Founded in California in 1984 by CEO Don Chang and his wife. About 60% of its apparel is manufactured in China. Operates about 500 retail stores around the world. Filed for bankruptcy in 2019 and acquired by Authentic Brands Group, Simon Property Group and Brookfield Property Partners in 2020. Forever 21 entered Australia in 2014, but left in 2017.
|Forever 21 Inc||USA||website|
| SPARC Group LLC
owns 100% of Forever 21 Inc
| Simon Property Group Inc
owns 50% of SPARC Group LLC
| Authentic Brands Group LLC
owns 50% of SPARC Group LLC
| BlackRock Inc
owns 30% of Authentic Brands Group LLC
|Forever 21 Inc|
This company has signed the 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. The Uzbek government uses local government officials, hospital directors, and school presidents to mobilize workers; and detains and tortures human rights defenders seeking to monitor the harvests.
Source: As You Sow (2019)
In 2012 the U.S. Department of Labor said it found widespread 'sweatshop-like' labor violations in downtown LA's fashion district, resulting in the recovery of more than $326,200 in back wages for 185 employees. The garments being produced by violators were destined for sale at more than 30 retailers nationwide, including this one.
Source: US Dept of Labor (2015)
The 2020 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 social and environmental policies, practices and impacts. Brands owned by this company scored 7%, signifying it has little to no information about their supply chain practices or policies available to the public. The average score was 23% and the highest score was 73%.
Source: Fashion Revolution (2020)
D- grade in the Baptist World Aid Australia's 'Ethical Fashion Report 2019', which grades companies, from A to F, on the strength of their systems 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: policies, transparency and traceability, auditing and supplier relationships, worker empowerment and environmental management.
Source: Baptist World Aid Australia (2019)
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 no evidence of actions that it covered any of the COVID Fashion Commitments.
Source: Baptist World Aid Australia (2020)
In 2015 the Rainforest Action Network (RAN) released a report documenting the results of decades of irresponsible fabric sourcing including land grabbing, forest destruction and human rights abuse to forest-dependent communities caused by deforestation from tree-based fabric production companies. This company was one of the "Fashion Fifteen" implicated in the report for irresponsibly sourcing tree-based fabrics such as rayon and viscose.
Source: RAN (2015)
This 2011 report by the International Textile Garment and Leather Workers' Federation (ITGLWF) examined working conditions in 83 factories in Indonesia, Sri Lanka and the Philippines. Investigations found that widespread violations and abuses of workers' rights continue to be the norm, such as underpaying workers, long hours, forced overtime, and repression of the freedom of association. This company's brands were found to be made in one or more of the 83 factories covered in the research. [Listed under Information due to age of report]
Source: ITGLWF (2011)
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 is not aligned with the Transparency Pledge and has made no commitment to publish supplier factory information.
Source: Transparency Pledge (2019)
This company has announced that they don't sell animal fur or are phasing in a fur-free policy.
Source: Humane Society (2019)
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)
This company is a partner of I:Collect (aka I:CO), a global collection network to keep discarded clothing and shoes out of landfills. Customers deposit used textiles into recycling dropoff boxes at this company's stores, and I:CO arranges their environmentally-friendly removal, sorting and reuse.
Source: I:Collect (2014)
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: Modern Slavery Registry (2016)
|SPARC Group LLC|
SPARC Group is a joint venture between Authentic Brands Group and Simon Property Group, both of which have criticisms in the Shop Ethical database.
Source: Shop Ethical (2020)
This company has Corporate Responsibility claims on its website.
Source: company website (2021)
|Simon Property Group Inc|
In 2020, the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) asked companies to provide data about their efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and mitigate climate change risk. Responding companies are scored across four key areas: disclosure; awareness; management; and leadership. This company received a CDP Climate Change Score of A.
Source: CDP (2020)
JUST Capital polls Americans every year to identify the issues that matter most in defining just business behaviour. For their 2021 rankings the public identified 19 issues, which are organised under the headings Workers, Communities, Customers, Shareholders and Environment. JUST Capital then define metrics that map to those issues and track and analyse the largest, publicly traded U.S. companies. This analysis powers their rankings, in which this company ranked 825th of 928 companies, and 38th of 39 Real Estate companies.
Source: JUST Capital (2020)
This company received an S&P Global ESG Score of 26/100 in the Real Estate category of the S&P Global Corporate Sustainability Assessment, an annual evaluation of companies' sustainability practices (last updated 7 Feb 2021). The rankings are based on an analysis of corporate economic, environmental and social performance, assessing issues such as corporate governance, risk management, environmental reporting, climate strategy, human rights and labour practices.
Source: S&P Global (2021)
This company received a score of 41.5/100 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)
In 2017 Simon Property Group agreed to stop anticompetitive tactics that blocked competition from new outlet centers in New York City, and pay US$945,000 to settle a lawsuit with the New York Attorney General. Simon's anticompetitive conduct blocked competition and drove up prices for New York consumers.
Source: New York Attorney General (2017)
In 2019 the median pay for a worker at this company was US$62,457. The CEO was paid 166 times this amount. Exorbitant CEO pay is a major contributor to rising inequality. CEOs are getting more because of their power to set pay, not because they are increasing productivity or possess specific, high-demand skills. The economy would suffer no harm if CEOs were paid less (or taxed more). In contrast, the CEO-to-typical-worker compensation ratio was 20-to-1 in 1965 and 58-to-1 in 1989.
Source: AFL-CIO (2020)
As listed on the We Mean Business website, this company has committed to the following climate action initiatives: adopt a science-based emissions reduction target.
Source: We Mean Business (2020)
This company has sustainability claims on its website in the four key areas of Customers, Communities, Environment and Employees.
Source: company website (2021)
OpenSecrets.org tracks the influence of money on U.S. politics, and how that money affects policy and citizens' lives. Follow link to see this company's record of political donations, lobbying, outside spending and more.
Source: Open Secrets (2020)
|Authentic Brands Group LLC|
The Chinese government has facilitated the mass transfer of Uyghur and other ethnic minority citizens from the far west region of Xinjiang to factories across the country. Under conditions that strongly suggest forced labour, Uyghurs are working in factories that are in the supply chains of at least 83 well-known global brands in the technology, clothing and automotive sectors, including brands owned by this company.
Source: ITUC (2020)
In 2019 US private equity giant BlackRock bought roughly a 30% stake in this company. BlackRock has several criticisms and an overall Shop Ethical rating of 'F'.
Source: Shop Ethical (2019)
|Revenue||3.4 billion USD (2017)|
|Address||Panorama City, California, USA|
Products / BrandsForever 21
Forever 21 Youth Fashion