109
109
1
| Companies | Answer Year |
|---|---|
Inditex
Spain |
There was no evidence found on the brand’s claims that it pays a living wage and no plausible explanation was given. Which means the brand cannot prove that the workers making their clothes do earn enough to live on.
|
OVS SpA
Italy |
There was no evidence found on the brand’s claims that it pays a living wage and no plausible explanation was given. Which means the brand cannot prove that the workers making their clothes do earn enough to live on.
|
Scotch and Soda
Netherlands |
There was no evidence found on the brand’s claims that it pays a living wage and no plausible explanation was given. Which means the brand cannot prove that the workers making their clothes do earn enough to live on.
|
SOK S Group
Finland |
There was no evidence found on the brand’s claims that it pays a living wage and no plausible explanation was given. Which means the brand cannot prove that the workers making their clothes do earn enough to live on.
|
Tokmanni
Finland |
There was no evidence found on the brand’s claims that it pays a living wage and no plausible explanation was given. Which means the brand cannot prove that the workers making their clothes do earn enough to live on.
|
Van de Velde
Belgium |
There was no evidence found on the brand’s claims that it pays a living wage and no plausible explanation was given. Which means the brand cannot prove that the workers making their clothes do earn enough to live on.
|
We Europe BV
Netherlands |
There was no evidence found on the brand’s claims that it pays a living wage and no plausible explanation was given. Which means the brand cannot prove that the workers making their clothes do earn enough to live on.
|
Alsico Group
Belgium |
There was no evidence found on the brand’s claims that it pays a living wage and no plausible explanation was given. Which means the brand cannot prove that the workers making their clothes do earn enough to live on.
|
Cetex Sud NV
Belgium |
There was no evidence found on the brand’s claims that it pays a living wage and no plausible explanation was given. Which means the brand cannot prove that the workers making their clothes do earn enough to live on.
|
Fruit of the Loom
Illinois (United States) |
The brand makes no claim and no public evidence was found that its suppliers are paying a living wage. Which means the brand cannot prove that the workers making their clothes do earn enough to live on.
|
G-skin
Luxembourg |
The brand makes no claim and no public evidence was found that its suppliers are paying a living wage. Which means the brand cannot prove that the workers making their clothes do earn enough to live on.
|
G-star RAW
Netherlands |
The brand makes no claim and no public evidence was found that its suppliers are paying a living wage. Which means the brand cannot prove that the workers making their clothes do earn enough to live on.
|
Gap inc.
California (United States) |
The brand makes no claim and no public evidence was found that its suppliers are paying a living wage. Which means the brand cannot prove that the workers making their clothes do earn enough to live on.
|
Geox SpA
Italy |
The brand makes no claim and no public evidence was found that its suppliers are paying a living wage. Which means the brand cannot prove that the workers making their clothes do earn enough to live on.
|
H&M
Sweden |
The brand makes no claim and no public evidence was found that its suppliers are paying a living wage. Which means the brand cannot prove that the workers making their clothes do earn enough to live on.
|
Hema
Netherlands |
The brand makes no claim and no public evidence was found that its suppliers are paying a living wage. Which means the brand cannot prove that the workers making their clothes do earn enough to live on.
|
Hugo Boss AG
Germany |
The brand makes no claim and no public evidence was found that its suppliers are paying a living wage. Which means the brand cannot prove that the workers making their clothes do earn enough to live on.
|
J&Joy SA
Belgium |
The brand makes no claim and no public evidence was found that its suppliers are paying a living wage. Which means the brand cannot prove that the workers making their clothes do earn enough to live on.
|
Javanne SA
Belgium |
The brand makes no claim and no public evidence was found that its suppliers are paying a living wage. Which means the brand cannot prove that the workers making their clothes do earn enough to live on.
|
JBC NV
Belgium |
The brand makes no claim and no public evidence was found that its suppliers are paying a living wage. Which means the brand cannot prove that the workers making their clothes do earn enough to live on.
|
Designed by
Netherlands
Metric Type
Researched
Value Type
Category
Unit
Range
Options
The brand claims that 50% or more of its supplier factories are paying a living wage to all their workers, some plausible explanation is given, but the evidence is not public. Which means many of the workers making their clothes do not earn enough to live on.
The brand claims that between 1 and 25% of supplier factories in the company’s supply chain pay workers a living wage. This is public information. The majority of workers in the brand’s supply chain do not earn enough to live on.
The company claims that it has started contributing towards a living wage by paying higher prices factories in its supply chain but these prices still do not cover labour costs. Which means the majority of the workers making their clothes do not earn enough to live on.
The brand makes no claim and no public evidence was found that its suppliers are paying a living wage. Which means the brand cannot prove that the workers making their clothes do earn enough to live on.
There was no evidence found on the brand’s claims that it pays a living wage and no plausible explanation was given. Which means the brand cannot prove that the workers making their clothes do earn enough to live on.
Research Policy
Designer Assessed
Report Type
Aggregate Data Report