Shoppers asked to pressure popular fashion brands

Major fashion brands in Australia, such as Just Jeans, Lorna Jane, Myer and Peter Alexander, must be open about how and where they manufacture their clothes to help lift the women who make them out of poverty, Oxfam has declared. 

As Australians start their Christmas shopping in earnest, the international development and human rights organisation has released its updated Naughty or Nice list, which congratulates brands that have made commitments around living wages and calls out those that can do better. 

Oxfam Australia Chief Executive Lyn Morgain said it was particularly unfortunate that some brands had failed to make commitments to ensure the payment of a living wage during the pandemic - a time when the industry has grown yet many garment workers have lost their jobs. 

A living wage means enough money is earned to cover basic essentials for a family including food, housing, healthcare, clothing, transport, education and some money for unexpected events. 

“Sunlight is the best disinfectant, which is why transparency around issues of power, whether business or politics, is so important,” Ms Morgain said. 

“Three major clothing companies in Australia – Lorna Jane, Myer and The Just Group - have failed to take the basic step of publishing key information about where they manufacture their clothes. 

“It’s particularly disappointing to see brands that promote the wellbeing of women, such as Lorna Jane, failing to be transparent about the factories in which their clothes are made. This supports a culture of secrecy that is harmful to the wellbeing of all women, including those who make our clothes, and entrenches the massive power disparity between brands and garment workers.” 

While those three companies have found themselves on the Naughty list, others have taken positive steps towards backing up their commitment to a living wage. Those on the Nice list this year are Best & Less, Big W, Bonds, City Chic, Cotton On, Country Road, Dangerfield, David Jones, Forever New, Gorman, H&M, Kmart, Mosaic brands (including Rivers and Katies), and Target. 

Oxfam’s recent report, Shopping for a Bargain, revealed that poor business practices – including aggressive price negotiation, inaccurate forecasting of orders, short lead times and last-minute changes to order – are having a profound impact on the lives of workers. 

“To help combat this, last year we asked brands to commit to separating out labour costs to ensure there was clarity between factories and brands about the expectations of payment to garment workers. It’s been so heartening to see so many brands step up to the plate,” Ms Morgain said. 

Meanwhile, other brands – such as Jeans West and Zara - have made some progress, but still have work to do to catch up to the Nice brands on their living wage journey. 

“What is at the heart of this issue is the garment workers - mainly women in low-income countries - who makes our clothes. These women aren’t paid enough to build a better future for their children, because their low wages keep them in poverty. 

“It’s time for Australian brands to acknowledge and use the power they have to ensure these women are empowered to lift themselves out of poverty through the payment of a living wage. 

“This Christmas, we want shoppers to demand better from the brands they love so that our celebrations don’t come at the expense of the women who make our clothes and their families.” 

Shoppers can check where their favourite brands sit on the 2021 Naughty or Nice list here

Do you try and shop ethically where possible? What research do you do before you do your Christmas shopping?

1 comments

This is sad, not for the reason that do-gooders want us to believe but for the affect that such a move may have on an overseas country. We were in Bangkok some years ago and were talking to a concierge while she was arranging a canal trip for us. She told us that the locals were sad because the Nike factory was closing due to pressure from do-gooders. The locals lined up each day to get work there because Nike was paying above the local wage for workers. Sure what Nike was paying according to western values was not a great deal of money but in local terms it was a sought after, well paying job, valued by local workers. Let's keep things in perspective folks and look at what wages are in relation to a local economy, not compare the wage with western values.

1 comments



To make a comment, please register or login

Preview your comment