It didn’t appear to audit any of its suppliers outside of the UK, wasn’t part of any multi-stakeholder initiatives, and despite appointing Sir Brian Leveson to provide independent oversight of its ‘Agenda for change’ it was unclear in what ways this change was supposed to be happening. ![]() It scored our worst rating for Supply Chain Management. As neither Boohoo nor Pretty Little Thing disclosed the country of origin of its suppliers, it lost half a mark under Ethical Consumer’s Human Rights category. Many large clothes companies list the countries where suppliers are located, due to how sourcing from oppressive regimes and supply chain workers’ rights abuses are common in the clothing sector. The investigation said “allegations of unacceptable working conditions and underpayment of workers are not only well-founded, but are substantially true." The investigation was carried out after claims that workers were paid below minimum wage (as low as £3.50 per hour). “Boohoo’s monitoring of its Leicester supply chain has been inadequate for many years.” An independent investigation published in September 2020 by Alison Levitt QC stated It was also marked down for the Leicester garment factories scandal. Pretty Little Thing was marked down in the Human Rights category because its parent company Boohoo Group was found to be selling clothes made by Pakistani workers who earned 29p per hour, according to a December 2020 article in The Guardian. To see the full detailed stories, and Pretty Little Thing’s overall ethical rating, please sign in or subscribe. Our research highlights several ethical issues with Pretty Little Thing, and it received a worst Ethical Consumer rating for Environmental Reporting, Climate Change, Pollution & Toxics, Palm Oil Sourcing, Animal Testing, Animal Rights, Workers’ Rights, Supply Chain Management and Tax Conduct.īelow we outline some of these issues.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |