VOICE

What percentage of facilities are known to

have independent democratically elected

trade unions and/or collective bargaining

agreements?

100%

51–75%

76–99%

1–25%

100%

76–99%

1–25%

51–75%

100%

1–25%

51–75%

1–25%

26–50%

51–75%

26–50%

1–25%

76–99%

1–25%

76–99%

Are all workers trained on their rights

regarding freedom of association?

Does the company have a functioning

grievance mechanism which workers can

access annonymously and in their native

language?

Are workers trained on their rights and

entitlements, including how to use

grievance mechanisms?

CHILD & FORCED LABOR REMEDIATION PLAN

Where child labour and/or forced labour is

found to exist, does the company consult

with credible civil society organisations in

developing a plan for redress?

FINAL STAGE

PRODUCTION

SURVEY DATA

WORKER EMPOWERMENT INPUTS PRODUCTION

A–K

* = non-responsive companies

Key:

YES PARTIAL NO 100% 76–99% 51–75% 26–50% 1–25% 0%

OVERALL GRADE

D–

B–

A–

C+

A–

D+

C+

D+

B–

C+

C–

C+

C–

C+

B+

D+

A–

C–

D–

C+

A+

D+

B–

D–

A+

D+

D–

A–

B+

B–

C+

D+

A+

A–

B+

C+

C–

D+

B+

A–

A+

Abercrombie & Fitch*

adidas

ALDI Stores

Ally Fashion*

Anthea Crawford*

APG & Co.

Arcadia Group

AS Colour

ASICS

ASOS

Baby City*

Bardot

Barkers Clothing*

Bec and Bridge*

Ben Sherman Australia

Best & Less

Betts Group

Big W

Bloch*

Blue Illusion

Boardriders

Boden

Boohoo

Brand Collective (Apparel)

Brand Collective (Footwear)

Camilla and Marc*

Canterbury of NZ

City Chic Collective

Coles*

Cotton On Group

Country Road Group

Cue

David Jones

Decjuba*

Designworks

Etiko

Ezibuy

Factory X

Farmers*

Fast Future Brands

Forever 21*

Forever New

Freeset T–Shirts

Fruit of the Loom*

Gap Inc.

Gazal*

General Pants Group

Gildan Activewear

Gorman

H&M

Hallenstein Glasson Holdings

Hanesbrands

Hot Springs*

House of Quirky

Huer

Hugo Boss Group

Hunting & Fishing NZ

Icebreaker

Inditex

Industrie

Jeanswest

JETS

Just Group

K&K

Karen Walker*

Kate Sylvester*

Kathmandu

Kmart Australia

Kookai

Kowtow

WORKER EMPOWERMENT GRADE

B–

D–

C–

B–

D–

B–

D–

C–

D–

D+

D–

C–

C+

D+

C–

A+

C–

A+

D–

D+

C+

C–

C+

B+

D–

A–

B+

D+

D–

C–

B+

C–

B–

A–

WAGES

Has the company developed a living wage

methodology and calculated a living wage

for each region that it operates in?

Has the brand published a commitment to

pay living wages, which is timebound and

measurable, including amethodology or

benchmark?

What percentage of facilities have projects

to improve wages?

1–25%

51–75%

1–25%

100%

1–25%

76–99%

1–25%

76–99%

What percentage of facilities pay aliving

wage?

1–25%

100%

51–75%

1–25%

26–50%

WORKER VOICE

What percentage of facilities are known to

have independent democratically elected

trade unions?

1–25%

26–50%

1–25%

100%

26–50%

100%

1–25%

76–99%

1–25%

51–75%

1–25%

76–99%

Are all workers trained on their rights

regarding freedom of association?

Does the company have a functioning

grievance mechanism which workers can

access annonymously and in their native

language?

Are workers trained on their rights and

entitlements, including how to use

grievance mechanisms?

CHILD & FORCED LABOR REMEDIATION PLAN

Where child labour and/or forced labour is

found to exist, does the company consult

with credible civil society organisations in

developing aplan for redress?

INPUTS

PRODUCTION

SURVEY DATA

WORKER EMPOWERMENT INPUTS PRODUCTION

L–Z

* = non-responsive companies

Key:

YES PARTIAL NO 100% 76–99% 51–75% 26–50% 1–25% 0%

OVERALL GRADE

C–

C+

A+

A–

B–

B+

A+

B–

A–

B–

A–

B+

C+

A+

C–

C+

B–

C–

C+

B+

A–

C–

D+

C+

C–

B–

D–

B+

D–

B–

L Brands

Lacoste

Levi Strauss & Co.*

Lorna Jane

Liminal Apparel

Lowes*

Lululemon Athletica

Macpac

Marks & Spencer

Max*

Merric Apparel NZ*

Mighty Good Group

Munro Footwear Group

Myer

Nature Baby

New Balance

Nike

Nobody Denim

Noni B Group

Nudie Jeans Co.

Oroton Group

Outland Denim

Oxford

Pagani

Patagonia

Pavement United Brands*

Postie+

Puma

PVH Corp.*

R.M. Williams

Ralph Lauren*

Retail Apparel Group

Rip Curl

Rodd & Gunn

RREPP

Ruby Apparel

Seafolly

Seed Heritage

Showpo*

Simon de Winter Group

Sussan Group

Swanndri NZ

3 Wise Men Ltd.*

T&T Fashions*

Target Australia

The Baby Factory*

The Iconic*

The PAS Group

The Warehouse Group

Tigerlily*

Tree of Life

Trelise Cooper*

UNIQLO

VF Corp.

Voyager Distributing Co.*

Wish Designs*

Workwear Group

WORLD*

Zimmermann

WORKER EMPOWERMENT GRADE

D+

D–

C–

A+

B–

D+

A+

D+

B–

D–

B+

B–

D+

A+

D–

C–

D+

D–

D+

B–

B+

D+

D–

C+

D+

C–

D–

D+

C+

WAGES

Has the company developed a living wage

methodology and calculated a living wage

for each region that it operates in?

Has the brand published a commitment to

pay living wages, which is timebound and

measurable, including amethodology or

benchmark?

What percentage of facilities have projects

to improve wages?

1–25%

100%

1–25%

100%

1–25%

100%

1–25%

What percentage of facilities pay aliving

wage?

100%

1–25%

26–50%

1–25%

100%

1–25%

WORKER VOICE

What percentage of facilities are known to

have independent democratically elected

trade unions?

100%

26–50%

100%

1–25%

26–50%

51–75%

100%

1–25%

51–75%

1–25%

26–50%

1–25%

26–50%

1–25%

51–75%

Are all workers trained on their rights

regarding freedom of association?

Does the company have a functioning

grievance mechanism which workers can

access annonymously and in their native

language?

Are workers trained on their rights and

entitlements, including how to use

grievance mechanisms?

CHILD & FORCED LABOR REMEDIATION PLAN

Where child labour and/or forced labour is

found to exist, does the company consult

with credible civil society organisations in

developing aplan for redress?

INPUTS

PRODUCTION

SURVEY DATA

WORKER EMPOWERMENT RAW MATERIALS PRODUCTION

A–K

* = non-responsive companies

Key:

YES PARTIAL NO 100% 76–99% 51–75% 26–50% 1–25% 0%

OVERALL GRADE

D–

B–

A–

C+

A–

D+

C+

D+

B–

C+

C–

C+

C–

C+

B+

D+

A–

C–

D–

C+

A+

D+

B–

D–

A+

D+

D–

A–

B+

B–

C+

D+

A+

A–

B+

C+

C–

D+

B+

A–

A+

Abercrombie & Fitch*

adidas

ALDI Stores

Ally Fashion*

Anthea Crawford*

APG & Co.

Arcadia Group

AS Colour

ASICS

ASOS

Baby City*

Bardot

Barkers Clothing*

Bec and Bridge*

Ben Sherman Australia

Best & Less

Betts Group

Big W

Bloch*

Blue Illusion

Boardriders

Boden

Boohoo

Brand Collective (Apparel)

Brand Collective (Footwear)

Camilla and Marc*

Canterbury of NZ

City Chic Collective

Coles*

Cotton On Group

Country Road Group

Cue

David Jones

Decjuba*

Designworks

Etiko

Ezibuy

Factory X

Farmers*

Fast Future Brands

Forever 21*

Forever New

Freeset T–Shirts

Fruit of the Loom*

Gap Inc.

Gazal*

General Pants Group

Gildan Activewear

Gorman

H&M

Hallenstein Glasson Holdings

Hanesbrands

Hot Springs*

House of Quirky

Huer

Hugo Boss Group

Hunting & Fishing NZ

Icebreaker

Inditex

Industrie

Jeanswest

JETS

Just Group

K&K

Karen Walker*

Kate Sylvester*

Kathmandu

Kmart Australia

Kookai

Kowtow

WORKER EMPOWERMENT GRADE

B–

D–

C–

B–

D–

B–

D–

C–

D–

D+

D–

C–

C+

D+

C–

A+

C–

A+

D–

D+

C+

C–

C+

B+

D–

A–

B+

D+

D–

C–

B+

C–

B–

A–

WAGES

Has the company developed a living wage

methodology and calculated a living wage

for each region that it operates in?

Has the brand published a commitment to

pay living wages, which is timebound and

measurable, including a methodology or

benchmark?

What percentage of facilities have projects

to improve wages?

100%

1–25%

100%

What percentage of facilities pay a living

wage?

1–25%

WORKER VOICE

What percentage of facilities are known to

have independent democratically elected

trade unions?

1–25%

100%

1–25%

100%

Are all workers trained on their rights

regarding freedom of association?

Does the company have a functioning

grievance mechanism which workers can

access annonymously and in their native

language?

Are workers trained on their rights and

entitlements, including how to use

grievance mechanisms?

CHILD & FORCED LABOR REMEDIATION PLAN

Where child labour and/or forced labour is

found to exist, does the company consult

with credible civil society organisations in

developing a plan for redress?

RAW

MATERIALS

PRODUCTION

SURVEY DATA

WORKER EMPOWERMENT RAW MATERIALS PRODUCTION

L–Z

* = non-responsive companies

Key:

YES PARTIAL NO 100% 76–99% 51–75% 26–50% 1–25% 0%

OVERALL GRADE

C–

A+

C+

A–

B–

B+

A+

B–

A–

B–

A–

B+

C+

A+

C–

C+

B–

C–

C+

B+

A–

C–

D+

C+

C–

B–

D–

B+

D–

B–

L Brands

Lacoste

Levi Strauss & Co.*

Liminal Apparel

Lorna Jane

Lowes*

Lululemon Athletica

Macpac

Marks & Spencer

Max*

Merric Apparel NZ*

Mighty Good Group

Munro Footwear Group

Myer

Nature Baby

New Balance

Nike

Nobody Denim

Noni B Group

Nudie Jeans Co.

Oroton Group

Outland Denim

Oxford

Pagani

Patagonia

Pavement United Brands*

Postie+

Puma

PVH Corp.*

R.M. Williams

Ralph Lauren*

Retail Apparel Group

Rip Curl

Rodd & Gunn

RREPP

Ruby Apparel

Seafolly

Seed Heritage

Showpo*

Simon de Winter Group

Sussan Group

Swanndri NZ

3 Wise Men Ltd.*

T&T Fashions*

Target Australia

The Baby Factory*

The Iconic*

The PAS Group

The Warehouse Group

Tigerlily*

Tree of Life

Trelise Cooper*

UNIQLO

VF Corp.

Voyager Distributing Co.*

Wish Designs*

Workwear Group

WORLD*

Zimmermann

WORKER EMPOWERMENT GRADE

D+

D–

A+

C–

B–

D+

A+

D+

B–

D–

B+

B–

D+

A+

D–

C–

D+

D–

D+

B–

B+

D+

D–

C+

D+

C–

D–

D+

C+

WAGES

Has the company developed a living wage

methodology and calculated a living wage

for each region that it operates in?

Has the brand published a commitment to

pay living wages, which is timebound and

measurable, including a methodology or

benchmark?

What percentage of facilities have projects

to improve wages?

100%

76–99%

100%

1–25%

100%

What percentage of facilities pay a living

wage?

WORKER VOICE

What percentage of facilities are known to

have independent democratically elected

trade unions?

1–25%

100%

1–25%

100%

1–25%

100%

1–25%

Are all workers trained on their rights

regarding freedom of association?

Does the company have a functioning

grievance mechanism which workers can

access annonymously and in their native

language?

Are workers trained on their rights and

entitlements, including how to use

grievance mechanisms?

CHILD & FORCED LABOR REMEDIATION PLAN

Where child labour and/or forced labour is

found to exist, does the company consult

with credible civil society organisations in

developing a plan for redress?

RAW

MATERIALS

PRODUCTION

SURVEY DATA

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT GOVERNANCE, MATERIALS, EMISSIONS, CHEMICAL USE

A–K

OVERALL GRADE

D–

B–

A–

C+

A–

D+

C+

D+

B–

C+

C–

C+

C–

C+

B+

D+

A–

C–

D–

C+

A+

D+

B–

D–

A+

D+

D–

A–

B+

B–

C+

D+

A+

A–

B+

C+

C–

D+

B+

A–

A+

Abercrombie & Fitch*

adidas

ALDI Stores

Ally Fashion*

Anthea Crawford*

APG & Co

Arcadia Group

AS Colour

ASICS

ASOS

Baby City*

Bardot

Barkers Clothing*

Bec and Bridge*

Ben Sherman Australia

Best & Less

Betts Group

Big W

Bloch*

Blue Illusion

Boardriders

Boden

Boohoo

Brand Collective (Apparel)

Brand Collective (Footwear)

Camilla and Marc*

Canterbury of NZ

City Chic Collective

Coles*

Cotton On Group

Country Road Group

Cue

David Jones

Decjuba*

Designworks

Etiko

Ezibuy

Factory X

Farmers*

Fast Future Brands

Forever 21*

Forever New

Freeset T–Shirts

Fruit of the Loom*

Gap Inc.

Gazal*

General Pants Group

Gildan Activewear

Gorman

H&M

Hallenstein Glasson Holdings

Hanesbrands

Hot Springs*

House of Quirky

Huer

Hugo Boss Group

Hunting & Fishing NZ

Icebreaker

Inditex

Industrie

Jeanswest

JETS

Just Group

K&K

Karen Walker*

Kate Sylvester*

Kathmandu

Kmart Australia

Kookai

Kowtow

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT GRADE

A–

C+

C–

B+

C–

D+

B+

B–

C–

A+

C+

B+

A+

D–

A–

B+

A–

B+

A+

B+

A+

D–

D+

C–

A+

D+

B–

B+

C–

B+

A+

GOVERNANCE

Has the brand undertaken an assessment

of its environmental impacts and risks

throughout its supply chain?

MATERIALS

Has the brand assessed the environmental

impact of its top 3 fibres and materials

used in its apparel products and

implemented learnings from assessment

into product design and production?

What percentage of the brand’s final

product is made from sustainable fibres?

1–25%

51–75%

1–25%

100%

1–25%

100%

26–50%

1–25%

26–50%

1–25%

76–99%

1–25%

51–75%

1–25%

26–50%

1–25%

100%

EMISSIONS

Has the brand announced net-zero carbon

emissions reduction target by 2050 for its

supply chain, or is it lobbying for this target

in the countries that it is operating in?

CHEMICAL USE

Does the brand have a restricted

substances list against which it tests

compliance?

Does the brand have a manufacturing

restricted substances list against which it

tests compliance?

* = non-responsive companies

Key:

YES PARTIAL NO 100% 76–99% 51–75% 26–50% 1–25% 0%

SURVEY DATA

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT GOVERNANCE, MATERIALS, EMISSIONS, CHEMICAL USE

L–Z

OVERALL GRADE

C–

A+

C+

A–

B–

B+

A+

B–

A–

B–

A–

B+

C+

A+

C–

C+

B–

C–

C+

B+

A–

C–

D+

C+

C–

B–

D–

B+

D–

B–

L Brands

Lacoste

Levi Strauss & Co*

Liminal Apparel

Lorna Jane

Lowes*

Lululemon Athletica

Macpac

Marks & Spencer

Max*

Merric Apparel NZ*

Mighty Good Group

Munro Footwear Group

Myer

Nature Baby

New Balance

Nike

Nobody Denim

Noni B Group

Nudie Jeans co

Oroton Group

Outland Denim

Oxford

Pagani

Patagonia

Pavement United Brands*

Postie+

Puma

PVH Corp*

R.M. Williams

Ralph Lauren*

Retail Apparel Group

Rip Curl

Rodd & Gunn

RREPP

Ruby Apparel

Seafolly

Seed Heritage

Showpo*

Simon de Winter Group

Sussan Group

Swanndri NZ

3 Wise Men Ltd*

T&T Fashions*

Target Australia

The Baby Factory*

The Iconic*

The PAS Group

The Warehouse Group

Tigerlily*

Tree of Life

Trelise Cooper*

UNIQLO

VF Corp

Voyager Distributing Co*

Wish Designs*

Workwear Group

WORLD*

Zimmermann

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT GRADE

A–

D+

A+

A–

C+

A+

D+

A+

B+

B–

A+

B+

A+

B–

D+

A–

A+

C–

C+

C–

C+

C–

D–

A+

D+

GOVERNANCE

Has the brand undertaken an assessment

of its environmental impacts and risks

throughout its supply chain?

MATERIALS

Has the brand assessed the environmental

impact of its top 3 fibres and materials

used in its apparel products and

implemented learnings from assessment

into product design and production?

What percentage of the brand’s final

product is made from sustainable fibres?

1–25%

100%

1–25%

26–50%

100%

1–25%

76–99%

1–25%

51–75%

1–25%

76–99%

100%

26–50%

51–75%

1–25%

26–50%

100%

1–25%

26–50%

1–25%

26–50%

51–75%

1–25%

26–50%

1–25%

26–50%

1–25%

EMISSIONS

Has the brand announced net-zero carbon

emissions reduction target by 2050 for its

supply chain, or is it lobbying for this target

in the countries that it is operating in?

CHEMICAL USE

Does the brand have a restricted

substances list against which it tests

compliance?

Does the brand have a manufacturing

restricted substances list against which it

tests compliance?

* = non-responsive companies

Key:

YES PARTIAL NO 100% 76–99% 51–75% 26–50% 1–25% 0%

SURVEY DATA

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT WATER USE, WASTE WATER, MATERIAL/PRODUCT WASTE

A–K

OVERALL GRADE

D–

B–

A–

C+

A–

D+

C+

D+

B–

C+

C–

C+

C–

C+

B+

D+

A–

C–

D–

C+

A+

D+

B–

D–

A+

D+

D–

A–

B+

B–

C+

D+

A+

A–

B+

C+

C–

D+

B+

A–

A+

Abercrombie & Fitch*

adidas

ALDI Stores

Ally Fashion*

Anthea Crawford*

APG & Co

Arcadia Group

AS Colour

ASICS

ASOS

Baby City*

Bardot

Barkers Clothing*

Bec and Bridge*

Ben Sherman Australia

Best & Less

Betts Group

Big W

Bloch*

Blue Illusion

Boardriders

Boden

Boohoo

Brand Collective (Apparel)

Brand Collective (Footwear)

Camilla and Marc*

Canterbury of NZ

City Chic Collective

Coles*

Cotton On Group

Country Road Group

Cue

David Jones

Decjuba*

Designworks

Etiko

Ezibuy

Factory X

Farmers*

Fast Future Brands

Forever 21*

Forever New

Freeset T–Shirts

Fruit of the Loom*

Gap Inc.

Gazal*

General Pants Group

Gildan Activewear

Gorman

H&M

Hallenstein Glasson Holdings

Hanesbrands

Hot Springs*

House of Quirky

Huer

Hugo Boss Group

Hunting & Fishing NZ

Icebreaker

Inditex

Industrie

Jeanswest

JETS

Just Group

K&K

Karen Walker*

Kate Sylvester*

Kathmandu

Kmart Australia

Kookai

Kowtow

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT GRADE

A–

C+

C–

B+

C–

D+

B+

B–

C–

A+

C+

B+

A+

D–

A–

B+

A–

B+

A+

B+

A+

D–

D+

C–

A+

D+

B–

B+

C–

B+

A+

WATER USE

For what percentage of water intensive

facilities has the brand collected and

benchmarked water use data?

1–25%

76–99%

26–50%

1–25%

51–75%

1–25%

51–75%

26–50%

1–25%

100%

1–25%

100%

1–25%

26–50%

1–25%

51–75%

26–50%

100%

1–25%

100%

1–25%

76–99%

100%

51–75%

1–25%

100%

Has the brand used the above data to

implement a water use plan?

WASTE WATER

For what percentage of wet-processing

facilities has the brand collected

wastewater quality data?

1–25%

76–99%

26–50%

51–75%

1–25%

26–50%

1–25%

100%

1–25%

100%

26–50%

1–25%

51–75%

26–50%

100%

1–25%

100%

1–25%

100%

51–75%

100%

51–75%

1–25%

100%

Of these, do all have wastewater

improvement strategies?

MATERIAL/PRODUCT WASTE

Does the brand make available to

customers a take-back and/or repair

program?

* = non-responsive companies

Key:

YES PARTIAL NO 100% 76–99% 51–75% 26–50% 1–25% 0%

SURVEY DATA

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT WATER USE, WASTE WATER, MATERIAL/PRODUCT WASTE

L–Z

OVERALL GRADE

C–

A+

C+

A–

B–

B+

A+

B–

A–

B–

A–

B+

C+

A+

C–

C+

B–

C–

C+

B+

A–

C–

D+

C+

C–

B–

D–

B+

D–

B–

L Brands

Lacoste

Levi Strauss & Co*

Liminal Apparel

Lorna Jane

Lowes*

Lululemon Athletica

Macpac

Marks & Spencer

Max*

Merric Apparel NZ*

Mighty Good Group

Munro Footwear Group

Myer

Nature Baby

New Balance

Nike

Nobody Denim

Noni B Group

Nudie Jeans co

Oroton Group

Outland Denim

Oxford

Pagani

Patagonia

Pavement United Brands*

Postie+

Puma

PVH Corp*

R.M. Williams

Ralph Lauren*

Retail Apparel Group

Rip Curl

Rodd & Gunn

RREPP

Ruby Apparel

Seafolly

Seed Heritage

Showpo*

Simon de Winter Group

Sussan Group

Swanndri NZ

3 Wise Men Ltd*

T&T Fashions*

Target Australia

The Baby Factory*

The Iconic*

The PAS Group

The Warehouse Group

Tigerlily*

Tree of Life

Trelise Cooper*

UNIQLO

VF Corp

Voyager Distributing Co*

Wish Designs*

Workwear Group

WORLD*

Zimmermann

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT GRADE

A–

D+

A+

A–

C+

A+

D+

A+

B+

B–

A+

B+

A+

B–

D+

A–

A+

C–

C+

C–

C+

C–

D–

A+

D+

WATER USE

For what percentage of water intensive

facilities has the brand collected and

benchmarked water use data?

100%

1–25%

100%

51–75%

1–25%

100%

26–50%

1–25%

26–50%

1–25%

100%

26–50%

76–99%

1–25%

100%

51–75%

1–25%

76–99%

Has the brand used the above data to

implement a water use plan?

WASTE WATER

For what percentage of wet-processing

facilities has the brand collected

wastewater quality data?

26–50%

1–25%

76–99%

100%

76–99%

1–25%

100%

1–25%

100%

26–50%

1–25%

100%

26–50%

51–75%

1–25%

100%

51–75%

1–25%

76–99%

100%

Of these, do all have wastewater

improvement strategies?

MATERIAL/PRODUCT WASTE

Does the brand make available to

customers a take-back and/or repair

program?

* = non-responsive companies

Key:

YES PARTIAL NO 100% 76–99% 51–75% 26–50% 1–25% 0%

Appendices

Karen Walker

We commend Baptist World Aid Australia/

Tearfund New Zealand for their advocacy and

we’re grateful for the insights we’ve gained from

participating in previous surveys.

The survey is suited to mass market brands and

manufacturers, not to boutique brands like ours

with less than a handful of manufacturing partners

and production runs of around 50 units per style.

We’re very happy with where we’re at in terms of

our manufacturing and sourcing. We’re conﬁdent

in our plan going forward; continuing to make

measurable in-the-ﬁeld improvements and sharing

this information directly with our community.

By not participating in the survey, we’re given

a grade by Tearfund solely based on what

information was available online at the time of

grading. The grade does not reﬂect our ethical

standards and social responsibility systems.

It merely reﬂects Tearfund’s evaluation of

information online. The information we’ve shared

on our website is very extensive and it’s important

to us that our community’s able to read about the

many ways in which we action our core beliefs and

STATEMENTS FROM NON-RESPONSIVE COMPANIES

that our colleagues in the fashion industry can see

our actions and commitments also. We’re always

happy to answer any further questions directly via:

https://www.karenwalker.com/socialresponsibility.

WORLD

WORLD has chosen not to partake in the Tearfund

questionnaire. Whilst WORLD appreciates what

Tearfund is endeavouring to achieve, we do not

believe at this time, that the Tearfund Survey is

applicable to, or understanding of New Zealand

garment production. WORLD will continue to

champion New Zealand manufacturing and help

maintain a local industry that is receding at an

alarming rate, whilst applying our community’s

high ethical and moral standards.

Kate Sylvester

Kate Sylvester believes the true value of clothing is

in its design, how it was made and how long it will

last and we take a considered and kind approach

to everything we do. At Kate Sylvester we are

deeply committed to social and environmental

responsibility and commend Tearfund and Baptist

World Aid on what is a valuable report for the

Of the 130 company surveys covered in our 2019 report, 34 companies

chose not to engage with our research and they have been listed as “non-

responsive”. Each non-responsive company was offered the chance to include

a short statement in The Report, regarding its decision not to participate in this

research. The following eight companies provided statements:

fashion industry. Whilst this survey is a framework

for responsible practice, we feel it has limitations for

small, boutique fashion businesses. After discussion

with Tearfund about our unique local industry, we

decided that instead of participating in the survey

this year, we will instead put our resources into two

special projects for 2019. The ﬁrst is co-founding

Mindful Fashion New Zealand, a New Zealand

fashion industry collective that is committed

to supporting the future of our local garment

industry and create benchmarks for ethical clothing

production in New Zealand. Secondly, we have

publicly released our ﬁrst annual Progress Report

which identiﬁes where Kate Sylvester is focussing

their sustainability resources, measures and shares

our sustainability goals and results, and talks

transparently with our customers. Find out more

about our initiatives at katesylvester.com

Max

Max continues to be committed to an ethical and

sustainable sourcing business model. We have

taken the decision not to participate in the Ethical

Fashion Survey but to instead focus on initiatives

that make real change to our sourcing model and

sustainable business practises. We have made

signiﬁcant progress in the past year in our ethical

production practises and have collaborated

with the Tearfund team to demonstrate the

progress we have made and to identify new areas

of opportunity. We are transparent about our

sourcing practises and publish these in detail on

our website: Maxshop.com.

In addition we are delighted to announce that Max

has achieved CEMARS certiﬁcation for measuring

our carbon emissions and has developed a carbon

management plan and a pathway to take the

business carbon neutral. We are also proud of

the work we have done recently to remove over

900,000 plastic bags per year from our business

operations. Operating an ethical and sustainable

business has become part of the Max strategic

plan, with progress reported to our Board, and we

are committed to this being a signiﬁcant part of

our business operations into the future.

Barkers

In the past 12 months Barkers has undertaken a

huge focus to strategically reposition the brand

to become a responsible business with a core

focus on environmental, ethical and transparent

sourcing. Due to our small team and limited

resources, this year we decided not to participate

in the Ethical Fashion Survey but instead chose

to put our energies and focus into making some

real change in the development and sourcing of

our product, and the transparency of our supply

chain — including a substantial increase in the use

STATEMENTS FROM NON-RESPONSIVE COMPANIES

of Organic, Recycled and Responsibly sourced

products which we are very proud of. However our

goals and aspirations are high and we still have

a lot of work ahead of us to get to our goals of

Carbon Neutral and 100% responsibly sourced.

In January this year we launched a full

Transparency website under the banner “Made for

life” which goes deep into our ethos, strategies,

policies, and goals for our supply chain. We

also publicly released our very ﬁrst annual

Transparency report in March which goes into

further detail about our Environmental and Ethical

Responsibility journey and sets us a benchmark

to measure ourselves against to ensure we

continually improve and make progress toward our

goals, which we will share publicly each year.

Whilst we didn’t participate directly in the survey

due to these reasons, we fully support the

principles and work of the Ethical Fashion Report,

and have collaborated closely with the Tear Fund

team sharing with them our developments and

taking on board feedback to further improve what

we are doing in this space.

The Baby Factory

“Because we are such a small company operating

in predominantly one small market (NZ), and our

clothing volumes are small, we only use overseas

and local agents to source our clothing, which

comes predominantly from China . Manufacturers

do not wish to deal with is directly because of the

small MOQ’s we use. We are therefore unable to

obtain the information you have requested.”

The Iconic

THE ICONIC is deeply committed to social and

environmental responsibility. While we recognise

there is still much work to do, we have invested

heavily over the past year to proactively work

with our supply chain to ensure decent working

conditions are a reality for the more than 10,000

people involved in manufacturing our own-brand

products.

The report by Baptist World Aid has played an

important role in enabling customers to learn more

about the brands they purchase, while prompting

change in our industry. However, we believe

reducing the complexities involved in supply chain

management into a single score is potentially

misleading. We also feel the signiﬁcant time and

resources required to respond to the Baptist World

Aid questionnaire is better spent on our continued

work with our supply chain.

Therefore, rather than participate in a private

evaluation process, we have opted for Baptist

World Aid to assess THE ICONIC’s social and

environmental responsibility journey through the

publicly available information detailed on our

website. While this reduced opportunity to clarify

perceived actions during assessment, we believe

our customers and stakeholders have the right to

receive the same information as Baptist World Aid,

and we urge them to make their own assessment

about our performance.

Publicly available information is the greatest

form of transparency and accountability, and

STATEMENTS FROM NON-RESPONSIVE COMPANIES

our suppliers. We are extremely proud of the fact

that we have been able to sustain our Australian

made identity. Continuing to develop our ethical

and sustainability practices will allow us to fully

participate in the survey in future years in a

meaningful way. Bec and Bridge appreciates

the work Baptist World Aid Australia do in

researching and reporting on Corporate and Social

Responsibility systems and we look forward to

being part of the survey in the near future.

suppliers to honor our commitment to worker

safety. In addition, we support the major initiative

supporting Bangladesh Worker Safety: The Accord

on Fire and Building Safety in Bangladesh.

Beyond these eorts, Fruit of the Loom is a

signatory to the Apparel & Footwear Industry

Commitment to Responsible Recruitment to join

the industry to address potential forced labor

risks with regards to migrant workers, and we

are committed to be in full alignment with the

Transparency Pledge with respect to our Supply

Chain.

Additional information on our CSR program

can be found by visiting our Corporate Social

Responsibility website at http://www.fotlinc.com.

Bec and Bridge

Formalising and publishing ethical and sustainable

practices in Bec and Bridge is our top priority

for 2019. Whilst we have always operated with

this ethos, we understand the need to validate

and publish our systems. We are currently part

way through formalising this process, working

with David Nesbitt (Ethical Sourcing Agency) as

our Ethical and Sustainability consultant to build

our framework, policies and procedures. This

process is no small undertaking and as a small

business we need to invest time and money to

ensure it is done correctly. We maintain local,

Australian manufacturing and strive to ensure a

safe, supportive and fair working environment

for all of our employees, and the employees of

we hope to set a new standard amongst our

industry peers to follow suit over time. We will

continue to regularly update information about our

sustainability and ethical sourcing journey on our

website, and we welcome any reader, customer

or member of the general public to contact our

team for any questions or feedback. https://www.

theiconic.com.au/sustainability-ethical-sourcing/.

Fruit of the Loom

At Fruit of the Loom we are committed to

conducting business in accordance with the

highest standards of business ethics and respect

for human rights and the environment. We

operate in accordance with these standards as set

forth in our Code of Conduct in all facilities that

supply our products. We take pride in creating

an environment of continuous improvement

where both employees and the business can be

successful, balancing the needs of the business

with our impact on the environment, the people

involved in our supply chain, and the communities

in which we operate.

We choose suppliers that share our commitment

and work with us to achieve a sustainable supply

chain by adhering to our Code of Conduct,

which is monitored through regular assessments

conducted by third party ﬁrms.

Fruit of the Loom also takes the matter of worker

safety as a critically important aspect of our CSR

program. Accordingly, we have adopted a “Factory

Safety Policy” to clarify our expectations of all

Baptist World Aid Australia is grateful for the

time that companies have taken to provide

these statements and welcomes their input. It

remains open to working with all companies

assessed by The Report, to better understand

the systems they have in place to ensure

workers are not being exploited.

Baptist World Aid Australia appreciates

that companies of all sizes have engaged,

with most ﬁnding the process of being

benchmarked and gaining feedback helpful.

Strong systems, matched by full, open, and

honest disclosures by companies (preferably

public) continue to be the best way for

consumers to evaluate that companies are

taking the appropriate measures to address

exploitation in their supply chain.

CAMILLA AND MARC

CAMILLA AND MARC value the intent of the

Baptist World Aid Survey in their work to research

and inform consumers on Corporate and Social

Responsibility (CSR) systems. These eorts

are commendable and CAMILLA AND MARC

strongly maintain that consumers have the right

to be aware and assured of the ethical standards

surrounding clothing manufacture domestically

and abroad.

We have chosen not to be involved in the survey

as we believe the nature and format of the

questioning does not provide a comprehensive

picture of CAMILLA AND MARC’s CSR practices

and the information as such, can be misleading.

We encourage our customers to be informed

and we welcome any community questions or

concerns that may arise around such matters.

CAMILLA AND MARC, as a matter of practice

monitor closely all aspects of our supply chain

and we have a zero tolerance for unfair and

unsafe working conditions. We have a strong

relationship with our manufacturers that is built on

a mutual appreciation and maintenance of ethical

production, upheld by accountability, constant

communication and transparency. CAMILLA AND

MARC also ensure there is a growing focus on

sustainability.

We are conﬁdent that the standards in our Code

of Conduct are being met and will continue to

communicate with our manufacturers and raw

material supply partners to ensure to the best of

our ability that proper standards of conduct are

maintained.

Decjuba

Ethical Sourcing and Sustainability is a

fundamental part of the DECJUBA DNA and a

driving force in our current and future journey.

Having a positive impact on our planet is

important to us and this mandate guides our

decisions along each step of our supply chain. The

DECJUBA Code of Conduct sets out our non-

negotiable principles around banned practices

and materials including Uzbekistan cotton, mohair

and cashmere along with our non-negotiable

mandate around animal cruelty and environmental

sustainability. It also outlines our zero tolerance to

modern slavery and gender discrimination.

We are very passionate about driving and

embedding our Code of Conduct with all of our

suppliers. It’s a continuous journey that includes

thorough routine audits; a detailed supplier

onboarding process; regular factory visits from

DECJUBA leadership team with a focus on long-

term, sustainable partnerships; and training for

both our suppliers and the DECJUBA team on

ethical supply chain and sustainable practices,

including acceptable working conditions and living

wages.

Whilst we are pleased with the progress we’ve

made to growing our ethical footprint in the past

12 months we understand also that there is no

quick ﬁx. To truly set the tone for sustainable

change we are continuing to develop initiatives

through our entire business — ethical standards

and sustainability is something that we live and

breathe. Over the last 12 months we have taken

some solid steps : launching our ﬁrst eco-friendly

fashion item with a puer jacket made from

recycled materials, introduced biodegradable

packaging for all garments delivered, begun the

move to bio-degradable satchels for online orders,

and ensured our leather specialists source leather

as a bi-product of the meat industry and sign to

that agreement in our code of conduct. Tanneries

must also supply documentation outlining the

steps in which the skins are sourced and highlight

that this is carried out in a humane manner.

While we see a deﬁnite need for transparency and

reports like the Baptist World Aid Ethical Fashion

Report and appreciate their drive to achieve better

ethical standards for manufacturing and sourcing

we chose not to participate in the report this year.

We were given a D in the Baptist World Aid Ethical

Fashion Report not because of poor practices, but

because of this choice. We believe in the strength

of our Code of Conduct and our core values

of Honesty, Bravery, Integrity, Innovation and

Optimism to mandate our ethical and sustainable

practices and have openly committed to driving

positive and sustainable change through our

business model.

STATEMENTS FROM NON-RESPONSIVE COMPANIES

As Coles Supermarkets is a food and grocery

retailer rather than an apparel business, we have

not participated in the 2019 Fashion Report

survey, as the report does not accurately represent

the breadth and depth of our ethical sourcing

program. Additionally, the changes in assessment

parameters from one year to the next, fails to

capture the progress we have made in partnership

with our suppliers, including supporting the

development of Australia’s ﬁrst industry-led labour

hire certiﬁcation, StaSure.

We welcome the opportunity to engage with

Baptist World Aid on wider ethical shopping

issues beyond apparel, speciﬁcally in grocery and

agricultural supply chains.

The more people who care about the ethical

responsibility of the fashion industry the better. For

transparency, the details of our code and practices

can be found on our website. www.decjuba.com.

au/pages/our-vision.

Coles

Coles is a food and grocery retailer which engages

with more than 750 Coles Own Brand, fresh

produce and meat suppliers, who operate over

2,200 sites located in more than 40 countries, with

more than 1,720 of these sites located in Australia.

We take very seriously the need to safeguard

human rights through ethical business practices

within these supply chains. Coles was the ﬁrst

major Australian supermarket to adopt the

Supplier Ethical Data Exchange (Sedex), a global

ethical supply chain management platform,

in 2016. Currently, 97 per cent of all suppliers

are registered on Sedex and monitored under

our ethical sourcing program, which includes a

comprehensive risk assessment, independent

audit, non-conformance close-out, worker voice

hotline and worker remediation requirements.

STATEMENTS FROM NON-RESPONSIVE COMPANIES

LETTER FROM AUDITOR

Grant Thornton Australia

Limited

Level 17

383 Kent Street

Sydney NSW 2000

+61 2 8297 2400

ABN-41 127 556 389 ACN-127 556 389

Grant Thornton Australia Ltd ABN 41 127 556 389 ACN 127 556 389 ‘Grant Thornton’ refers to the brand under which the Grant

Thornton member firms provide assurance, tax and advisory services to their clients and/or refers to one or more member firms, as

the context requires. Grant Thornton Australia Limited is a member firm of Grant Thornton International Ltd (GTIL). GTIL and the

member firms are not a worldwide partnership. GTIL and each member firm is a separate legal entity. Services are delivered by the

member firms. GTIL does not provide services to clients. GTIL and its member firms are not agents of, and do not obligate one

another and are not liable for one another’s acts or omissions. In the Australian context only, the use of the term ‘Grant Thornton’

may refer to Grant Thornton Australia Limited ABN 41 127 556 389 and its Australian subsidiaries and related entities. Liability

limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.

www.grantthornton.com.au

Dear Gabriel,

ATTESTATION LETTER – Independent Review of Baptist World Aid Australia’s End-to-End

Process and Methodology for the 2019 Ethical Fashion Report

Background

Grant Thornton Australia Limited (“Grant Thornton”) was engaged to undertake an independent review

of the Advocacy Tools and End-to-End Processes for the Ethical Fashion Report (EFR) published by

Baptist World Aid Australia (“BWAA”) as part of BWAA’s Behind the Barcode project.

Our Objective and Approach

The overall objective of the independent review was to assess the end-to-end methodology from both a

design and operating effectiveness viewpoint for developing the EFR. An overview of Grant Thornton’s

2-phase approach is outlined as follows:

Design assessment

 Discussed with relevant stakeholders and reviewed relevant documentation (e.g. Survey Support

Document) to obtain understanding and assess the end-to-end processes and controls as part of

the methodology for developing the EFR;

 Performed walkthrough of the advocacy tools and assessed the adequacy and effectiveness of

controls in the tools and processes; and

 Mapped out and evaluated the overall processes and controls in place, both from a robustness as

well as from an efficiency standpoint.

Operational Validation

A sample of 15 companies (or “brands”) of the 130 brands from the 2019 EFR were selected in

February 2019 following finalisation of grades to determine the reliability and validity of the assessment

results. Testing included:

 Confirming methodologies (as confirmed in Design Assessment phase) have been followed; and

 Reconciling assessment outcomes to the grading tools to ensuring results are correctly reflected

within the report.

Conclusion

We are pleased to state that the overall methodology is considered robust, primarily driven by the use of

standard Research and Project Management tools (i.e. Survey, Grading and Master Data templates and

Gabriel Lacoba

Director of Community Engagement

Baptist World Aid Australia

Locked Bag 2200

North Ryde BC NSW 1670

29 March 2019

Grant Thornton Australia

Limited

Level 17

383 Kent Street

Sydney NSW 2000

T +61 2 8297 2400

ABN-41 127 556 389 ACN-127 556 389

Grant Thornton Australia Ltd ABN 41 127 556 389 ACN 127 556 389 ‘Grant Thornton’ refers to the brand under which the Grant

Thornton member firms provide assurance, tax and advisory

services to their clients and/or refers to one or more member firms, as

the context requires. Grant Thornton Australia Limited is a member firm of Grant Thornton International Ltd (GTIL). GTIL and

the

member firms are not a worldwide partnership. GTIL and

each member firm is a separate legal entity. Services are delivered by the

member firms. GTIL does not provide services to clients. GTIL and its member firms are not agents of, and do not obligate one

another and are not liable for one another’s acts or om

issions. In the Australian context only, the use of the term ‘Grant Thornton’

may refer to Grant Thornton Australia Limited ABN 41 127 556 389 and its Australian subsidiaries and related entities. Liabil

ity

limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.

www.grantthornton.com.au

Dear Gabriel,

ATTESTATION LETTER – Independent Review of Baptist World Aid Australia’s End-to-End

Process and Methodology for the 2019 Ethical Fashion Report

Background

Grant Thornton Australia Limited (“Grant Thornton”) was engaged to undertake an independent review

of the Advocacy Tools and End-to-End Processes for the Ethical Fashion Report (EFR) published by

Baptist World Aid Australia (“BWAA”) as part of BWAA’s Behind the Barcode project.

Our Objective and Approach

The overall objective of the independent review was to assess the end-to-end methodology from both a

design and operating effectiveness viewpoint for developing the EFR. An overview of Grant Thornton’s

2-phase approach is outlined as follows:

Design assessment

 Discussed with relevant stakeholders and reviewed relevant documentation (e.g. Survey Support

Document) to obtain understanding and assess the end-to-end processes and controls as part of

the methodology for developing the EFR;

 Performed walkthrough of the advocacy tools and assessed the adequacy and effectiveness of

controls in the tools and processes; and

 Mapped out and evaluated the overall processes and controls in place, both from a robustness as

well as from an efficiency standpoint.

Operational Validation

A sample of 15 companies (or “brands”) of the 130 brands from the 2019 EFR were selected in

February 2019 following finalisation of grades to determine the reliability and validity of the assessment

results. Testing included:

 Confirming methodologies (as confirmed in Design Assessment phase) have been followed; and

 Reconciling assessment outcomes to the grading tools to ensuring results are correctly reflected

within the report.

Conclusion

We are pleased to state that the overall methodology is considered robust, primarily driven by the use of

standard Research and Project Management tools (i.e. Survey, Grading and Master Data templates and

Gabriel Lacoba

Director of Community Engagement

Baptist World Aid Australia

Locked Bag 2200

North Ryde BC NSW 1670

29 March 2019

Executive Summary

1 Huynh, P. Developing Asia’s garment and footwear industry:

Recent employment and wage trends, ILO [website], Oct 2017,

<www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---asia/---ro-bangkok/

documents/publication/wcms_581466.pdf>, accessed March

2019.

2 United States Department of Labour, List of Goods Produced by

Child Labor or Forced Labor, Department of Labour [website],

September 2018 <www.dol.gov/ilab/reports/child-labor/list-of-

goods>, accessed March 2019.

3 Luginbuhl, C & Musiolek, B, Stitched Up: Poverty Wages for

Garment Workers in Easter Europe and Turkey, Clean Clothes

Campaign [website], 2014, <www.cleanclothes.org/resources/

publications/stitched-up-1>, accessed April 2018.

4 Conca, J. Making Climate Change Fashionable — The Garment

Industry Takes on Global Warming, Forbes [website], Dec 2015,

<www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2015/12/03/making-

climate-change-fashionable-the-garment-industry-takes-on-

global-warming/>, accessed March 2019.

5 Gbor, N. War on Waste: It’s time to step off the fashion trend-mill,

ABC [website], 2017, <http://about.abc.net.au/war-on-waste-its-

time-to-step-off-the-fashion-trend-mill/>, accessed March 2019.

6 The University of Queensland, Fast fashion quick to cause

environmental havoc, Sustainability Department [website], 2016,

<www.sustainability.uq.edu.au/projects/recycling-and-waste-

minimisation/fast-fashion-quick-cause-environmental-havoc>,

accessed March 2018.

7 Gbor, N. War on Waste: It’s time to step off the fashion trend-mill,

ABC [website], 2017, <http://about.abc.net.au/war-on-waste-its-

time-to-step-off-the-fashion-trend-mill/>, accessed March 2019.

Modern Slavery Act

1 Baptist World Aid, Baptist World Aid Australia Submission:

Australian Parliamentary Inquiry into Modern Slavery, Australian

Federal Parliament [website], April 2017, <www.aph.gov.

au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=711ba674-7d3b-4fb6-a318-

d863e2cf2309&subId=510606>, accessed March 2019.

2 NSW Legislation, Modern Slavery Act 2018 No 30, New South

Wales Government [website], January 2019, <www.legislation.

nsw.gov.au/#/view/act/2018/30>, accessed March 2019.

3 Federal Register of Legislation, Modern Slavery Act 2018 No.

153, Australian Government [website], January 2019, <www.

legislation.gov.au/Details/C2018A00153>, accessed March 2019.

4 Ibid.

5 RMIT University, Reflections on the Australian Modern Slavery

Act and Beyond, Business & Human Rights Resource Centre

[website], 2018, <www.business-humanrights.org/en/about-us/

blog/reflections-on-the-australian-modern-slavery-act-and-

beyond>, Accessed March 2019.

Living Wage

1 IBISWorld, Clothing retailing in Australia: industry report,

IBISWorld [website], August 2018, <www.ibisworld.com.au/

industry/clothing-retailing.html>, accessed March 2019.

2 IBISWorld, Fast Fashion in Australia: industry report, IBISWorld

[website], April 2018, <www.ibisworld.com.au/industry-trends/

specialisedmarket-research-reports/consumer-goods-services/

fast-fashion.html>, accessed March 2019.

3 Global Living Wage Coalition, ISEAL Alliance [website], 2018,

<www.isealalliance.org/about-iseal/our-work/global-living-

wage-coalition>, accessed February 2019.

4 Luginbuhl, C & Musiolek, B, Stitched Up: Poverty Wages for

Garment Workers in Easter Europe and Turkey, Clean Clothes

Campaign [website], 2014, <www.cleanclothes.org/resources/

publications/stitched-up-1>, accessed April 2018.

5 The Anker Methodology for Estimating a Living Wage, Global

Living Wage Coalition [website], 2018, <www.globallivingwage.

org/about/anker-methodology/>, accessed March 2019.

6 Ibid.

7 Memorandum of Understanding, Action Collaboration

Transformation [website], 2018, <www.actonlivingwages.com/

memorandum-of-understanding/>, accessed March 2019.

Environmental Concerns

1 Measuring Fashion: Environmental Impact of the Global Apparel

and Footwear Industries Study, Quantis, 2018.

2 Kozlowski, A., Bardecki, M., Searcy, C. Environmental Impacts of

the Fashion Industry, March 2012.

3 2017 Cone Gen Z CSR study: How to Speak Z, Cone

Communications [website], 2017, <www.conecomm.com/2017-

cone-gen-z-csr-study-pdf>, accessed February 2019.

4 Tabaka, M. Forget Millennial Purchasing Power. Gen Z Is Where

It’s At, Inc. [website], 2018, < www.inc.com/marla-tabaka/

forget-millennial-purchasing-power-gen-z-is-where-its-at.html>,

accessed February 2019.

5 Amed, I., Balchandani, A., Beltrami, M. The State of Fashion 2019:

A year of awakening, McKinsey & Company [website], November

2018, <www.mckinsey.com/industries/retail/our-insights/the-

state-of-fashion-2019-a-year-of-awakening>, accessed February

2019.

6 Measuring Fashion: Environmental Impact of the Global Apparel

and Footwear Industries Study, Quantis, 2018.

7 Ibid.

8 House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee, Fixing

fashion: clothing consumption and sustainability, February 2019.

9 Ibid.

SOURCES

Baptist World Aid Australia is an international

aid and development organisation, with a

vision to see a world where poverty has ended,

where all people enjoy the fullness of life

God intends.

In order to achieve this vision, Baptist World Aid

Australia works through two equally important

partnerships:

• It partners with like-minded agencies overseas to

empower communities to lift themselves out of

poverty, challenge injustice and build resilience;

and

• It partners with Christians and churches in

Australia, particularly those from the Baptist

movement, in generous giving, ethical

consumption, courageous advocacy and faithful

prayer in order to achieve justice for people living

in poverty.

Established in 1959, Baptist World Aid Australia

works with local partners in 25 countries in the

Paciﬁc, Middle East, Southeast Asia, South Asia

and Africa. Its activities cover four key areas:

• Community Development projects build lasting

solutions to poverty for entire communities;

• Its Child Sponsorship program assists children

to break down the barriers of poverty — for

themselves and their whole community;

• Its work in disaster saves lives before, during and

after a disaster strikes; and

• Baptist World Aid Australia stands with the

oppressed and marginalised, advocating for

amore just world.

Baptist World Aid Australia has been campaigning

various industries to end worker exploitation for

over nine years, beginning its research into the

fashion and electronics industries in 2010. This

report is the sixth of its kind.

ABOUT BAPTIST WORLD AID AUSTRALIA

We are grateful to every representative, from each

of the companies that engaged with our research

this year. Thank you for the time and extraordinary

eort which went into collating and sharing data

with us.

Thanks to those consultants who supported the

development of our preliminary environmental

metrics — Alice Cope (UN Global Compact), Dawn

McGregor (China Water Risk), Matthew Luxon

(Envision), Måns Sweeney (Ausbil), Lisa Heinze,

Yun Zheng (Elevate), Rick Lambell (Kmart) Todd

Copeland (Patagonia) and Felicity Muller and

Brooke Summers (Cotton Australia).

Our thanks also go to Better Cotton Initiative,

Ethical Clothing Australia, Global Organic Textile

Standard and Fairtrade Australia and New Zealand,

for helping us to better understand your systems.

Thank you to our church partners who have

ﬁnancially supported the work of our Behind the

Barcode project, enabling us to grow the breadth

of our research — Erina Community Baptist

Church, Northside Baptist Church, and Seaforth

Baptist Church.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS