Supre

Supre has been criticised for sexualised television commercials, posters and shirts. As shown on the Collective Shout website, the Advertising Standards Bureau upheld complaints with regards to a poster on the grounds that it sexualised children, in breach of advertising codes.
Source: Collective Shout (2011)

The Supre Foundation aims to empower girls globally. 100% of proceeds they raise through the sale of their charity products go directly to supporting Supre Foundation projects in Australia, New Zealand and South Africa.
Source: company website (2017)

In 2012 Cotton On was fined $1 million for selling children's sleepwear that was deemed so flammable it shouldn't have even been sold in Australia. Cotton On have also been at the centre of a number of controversies over the past few years including advertising bungles and an underpayment scandal. [Listed under Information due to age of court finding]
Source: news article (2012)

In July 2010 Cotton On back-paid 3289 of its employees more than $278,000 after it was discovered the company had failed to pay staff for attending training out of working hours. Cotton On Clothing Pty Ltd entered into an enforceable undertaking with the Fair Work Ombudsman whereby the company posted an apology on Facebook, sent Human Resources managers to workplace compliance training and agreed to provide 3 consecutive annual reports on its active compliance.
Source: Fair Work Ombudsman (2010)

This company has been criticised for offensive advertising. In 2007 the Advertising Standards Bureau upheld complaints about a poster by this company on the grounds that it breached advertising codes. The ad was subsequently discontinued or modified.
Source: Advertising Standards Bureau (2018)

The Full Federal Court of Australia ordered Cotton On Clothing Pty Ltd to pay damages of $280,000 to Elwood Clothing Pty Ltd after finding that Cotton On Clothing Pty Ltd had infringed the copyright of T-shirt and swing-tag designs belonging to Elwood Cothing Pty Ltd.
Source: Australasian Legal Information Institute (2009)

This company signed the Uzbek Cotton Pledge with the Responsible Sourcing Network, signifying a public commitment to not knowingly source Uzbek cotton for the manufacturing of any of their products until the Government of Uzbekistan ends the practice of forced labor in its cotton sector. However the Pledge was lifted in March 2022 after the Uzbek Forum for Human Rights, who monitored the annual cotton harvest since 2010, found no state-imposed forced labor in the 2021 harvest.
Source: Cotton Campaign (2022)

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)

The Cotton On Foundation raises funds through the sale of charity items, such as reusable shopping bags, in Cotton On Group stores. With these funds they assist several project and other charities.
Source: company website (2020)

This company is one of of a handful of major Australian fashion retailers to publish the names and addresses of their supplier factories.
Source: company website (2016)

This company has ethics claims on its website under the headings of sustainability, community partnerships and ethical sourcing.
Source: company website (2021)

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)

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)

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 (2018)

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 (2016)

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 42/100.
Source: Baptist World Aid Australia (2022)

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)

In early 2017, China's Communist Party began a new incarceration campaign, rounding up, detaining and forcibly indoctrinating over 1 million Uyghurs and other Muslim minority ethnic groups in the far-western region. A coalition of more than 180 human rights groups is calling on apparel brands and retailers to stop using forced labour in the Uyghur Region and end their complicity in the Chinese government's human rights abuses. In 2019 the ABC reported that this company stopped buying cotton from the region over human rights concerns.
Source: ABC (2019)

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)

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)

In 2013 Cotton On Kids, the childrenswear arm of Cotton On, teamed up with Warner Bros Consumer Products Australia and New Zealand (part of media conglomerate Time Warner). Starting Jan 2014 Cotton On Kids selected baby and children's apparel and accessories will be sporting DC Comics' Batman, Superman and Wonder Woman designs. Time Warner is the world's largest media conglomerate.
Source: Ragtrader (2013)

The 2022 Fashion Transparency Index reviewed 250 of the world's largest fashion brands and retailers and ranked them according to how much they disclose about their human rights and environmental policies, practices and impacts. Brands owned by this company scored 22%, signifying it is doing a bit more than the others when it comes to having policies and commitments in place and auditing and reporting activities, but could be doing more. The average score was 24% and the highest score was 78%.
Source: Fashion Revolution (2022)