Fast Fashion Scored: How the Industry Performs on Worker Rights
The global fashion industry employs an estimated 75 million garment workers worldwide, many of them in countries where labour enforcement is weak and wages are low. Consumers increasingly want to know which brands are treating those workers fairly. Investors should want to know too -- because labour controversies translate directly into regulatory risk, reputational damage, and supply chain disruption.
Shein, H&M, Zara, and Primark dominate the public conversation around fast fashion ethics. But most of that conversation is built on corporate sustainability reports, brand pledges, and social media outrage -- not independently verifiable data.
We scored publicly traded fashion and apparel companies across 11 ethical dimensions using court filings, regulatory actions, investigative journalism, and NGO reports. Two dimensions matter most for this analysis: Fair Pay & Worker Respect and Fair Trade & Ethical Sourcing.
Here is what the data shows.
The Companies We Can -- and Cannot -- Score
Before presenting results, an important caveat. Several of the most discussed fast fashion brands are either privately held or not yet in our database:
- Shein is privately held. It does not file public financial reports, is not listed on any stock exchange, and cannot be scored through our methodology. This is itself a finding: the largest ultra-fast-fashion company on Earth operates with minimal public accountability.
- H&M (Hennes & Mauritz) and Inditex (parent of Zara) are publicly traded on the Stockholm and Madrid stock exchanges respectively, but are not yet in our scoring database. We are working to expand European coverage.
- Primark operates as a subsidiary of Associated British Foods (ABF.LSE), which is in our database. However, ABF is a diversified conglomerate spanning grocery, sugar, agriculture, and retail. Its scores reflect the entire group, not Primark alone, and currently show insufficient independent evidence for individual assessment.
The companies we can score -- and score with conviction -- are listed below.
Worker Rights Scorecard: 10 Fashion Companies
| Company | Ticker | Fair Pay & Worker Respect | Fair Trade & Ethical Sourcing | Combined Avg |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Puma | PUM.XETRA | +20 | 0 | +10.0 |
| LVMH | MOH.XETRA | -10 | -30 | -20.0 |
| Tapestry | TPR.US | -20 | -20 | -20.0 |
| V.F. Corporation | VFC.US | -20 | -30 | -25.0 |
| Nike | NKE.US | -30 | -30 | -30.0 |
| Adidas | ADS.XETRA | -30 | -10 | -20.0 |
| The Gap Inc. | GPS.US | -30 | 0 | -15.0 |
| Hanesbrands | HBI.US | -30 | 0 | -15.0 |
| Ralph Lauren | RL.US | -30 | -20 | -25.0 |
| Next | NXT.LSE | -40 | -20 | -30.0 |
Only one company scores positively on worker rights. Nine out of ten are negative. The combined average across all ten companies is -20.0 -- a sector-wide failure by any reasonable standard.
The One Positive Score: Puma
Puma is the only company in this analysis that scores positively on Fair Pay & Worker Respect, with a score of +20.
According to our data, all regular full-time Puma employees globally were paid at or above regional living wage thresholds in 2023. The company reports that 100% of core factories paid 224,444 employees digitally, a practice that improves wage transparency and reduces the risk of wage theft.
Puma also achieved a +60 on Zero Waste & Sustainable Products and +40 on Planet-Friendly Business, giving it an overall average of +11.8 across all 11 dimensions -- the highest in this analysis by a considerable margin.
This does not make Puma a perfect company. It scores -20 on Kind to Animals and -10 on No War, No Weapons. But on the specific question of worker rights, the independently verifiable evidence puts it ahead of every other fashion company in our database.
View Puma's full score breakdown ->
The Worst Score: Next
Next scored -40 on Fair Pay & Worker Respect -- the lowest in this analysis.
According to our data, Next conducts a high volume of supply chain audits (2,402 in 2025, with 95% unannounced), which demonstrates a monitoring infrastructure. But the company has been compelled to remediate documented child labour cases in Myanmar and China, providing stipends and ongoing monitoring after violations were identified.
Next also scored -20 on Fair Trade & Ethical Sourcing. According to public reports, allegations have been raised regarding the use of Uyghur forced labour via a supplier, Beijing Guanghua Textile Group. External assessments by Ethical Consumer have cited exploitation allegations in Bangladesh and India.
With an overall average of -12.7, Next carries one of the weakest ethical profiles in the fashion sector within our database.
View Next's full score breakdown ->
Nike and Adidas: The Sportswear Benchmark
Nike and Adidas are the two largest sportswear companies on the planet. Both score -30 on worker rights.
Nike (NKE.US): According to public records, accusations of $2.2 million in unpaid wages to 4,000 garment workers in Cambodia have been documented. A class-action lawsuit has alleged labour law violations. Shareholders have voted against proposals to strengthen workers' rights protections.
Adidas (ADS.XETRA): Adidas scored over 90% in training suppliers and monitoring compliance, and conducted 499 social compliance audits in 2023 with 82% being unannounced. Yet investigative reports continue to document instances where these systems fall short in practice.
The difference appears on ethical sourcing. Adidas scores -10 on Fair Trade & Ethical Sourcing versus Nike's -30. Adidas holds FLA accreditation and received the Stop Slavery Award. Nike maintains FLA membership since 1999 but faces more documented allegations in court filings and government investigations.
For a detailed comparison of these two companies across all 11 dimensions, see our full analysis: Nike vs Adidas: Which Has Cleaner Supply Chains?
The Luxury Exception: LVMH
LVMH (parent of Louis Vuitton, Dior, Fendi, and others) is not typically grouped with fast fashion. But it operates one of the largest apparel supply chains in the world, and its worker rights record is instructive.
LVMH scored -10 on Fair Pay & Worker Respect -- better than most companies in this analysis. According to our data, 92% of employees are covered by a formal health and safety approach, and the company aims for 50% women in key positions by the end of 2025, achieving 48% in 2024.
However, LVMH scores -30 on ethical sourcing. A Dior subcontractor, AZ Operations, passed environmental and social inspections but was later found to be exploiting workers, according to public reports. This illustrates a recurring pattern across the fashion industry: audit programmes that fail to detect or prevent the practices they are designed to catch.
LVMH's overall average of -12.7 places it alongside Next and Ralph Lauren at the lower end of our analysis, despite its premium brand positioning.
View LVMH's full score breakdown ->
The Full Picture: All 11 Dimensions
Worker rights and ethical sourcing are the most scrutinized dimensions for fashion companies, but they are not the only ones that matter. Here is how each company scores across every dimension.
| Company | Avg | Best Dimension | Score | Worst Dimension | Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Puma | +11.8 | Zero Waste | +60 | Kind to Animals | -20 |
| Tapestry | +6.8 | Honest Business / Zero Waste | +40 | Fair Pay / Fair Trade / Animals | -20 |
| Hanesbrands | +0.9 | Zero Waste | +40 | Fair Pay | -30 |
| Adidas | -6.4 | Zero Waste | +40 | Safe & Smart Tech | -40 |
| Gap | -10.0 | Better Health | +10 | Safe & Smart Tech | -40 |
| Nike | -11.4 | Cultures & Communities | +25 | Multiple | -30 |
| LVMH | -12.7 | Honest Business | 0 | Multiple | -30 |
| Next | -12.7 | None positive | 0 | Fair Pay | -40 |
| Ralph Lauren | -12.7 | Better Health | +20 | Multiple | -30 |
| V.F. Corporation | -15.5 | Cultures & Communities | +10 | Safe & Smart Tech | -60 |
Three observations stand out:
1. Sustainability is the industry's strongest dimension. Puma (+60), Tapestry (+40), Hanesbrands (+40), and Adidas (+40) all score their highest on Zero Waste & Sustainable Products. This is where fashion companies have invested the most visible effort -- recycled materials, circular economy programmes, and waste reduction targets.
2. Worker rights are the industry's weakest. Nine of ten companies score negatively on Fair Pay & Worker Respect. The industry average on this dimension is -22.0 -- worse than its average on any other single dimension.
3. Technology safety is an emerging risk. V.F. Corporation (-60), Adidas (-40), Gap (-40), and Nike (-30) all carry significant negative scores on Safe & Smart Tech. Data breaches, customer data handling, and cybersecurity incidents are becoming a material concern for fashion companies that have expanded into digital commerce and app-based retail.
The Companies We Cannot Score -- and Why That Matters
The absence of Shein from this analysis is not incidental. It is the point.
Shein reportedly generates over $30 billion in annual revenue and ships to 150 countries. Reports from Channel 4 (UK), Public Eye (Switzerland), and the U.S. Congressional-Executive Commission on China have raised serious allegations about working conditions in Shein's supply chain, including workers earning as little as 3 cents per garment and working 18-hour shifts.
Mashinii scores companies using independently verifiable public data. For publicly traded companies, this data exists in regulatory filings, court proceedings, and mandatory disclosures. For privately held companies like Shein, the data trail is thinner and less reliable. This means the company that arguably carries the highest worker rights risk in the entire fashion industry is also the one with the least accountability to public scrutiny.
H&M and Inditex (Zara) are publicly traded and will be added to our database as we expand European exchange coverage. Both companies have extensive public records -- H&M through its sustainability reports and Inditex through its annual filings on the Bolsa de Madrid -- and we expect to score them in a future update to this analysis.
What This Means for Investors
If you hold fashion or retail stocks -- directly or through index funds -- the data in this analysis is relevant to your portfolio.
The fashion industry's worker rights problem is structural, not anecdotal. Nine of ten publicly traded fashion companies in our analysis score negatively on worker treatment. The average score of -22.0 on this dimension is one of the worst sector averages in our database.
This creates two categories of risk:
Regulatory risk. Governments in the EU, UK, and US are tightening supply chain due diligence legislation. The EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive, for example, will require companies to identify and address human rights abuses in their supply chains. Companies with poor worker rights records face higher compliance costs and potential penalties.
Reputational risk. Consumer awareness of labour conditions in fashion supply chains continues to grow. Companies that score poorly on worker rights are more exposed to boycott campaigns, investigative journalism, and social media pressure -- all of which can impact revenue.
Puma's positive score on worker rights demonstrates that it is possible for a large-scale fashion company to score above zero on this dimension. The question is whether the rest of the industry will follow.
How We Score Companies
Mashinii scores companies across 11 ethical dimensions using independently sourced data -- court filings, regulatory actions, investigative journalism, and NGO reports. Scores range from -100 to +100. A score of 0 means insufficient independent evidence to assess. Every score is backed by cited sources.
We do not use corporate self-assessments or ESG questionnaires. Learn more about our methodology ->
What Should You Do?
Audit your portfolio. If you hold fashion stocks, retail ETFs, or any broad market index fund, you likely hold several of the companies in this analysis. See how they score across all 11 dimensions.
Search any company. Look up Nike, Adidas, Gap, or any of the 5,000+ companies in our database.
Explore the dimensions that matter most for fashion:
Fair Trade & Ethical Sourcing ->
Read our head-to-head comparison: