Worker exploitation in India

Maid in India', a 2012 report by two Dutch NGOs (SOMO and ICN) revealed how workers in the South Indian garment and textile industry continue to suffer exploitative working conditions while making garments for Western brands. While some recent improvements have been made, thousands of girls work under recruitment and employment schemes that amount to bonded labour. This company was shown to be sourcing from one or more of the four garment manufacturers investigated. While they did respond to a review request, it is unclear whether they are taking sufficient actions to address the problems. [Listed under Information due to age of report]

Source: SOMO (2012)

Workplace injuries

Two work experience students were injured at Kmart stores (one in 2010, one in 2011) when their arms were pulled into a lay-by conveyor. On 24 May 2013 Kmart Australia Ltd was convicted by WorkSafe on both counts and fined an aggregate sum of $80,000 and costs of $7,665.60.

Source: WorkSafe Victoria (2013)

2014 CHOICE Shonky Award

Named and shamed in the 2014 CHOICE Shonky Awards. Some Kmart swimsuit labels proclaim that it may become see-through when wet, and users should avoid excessive contact with suntan lotions, oils, rough surfaces, heated pools and spas treated with harsh chemicals.

Source: Choice (2014)

Worker abuse in Bangladesh

This 2013 investigative report by Four Corners reveals that this company ordered clothes from factories in Bangladesh that did not meet international standards. Workers in Dhaka described unacceptable conditions that see them work long hours for little pay, sometimes under the threat of abuse if deadlines are not met. [Listed under Information due to age of report]

Source: ABC (2013)

Workers rights in Bangladesh

The average worker in the Bangladeshi garment industry is getting paid only one third of what is considered to be a living wage. Low wages and long working hours have been found to play a key role in parents' decisions to take their children out of school and let them work in various jobs. This company was identified in SOMO's 2017 report 'Branded Childhood' as contributing to this situation. [Listed under Information due to age of report]

Source: Stop Child Labour (2017)

Zero discharge of hazardous chemicals

In 2011, a group of major apparel and footwear brands and retailers, including this company, made a shared commitment to help lead the industry towards zero discharge of hazardous chemicals by 2020. It includes specific commitments and timelines to realize this shared goal.

Source: ZDHC (2023)

Fur free

This company has formally undertaken not to use or sell real fur.

Source: Animals Australia (2017)

Angora ban

This company has taken angora items off the shelves and promised not to use angora again, following a PETA campaign launched in Dec 2013 which revealed the cruelty inflicted on angora rabbits in Chinese factory farms, where 90% of the world's angora is produced.

Source: PETA (2018)

Use of non-mulesed wool

Brands owned by this company are listed in Human Society International Australia's Better Wool Guide as using 100% non-mulesed wool from a robust certification scheme, or has a time-bound commitment to do so. Mulesing is the controversial practice of removing strips of the skin of a lamb's rear and is often done without pain relief. In Australia, the only country where mulesing still occurs, an estimated 10 million merino lambs are subjected to mulesing each year - equivalent to 19 lambs per minute.

Source: HSI Australia (2024)

Sustainable Apparel Coalition member

This company is a member of the Sustainable Apparel Coalition, a multi-stakeholder initiative launched in March 2011 by a group of global apparel and footwear companies and non-profit organizations (representing nearly one third of the global market share for apparel and footwear). The Coalition's goals are to reduce the apparel industry's environmental and social impact, and to develop a universal index to measure environmental and social performance of apparel products.

Source: Sustainable Apparel Coalition (2023)

Better Cotton Initiative member

This company is a member of the Better Cotton Initiative, a voluntary program which encourages the adoption of better management practices in cotton cultivation to achieve measurable reductions in key environmental impacts, while improving social and economic benefits for cotton farmers, small and large, worldwide.

Source: Better Cotton Initiative (2022)

ACT participant

This company is a participant in the Action, Collaboration, Transformation (ACT) initiative, an initiative between international brands and retailers, manufacturers, and trade unions to address the issue of living wages in the textile and garment supply chain.

Source: IndustriALL (2021)

Better Work Partner

This company is a partner of Better Work, an initiative of the UN's International Labour Organization and the International Finance Corporation which brings diverse groups together - governments, global brands, factory owners, and unions and workers - to improve working conditions in the garment industry and make the sector more competitive.

Source: Better Work (2020)

Sustainability claims

This company has sustainability claims on its website in areas that include energy & climate, waste, using recycled polyester, human rights, circular economy and community support.

Source: company website (2023)

Plastics Commitment signatory

This company is a signatory to the New Plastics Economy Global Commitment, whose goal is to eliminate plastic pollution at its source.

Source: New Plastics Economy (2022)

26/100 in What Fuels Fashion?

What Fuels Fashion? is a single-issue, special edition of the Fashion Transparency Index. The 2024 report ranked 250 of the world's largest fashion brands and retailers according to their level of disclosure on climate and energy-related data in their own operations and supply chains. Brands owned by this company scored 26%. The average score was 18% and the highest score was 75%.

Source: Fashion Revolution (2024)

2.5/4 for purchasing practices

In 2020 Oxfam evaluated several clothing brand's purchasing practices across seven categories: whether a brand provides accurate forecasts of upcoming work to factories; its price negotiation strategies; whether a factory's environmental and social compliance influences the brand's purchasing decisions; how a brand places orders with factories; what its payment terms are; commitment to pay a living wage; and the transparency of a brand's supply chain. This company was given a score of 2.5 with 4 being the highest possible score.

Source: Oxfam Australia (2020)

BHRRC company profile

Business & Human Rights Resource Centre digital platform presents news and allegations relating to the human rights impact of over 20,000 companies. Their enhanced Company Dashboards also include financial information, key data points based on corporate policies, and scores from prominent civil society benchmarks. Follow the link and use the search function to view this company's dashboard.

Source: BHRRC (2022)

Transparency Pledge

The Apparel and Footwear Supply Chain Transparency Pledge (Transparency Pledge) helps demonstrate apparel and footwear companies' commitment towards greater transparency in their manufacturing supply chain. Transparency of a company's manufacturing supply chain better enables a company to collaborate with civil society in identifying, assessing, and avoiding actual or potential adverse human rights impacts. This is a critical step that strengthens a company's human rights due diligence. This company has published limited supplier factory information, and falls well short of the Pledge standard.

Source: Transparency Pledge (2019)

Facial recognition technology in stores

In June 2022 CHOICE revealed Kmart, Bunnings and The Good Guys are using facial recognition technology in stores. Despite some limited signage in some stores, customers remain largely unaware of the practice. Privacy experts are raising the alarm and CHOICE says they may be in breach of the Privacy Act. The Office of the Australian Information Commissioner is investigating. Kmart has paused their use of the technology amid the controversy.

Source: Choice (2022)

35.3% in Newsweek Green Ranking 2017

This company received a score of 35.3/100 in the Newsweek Green Ranking 2017, which ranks the world's largest publicly traded companies on eight indicators covering energy, greenhouse gases, water, waste, fines and penalties, linking executive pay to sustainability targets, board-level committee oversight of environmental issues and third-party audits. Ranking methodology by Corporate Knights and HIP Investor.

Source: Newsweek (2017)

Political donations

According to the democracyforsale.net website, this company donated $638,000 to Australia's major political parties between 2012 and 2018, as disclosed to the Australian Electoral Commision (AEC).

Source: Democracy For Sale (2018)

Climate action commitments

As listed on the We Mean Business website, this company has committed to the following climate action initiatives: put a price on carbon; responsible corporate engagement in climate policy; report climate change information in mainstream reports as a fiduciary duty.

Source: We Mean Business (2021)

Tax paying in Australia

Between 2015 and 2018 this company paid $3 billion tax on a total income of $199 billion, earning the number 8 spot on Michael West's Top 40 Tax Payers 2020. West calculated which of Australia's largest companies have paid the most tax using three years of tax transparency data published by the Australian Tax Office.

Source: Michael West (2018)

Sustainability claims

This company has sustainability claims on its website in the areas of sourcing, community, environment and indigenous engagement.

Source: company website (2019)

Previous involvement with coal

This company used to operate coal mines, but sold off its last coal asset in 2018.

Source: Reuters (2022)

Modern Slavery statement

California, the UK and Australia have all enacted legislation requiring companies operating within their borders to disclose their efforts to eradicate modern slavery from their operations and supply chains. Follow the link to see this company's disclosure statement.

Source: company website (2021)

36.6% in Gender Benchmark

The 2023 Gender Benchmark ranks 112 companies from the apparel and food and agriculture sectors on their efforts to drive gender equality and women's empowerment across their entire value chain. Companies are assessed on governance and strategy, representation, compensation and benefits, health and well-being, violence and harassment, and marketplace and community. This company ranked #18/112, with a total score of 36.6%. The average score was 23% and the highest score was 55%.

Source: World Benchmarking Alliance (2023)

Efforts to pay a living wage

Oxfam Australia's Company Tracker compares the big clothing brands on their efforts to pay a living wage to the women working in their factories. This company has released the names and addresses of their tier one suppliers,and has made a public commitment to pay a living wage within a set timeframe. Kmart has implemented ring fencing wages in their supply chain, but Target has not. Neither retailer has committed to measuring the difference between current wages and a living wage.

Source: Oxfam Australia (2024)

22.2% in Nature Benchmark

The Nature Benchmark ranks 816 companies across 20 industries on their efforts to protect our environment and its biodiversity. Companies were assessed in three phases between 2022 and 2024 using three measurement areas: governance and strategy; social inclusion and community impact; and ecosystems and biodiversity. This company was assessed in 2024 and is ranked #207/816, with a total score of 22.2/100.

Source: World Benchmarking Alliance (2024)