Our ethical fashion work is entirely funded by generous individual supporters and church partners of Baptist World Aid. No financial support for this project is provided by any companies assessed in the research.
Buying second-hand is always a more sustainable option than buying brand-new, even if the original brand scores poorly. By purchasing second-hand we reduce the demand for new clothing and help reduce waste issues associated with ever-quickening fashion cycles. It’s important to remember however, even when op-shopping, that the most sustainable wardrobe is the one you already own. As cycles of consumption increase and op-shops are overrun with poorly made second-hand fashion, excess clothing is often passed on to developing countries, harming their local economies and environment. Opting to take better care of your existing clothes and wearing them for as long as possible remains the most effective way to minimise your impact.
The list of brands included in the Ethical Fashion Guide changes with each release. Some brands are removed because they go into administration or are sold to other parent companies who are not covered by our research. Companies with annual revenues over AUD $50 million are automatically included. Smaller companies below this threshold can choose to ‘opt in’ to the research process to have their progress benchmarked. In 2024, we included 15 new companies, but 15 also opted out this year as they fell below the threshold.
Companies are given a numeric score out of 100, representing their overall performance in our survey. The average industry score in 2024 was 31.3. Alongside the numeric score, each company is assigned a coloured circle that shows how they rank relative to the 120 companies in the report. The colours are split into five groups, with royal blue representing the top 20% of companies assessed and light orange representing the bottom 20%.
While our A-F grading system, used between 2013 and 2021, helped shift the fashion industry forwards and educate people, we know global citizens now have a better understanding of the complexities of ethical fashion since our first report was released.
By publishing the actual score that each company receives in the Ethical Fashion Survey, companies and individuals get a clearer picture of their performance and can track progress against the Ethical Fashion Survey benchmark. Pairing this score with a colour, showing the brand’s quintile, helps illustrate that while every company has work to do, some are making faster progress than others.
A ’good score’ isn’t a reason to just go and buy. It shows that a company is making improvements and addressing labour rights and environmental sustainability issues in its supply chain—and being transparent about them. This makes it a better option than a company with a lower score, but not necessarily a fully ethical purchase.
By providing this greater level of transparency and showing performance against a standard, the current scoring system both provides information and encourages reflection on what still needs to change to make the fashion industry better for its workers and the planet.
The colours are important because they show how each company ranks relative to their peers. A key goal of the Ethical Fashion Project is to continually drive the entire industry forwards, from the top performers to those lagging behind. Achieving an ethical supply chain is an ongoing process, and reaching a certain score doesn’t mean the work is done. For global citizens using our scores for their own personal advocacy, the colours help identify companies that they can ask to do better, or companies they can encourage for leading the way.
Even though there has been progress over the past decade, the industry average is still 31.3. This shows that it’s not as simple as looking at who scored the highest and who scored the lowest, because even the top-performing companies still have a long way to go.
Companies with an asterisk (*) beside their score have been assessed on ‘Public Information Only’, including assessment of company webpages, annual or sustainability reports, and modern slavery statements. This could be because the company chose to provide evidence only through their public transparency initiatives or because they opted not to engage directly. All evidence is assessed using the same validation criteria.
Some companies may prefer to disclose their supply chain management practices publicly, rather than engaging directly with our research (for example, they might be part of multiple research projects or prefer to make a single public disclosure). Others choose not to engage at all. We assess these companies in the same way as all others (see ‘How are company scores determined?’ above), but where less information is publicly available, it can affect their score. We believe it’s important to give consumers with comprehensive coverage of the Australian fashion market to help them make informed decisions. As such, companies with revenue over AUD $50 million are automatically included.
Over the years, non-responsive companies have received a range of scores based on their publicly available information.
Scores awarded to companies were rounded to two decimal points, but scores listed in the Ethical Fashion Guide have been rounded to the nearest whole number for simplicity. As a result, some companies may appear to have the same score but are in different colours. In reality, these companies likely have fractionally different scores when decimal points are considered, which places them in different coloured quintiles.
Each survey question has strict validation criteria that must be met. The evidence requirements vary from question to question and wherever possible, we request third party documentary evidence, such as audits. With our Ethical Fashion Team assessing 120 companies throughout the survey process, they can easily identify weaknesses in the evidence provided and request further validation when needed. For companies assessed using public information only, the same evidence requirements and assessments apply.
It is important to note that the Research Team do not conduct site inspections of factories as part of their assessment. Company scores are not an assessment of actual conditions in factories and farms, but rather reflect the strength of a company’s labour rights and environmental management systems. This research relies on publicly available data, as well as evidence of systems and practices provided by companies themselves. Wherever possible, The Research Team engages with company representatives to ensure the data accurately represents the company’s policies and processes.
Which brands are protecting workers and the environment? Find out so you can use your influence to demand better.
SEE ALL SCORES
