Best & Less

This company has been called out by the Clean Clothes Campaign (CCC) for not signing the International Accord for Health and Safety in the Textile & Garment Industry. All of the brands that have not yet signed the Accord continue to put workers' lives at risk and CCC urge them to sign on as soon as possible.
Source: Clean Clothes Campaign (2023)

This company has Corporate Social Responsibility claims on its website under heading that include ethical sourcing, living wages, sustainability, community and animal welfare.
Source: company website (2021)

This company is a member of the Supplier Ethical Data Exchange (Sedex), a not-for-profit, membership organisation that leads work with buyers and suppliers to deliver improvements in responsible and ethical business practices in global supply chains. Tens of thousands of companies use Sedex to manage their performance around labour rights, health & safety, the environment and business ethics.
Source: Sedex (2022)

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 (2020)

In 2020 Baptist World Aid Australia released The COVID Fashion Report, a special edition of their Ethical Fashion Report. The report is framed around six COVID Fashion Commitments that ask companies to demonstrate the steps and measures they are taking to protect and support the most vulnerable workers in their supply chains. This company showed evidence of actions that cover SOME areas of the COVID Fashion Commitments.
Source: Baptist World Aid Australia (2020)

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 with 4 being the highest possible score.
Source: Oxfam Australia (2020)

Human Rights Law Centre's 2022 report, "Broken Promises: Two years of corporate reporting under Australia's Modern Slavery Act", examines statements submitted to the Government's Modern Slavery Register by 92 companies sourcing from four sectors with known risks of modern slavery: garments from China, rubber gloves from Malaysia, seafood from Thailand and fresh produce from Australia. Modern slavery statements are analysed to see if they comply with the mandatory reporting requirements, identify or disclose obvious modern slavery risks, and demonstrate effective actions to address risks. This company's modern slavery disclosure statement received a rating in the 41-60% range. The average score was 44% and the highest score was 89%.
Source: Human Rights Law Centre (2022)

Baptist World Aid Australia's '2022 Ethical Fashion Report' assessed 120 companies on their efforts to mitigate against the risks of forced labour, child labour and worker exploitation in their supply chains, as well as protect the environment from the harmful impacts of the fashion industry. Assessment criteria fall into five main categories: policy & governance, tracing & risk, auditing and supplier relationships, worker empowerment and environmental sustainability. This company received a score of 33/100.
Source: Baptist World Aid Australia (2022)

This company's Honey Birdette subsidiary has been repreatedly criticised for offensive advertising. Fifteen times between 2012 and 2019 the Advertising Standards Bureau upheld complaints about poster ads by this company on the grounds that they breached advertising codes. The ads were subsequently discontinued or modified.
Source: Advertising Standards Bureau (2019)