Ethical Fashion FAQs

Scores for over 600 brands can be found using the Brand Finder on the Baptist World Aid website. They are also listed in the Ethical Fashion Report and Guide which you can download here.

Every company is assessed across five sections of the Ethical Fashion Survey including Policies and Governance, Tracing and Transparency, Supplier Relationships and Human Rights Monitoring, Worker Empowerment, and Environmental Sustainability. For a full list of the 46 questions assessed with their evidentiary requirements, please download the Appendix to the Ethical Fashion Report, available here.

For brands not assessed in the Ethical Fashion Guide, we recommend you do some research of your own. Use our guide here to help you.

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.

While primary responsibility for ethical production sits with companies, individuals can play a role in helping shift industry practice—and broader systems impacting workers and the environment—by engaging in the ethical fashion movement. To catalyse this shift, individuals must let companies and governments know we value the way workers and the environment are treated. You can partake in this movement in a variety of ways, and beyond this, assess your own consumption habits to reduce your impact.

Companies are assessed on 46 questions covering 18 indicators of supply chain practice. All companies included in the Ethical Fashion Report have been assessed on information published on company or brand websites, company reports (e.g., Annual Reports, Corporate Social Responsibility Reports), and any relevant statutory statements (e.g., Modern Slavery Statements) that directly cover the research period. All companies were also given the opportunity to provide evidence directly to the research team. Where companies have been assessed on public information only, this is identified in the Report and Brand Finder with an asterisk (*) next to their grade.

The research team do not conduct site inspections of factories as part of their grading, but we do outline detailed and specific evidence requirements that companies need to meet in order to receive credit for each area of the survey. Therefore, company grades are an analysis of the strength of a company’s labour rights and environmental management systems based on the evidence they provide publicly or directly to the research team. For more information on our evidence requirements, please see ‘How can you guarantee the honesty and accuracy of evidence and information provided by companies?’ below.

We recognise that some companies may have undertaken positive actions that are not reflected in our assessment, as these were not evidenced. While any positive actions that contribute to the economic dignity and wellbeing of workers are to be celebrated; transparency and visibility of these actions is critical as they are the only way to ensure accountability for delivery.

In 2022, our research team assessed 105 data points per company, which equates to 12,600 data points assessed for the full report. You can find more information on our research methodology in the Ethical Fashion Report.

We know global citizens have come a long way in understanding the complexity of ethical fashion issues since our first Ethical Fashion Report (EFR) was released in 2013. Our A-F grades have played a role in shifting the fashion industry forwards, and helping educate individuals on the performance of the most common brands. But we believe it’s time to take that education to a new level. That’s why we’ve shifted to a score out of 100.

This new way of scoring companies does not change our underlying research–companies are still assessed on the same 46 questions using the same research methodology.

By publishing the actual score that each company receives in the EFR survey, companies and individuals get a clearer picture of how they are performing against the standard of the EFR survey. It also means it’s easier to track improvements, as incremental positive changes that a company makes will be directly reflected in their score rather than only seeing change when the improvements are significant enough to jump a whole grade level, as was previously the case.

Importantly, this change is also about ensuring a clear message for individuals that is less susceptible to being misinterpreted. Relative grading information is useful as it helps companies and individuals alike to quickly see how brands compare with each other. The colours in the new scoring system still make this comparison readily apparent by showing how companies rank in relation to the rest of the industry. However, relative information alone can mean that a company with a ‘good grade’ might be perceived to have already arrived at a place of great ethical practice. By pairing the colour with each company’s underlying score, the reality is more clearly demonstrated: every company has a long way to go, but some are making faster progress than others.

A ’good score’ does not give permission to stop thinking ethically and just go buy. It shows a company that is investing in making improvements and developing safeguards for the labour rights and environmental sustainability issues it faces in its supply chain—and being transparent about them. In this sense, it is a better option than a company with a lower score, but not necessarily a fully ethical purchase.

Through providing this greater level of transparency and showing performance against a standard, EFR 2022 provides both information as well as provocation to consider what needs to change to make the fashion industry work for its workers and the planet.

There are two elements which make up the company score. Firstly, there is a numeric score. This is presented as a score out of 100. It represents the overall score the company achieved in our Ethical Fashion Survey. In 2022, the industry average was 29 per cent. Secondly, there is a coloured circle. This demonstrates how the company ranks relative to the rest of the 120 companies assessed. There are five colours available: the royal blue colour represents the top 20 per cent of companies assessed, and the light orange colour represents the bottom 20 per cent.

Each company is assigned a coloured circle which represents how the company ranks relative to the rest of the 120 companies assessed. There are five colours available. They are broken up by quintiles—that is, split equally from top to bottom in 20 per cent increments. The royal blue colour represents the top 20 per cent of companies assessed, and the light orange colour represents the bottom 20 per cent. The table below shows what companies in each colour group scored. Refer to the colour key on the Brand Finder page and below which explains this visually.

 

Our online Brand Finder tool communicates if a brand has improved, remained the same, or gone down in score since last year. To find this information, simply click on the brand to see their details. You can also see how this year’s scores compare to last year’s grades using the table below.

The colour is important because it indicates how each company ranks relative to their peers. A core driver of the Ethical Fashion Project is to continually drive the entire industry forwards, from those at the top through to those at the bottom. Achieving an ethical supply chain doesn’t stop once a company reaches a certain score–it’s an ever-evolving journey.

For individuals looking to use our scores for their own personal advocacy, the colours help target players that may be lagging behind or encourage companies who are leading the way.
Despite progress over the past decade, the industry average currently sits at 29.25%. This demonstrates that it’s not as simple as looking at who scored the highest and who scored the lowest, because even the companies who are sitting at the top of the range still have a long way to go.

Unfortunately, the scores across the industry have always been low. The old letter-based grades showed how companies compared to each other so the best performing companies when compared to the rest of the industry were the ones that received the highest grades. By publishing the scores, we are now increasing the transparency about how these companies fare when assessed against the standard of the Ethical Fashion Report survey.

It is important to note that while the broadly low scores across the industry highlight the need for significant improvement, most companies are making some progress. Ninety-four companies were assessed in 2021 and again in 2022. The average score for these companies has increased from 32.5 in 2021 to 34.85 in 2022 (though the substantial number of new companies added this year pulled down the overall average with their low scores). You can see whether an individual company’s score has improved by clicking on the brand in the Brand Finder and looking at the short accompanying text which explains whether their performance has improved when compared to last year. The table under the question ‘How can I determine if a brand has improved without the A-F grade to compare to last year?’ also lets you see how this year’s score would have translated into the old A-F grading system.

For further information please see ‘Why have you changed your grading system?’ above.

Our report is designed to address a very specific concept: ‘How strong are the systems companies have in place to mitigate risks of worker exploitation and environmental degradation?’
Fast fashion companies have led destructive cultural change driving increased production and consumption. Whilst our Ethical Fashion Survey addresses these issues to some extent, they’re not the key issue it’s seeking to address. It’s important to note our research assesses 46 questions covering 18 different indicators of ethical sourcing practice. It’s a comprehensive analysis of a huge range of issues.

The truth is, some fast fashion companies are doing better than most at mitigating worker exploitation in their supply chains. Their size and scale give them resources to invest in systems to prevent modern slavery–things like tracing their suppliers, effective monitoring, building relationships of influence with suppliers, and working with unions and governments. It also gives them resources to invest in innovative technologies and processes that can reduce environmental harm in specific indicators such as water pollution and emissions reduction. They’re far from perfect, and their score out of 100 shows that. But when we compare them to their peers, their systems rank amongst the best–which is what this research focuses on. For more information on how our survey addresses issues like overproduction, purchasing practices, and other fast fashion issues, please read this article.

Our report is designed to address a very specific concept: ‘How strong are the systems companies have in place to mitigate risks of worker exploitation and environmental degradation?’
Fast fashion companies have led destructive cultural change driving increased production and consumption. Whilst our Ethical Fashion Survey addresses these issues to some extent, they’re not the key issue it’s seeking to address. It’s important to note our research assesses 46 questions covering 18 different indicators of ethical sourcing practice. It’s a comprehensive analysis of a huge range of issues.

The truth is, some fast fashion companies are doing better than most at mitigating worker exploitation in their supply chains. Their size and scale give them resources to invest in systems to prevent modern slavery–things like tracing their suppliers, effective monitoring, building relationships of influence with suppliers, and working with unions and governments. It also gives them resources to invest in innovative technologies and processes that can reduce environmental harm in specific indicators such as water pollution and emissions reduction. They’re far from perfect, and their score out of 100 shows that. But when we compare them to their peers, their systems rank amongst the best–which is what this research focuses on. For more information on how our survey addresses issues like overproduction, purchasing practices, and other fast fashion issues, please read this article.

Companies with an asterisk (*) beside their score have been assessed on ‘Public Information Only’, including company webpages, annual/sustainability reports, and modern slavery statements. This may be because they have chosen to only provide evidence through their public transparency initiatives or because they have opted not to engage. All evidence is assessed using the same validation criteria.

Short answer: they’re not! Some companies may prefer to disclose their supply chain management practices publicly, instead of responding to our research (e.g., they might be surveyed by multiple research projects or they might prefer a single public disclosure, rather than disclosing through the survey). Others choose not to engage at all. The evidence from these companies is assessed in the same way as all other companies (see ‘How are company grades determined?’ above), which means where less information is publicly available this will impact their score. We believe it’s important to provide consumers with sufficient coverage of the Australian fashion market to assist them in making informed choices. As such, companies with a revenue of $50 million or above will be automatically included. In the history of our research, non-responsive companies have received a wide range of scores based on their publicly available information.

Scores awarded to companies were rounded to two decimal points, but scores listed on the Brand Finder and in the Ethical Fashion Guide have been rounded to the nearest whole number for simplicity. This means that 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.