H&M Australia
OVERALL |
|
Owned |
SWE |
Rating |
 |
Apparel
H&M opened their first Australian store in Melbourne on 5 April, 2014, offering mens, womens and kids clothing and homewares.
Company Ownership
| H & M Hennes & Mauritz Pty Ltd | AUS | website | ||||
H & M Hennes & Mauritz AB 
owns 100% of H & M Hennes & Mauritz Pty Ltd |
SWE | website | ||||
Apparel Founded in 1947, they now operate about 5,000 stores in some 74 countries. The firm doesn't own factories but buys its goods from suppliers primarily in Asia and Europe. Controlled by the founding Persson family. | ||||||
Company Assessment
| PRAISE | CRITICISM | INFORMATION | ||
| H & M Hennes & Mauritz Pty Ltd | ||||
| No assessment data currently available for H & M Hennes & Mauritz Pty Ltd | ||||
| H & M Hennes & Mauritz AB | ||||
|
This company received a score of 68.6/100 (retrieved 10-Oct-2020) in the Corporate Information Transparency Index (CITI), a system for evaluating supply chain practices in China, particularly in regards to environmental management and water pollution. Scores are calculated using government compliance data, online monitoring data, and third-party environmental audits, as well as trends in the environmental performance of factories in the company's supply chains.
Source: IPE (2020)
This company appears on InfluenceMap's 2021 A-List of Climate Policy Engagement, which identifies 15 corporate leaders advocating for ambitious climate policy across a range of sectors and regions. To qualify, a company must exhibit sufficient support for ambitious climate policy, strategic levels of engagement with climate policy, and leadership in its sector. Links to industry associations egregiously opposing climate policy can disqualify a company from the list. Only 4% of companies evaluated make the A-List.
Source: Influence Map (2021)
In 2022, 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 (2022)
The 2020 Sustainable Cotton Ranking, published by WWF, Solidaridad and the Pesticide Action Network UK analysed the 77 largest cotton users among international apparel brands and retailers, reviewing their policies, actual uptake of more sustainable cotton and transparency in their supply chains. According to the report, this company is "leading the way" with a score of 77.4%. The average score was 18.2% and the highest score was 79.2%.
Source: Sustainable Cotton Ranking (2020)
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 at least 70% of their supplier factories, has taken action towards paying a living wage within a set timeframe in the supply chain, and has implemented ringfencing wages in their supply chain.
Source: Oxfam Australia (2021)
The Ethical Trading Initiative (ETI) is an alliance of companies, trade unions and NGOs. They work in partnership to improve the lives of workers across the globe who make or grow consumer goods - everything from tea to T-shirts, from flowers to footballs. This company is a full member.
Source: Ethical Trading Initiative (2021)
This company has either signed PETA's statement of assurance or provided a statement verifying that they do not conduct or commission any animal tests.
Source: PETA (2023)
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 66%, signifying that it is publishing detailed supplier lists and the vast majority of policies, procedures and future goals. The average score was 24% and the highest score was 78%.
Source: Fashion Revolution (2022)
In 2022, the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) asked companies to provide data about their efforts towards removing commodity-driven deforestation and forest degradation from its direct operations and supply chains. Responding companies are scored across four key areas: disclosure; awareness; management; and leadership. This company received a CDP Forests Score of B-.
Source: CDP (2022)
The 2019 Corporate Human Rights Benchmark assessed 200 of the largest publicly traded companies in the world from the Agricultural Products, Apparel, Extractives and ICT Manufacturing sectors on 100 human rights indicators. This company's score was in the 50-60 band range. The overall average score was a disappointing 24%.
Source: World Benchmarking Alliance (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 evidence of actions that cover ALL 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 3 with 4 being the highest possible score.
Source: Oxfam Australia (2020)
In 2020/21 KnowTheChain benchmarked over 180 large global companies in the ICT, Food & Beverage, and Apparel & Footwear sectors on their efforts to address forced labour and human trafficking in their supply chains. This company received a score of 55/100.
Source: KnowTheChain (2021)
This company has signed the Cotton Pledge with the Responsible Sourcing Network, signifying a public commitment to not knowingly source Turkmen cotton for the manufacturing of any of their products until the Government of Turkmenistan ends the practice of forced labor in its cotton sector. Each cotton season, Turkmen public sector workers are forced by the government to fulfill cotton picking quotas and private businesses are forced to contribute to the efforts financially or with labor. This places a huge burden on the health, education, and general well-being of Turkmen citizens.
Source: Responsible Sourcing Network (2021)
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 61-80% 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 56/100.
Source: Baptist World Aid Australia (2022)
In 2022, the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) asked companies to provide data about their efforts to manage and govern freshwater resources. Responding companies are scored on six key metrics: transparency; governance & strategy; measuring & monitoring; risk assessment; targets & goals; and value chain engagement. This company received a CDP Water Security Score of B-.
Source: CDP (2022)
This company is a signatory to the International Accord for Health and Safety in the Textile & Garment Industry. The International Accord was established in 2021 as the successor to the Accord on Fire and Building Safety in Bangladesh, which was established in 2013 in the wake of the Rana Plaza building collapse that killed more than 1,000 workers and seriously injured thousands more. Company signatories to the International Accord commit to: Disclosing all factories producing for them in countries with International Accord programs; Ensuring all listed factories participate in the inspection, remediation, and safety training programs; Supporting factories to ensure remediation is financially feasible; Contributing to the operational costs of International Accord programs. This company has also signed the Pakistan Accord.
Source: International Accord (2023)
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 fully aligned with the Transparency Pledge, thereby committing to regularly publish on its website a list naming all sites that manufacture its products.
Source: Transparency Pledge (2019)
The Material Change Index (MCI) is a voluntary benchmark that tracks the apparel and textiles sector's progress toward more sustainable materials sourcing (cotton, polyester, nylon, manmade cellulosics, wool, down and leather), as well as alignment with global efforts like the Sustainable Development Goals and the transition to a circular economy. This company is identified as one of 36 "Leading" companies.
Source: Textile Exchange (2020)
This company received an S&P Global ESG Score of 61/100 in the Retailing category of the S&P Global Corporate Sustainability Assessment, an annual evaluation of companies' sustainability practices (last updated 18 Nov 2022). 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 (2022) |
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.
Source: Stop Child Labour (2017)
Female migrants employed in garment factories in Bangalore, India are recruited with false promises about wages and benefits, and are subjected to conditions of modern slavery. They work under high-pressure for low wages, and live in hostels with poor living conditions while their freedom of movement is severely restricted. This company was identified in the 2018 report "Labour Without Liberty" as sourcing garments from these factories.
Source: Clean Clothes Campaign (2018)
The Clean Clothes Campaign report, Tailored Wages 2019 analyses responses from 32 top clothing brands about their progress in implementing a living wage for the workers who produce their clothes. This company received the lowest possible grade in the report, meaning they produced no evidence that any worker making their clothes was paid a living wage anywhere in the world.
Source: Clean Clothes Campaign (2019)
While conditions for garment workers in Cambodia have improved since 2014, rights violations are still rampant in the garment industry and the country as a whole. Despite this Nike, Adidas, H&M, Gap Inc, and other international brands continue to rely on Cambodia for the manufacture of a significant portion of their products.
Source: ASEAN (2019)
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. The Australian Strategic Policy Institute's 2020 report estimates (somewhat conservatively) that more than 80,000 Uyghurs were transferred out of Xinjiang to work in factories across China between 2017 and 2019, and some of them were sent directly from detention camps.
Source: ASPI (2020)
This company is still sourcing garments from Myanmar, where there has been a significant increase in labour and human rights abuses of garment workers across the country since the military takeover in Feb 2021. Wage theft, inhumane work rates and mandatory overtime, and attacks on freedom of association are the most frequently recorded types of abuse.
Source: BHRRC (2022)
Forest 500 identifies the 350 companies and 150 financial institutions with the greatest exposure to tropical deforestation risk, and annually assesses them on the strength and implementation of their deforestation and human rights commitments. This company received a score of 22%.
Source: Forest 500 (2022)
Three years after H&M became the first signatory to the Accord on Fire and Building Safety in Bangladesh, almost all of its factories remain behind schedule in carrying out the mandated renovations, with 70% of its strategic suppliers still lacking adequate fire exits.
Source: Clean Clothes Campaign (2016)
This company appeared on Global Exchange's list of "10 Top Corporate Criminals of 2016" for its failure to ensure the safety of workers in Bangladesh.
Source: Global Exchange (2016)
This company sources garments from Ethiopia, where workers are paid an average of the equivalent of US$26 per month, the lowest in the world, according to a 2019 report from New York University Stern Center for Business and Human Rights. Based on that amount, "Workers, mostly young women from poor farming families, cannot afford decent housing, food, and transportation."
Source: The Fashion Law (2019)
According to Oxfam's 2019 report, "Made in Poverty - The True Cost of Fashion", this company sources from Bangladesh and Vietnam. Some of the many disturbing findings of the research in Bangladesh were that 100 per cent of workers interviewed were not paid a living wage, nine out of ten could not afford enough food for themselves and their families until their next monthly pay and seven out of 10 could not pay for medical treatment when they were sick or injured. In Vietnam, 99 per cent were not paid a living wage and seven out of 10 women interviewed felt their pay was not enough to meet their needs.
Source: Oxfam Australia (2019)
In 2020 this H&M was fined 35 million euros for illegally surveilling employees in Germany. The company was found to have excessively monitored several hundred employees in a Nuremberg service centre. The watchdog said that since at least 2014, parts of the workforce had been subject to 'extensive recording of details about their private lives'.
Source: Forbes (2020)
This company showed customers environmental scorecards for its clothing that were misleading and, in many cases, outright deceptive, a Quartz investigation has found. More than half of the scorecards on H&M's website claimed that a piece of clothing was better for the environment when, in fact, it was no more sustainable than comparable garments made by the company and its competitors. In the most egregious cases, H&M showed data that were the exact opposite of reality.
Source: Quartz (2022)
In 2022 H&M agreed to a US$36 million settlement with the state of New York. The settlement was made to resolve claims made by New York Attorney General Letitia James that H&M unlawfully kept millions of dollars in unused gift card funds. The settlement involves New York consumers. H&M agreed to the settlement in order to end allegations it lied to the state on multiple occasions about its failure to transfer unused gift card balances to the Office of Unclaimed Funds, as required.
Source: Top Class Actions (2022) |
According to Greenpeace's 2013 report "Toxic Threads: a story of big brands and water pollution in Indonesia", this company had a business relationship in the recent past with PT Gistex Group, the company responsible for discharging a wide range of hazardous substances directly into the Citarum River in Indonesia.
Source: Greenpeace (2013)
This 2016 report from the Asia Floor Wage Alliance finds evidence of widespread exploitation in H&M supplier factories in Cambodia and India. [Listed under Information due to age of report]
Source: Asia Floor Wage Alliance (2016)
This company sources garments from factories in the Tamil Nadu region of South India. The yarn used in these factories also comes from Tamil Nadu, where large scale forced labour is used in the spinning mills. Workers in these mills are enslaved by employers who withhold their wages or lock them up in company-controlled hostels. They work long hours, face sexual harassment and do not even earn the minimum wage. [Listed under Information due to age of report]
Source: India Committee of the Netherlands (2016)
This 2016 investigative report by the India Committee of the Netherlands (ICN) reveals how migrant garment workers in Bangalore, South India endure appalling living conditions, low wages and restricted freedom of movement. This company pledged to take serious action after being named in the report as sourcing from Bangalore. [Listed under Information due to age of report]
Source: ICN (2016)
Following a campaign by the Rainforest Action Network in 2009, this company pledged to take concrete action to clean their supply chains of rainforest paper and sever relationships with companies (like Asia Pulp and Paper) who continue to destroy high conservation and endangered forests in Indonesia and elsewhere.
Source: RAN (2010)
Greenpeace launched its "Detox My Fashion" campaign in 2011 to expose the direct links between global clothing brands, their suppliers and toxic water pollution around the world. As a result, many companies, including this one, committed to Greenpeace's Detox Program. The 2016 Detox Catwalk report focused on implementation, assessing the steps taken by fashion brands to fulfil their commitments using three criteria: Detox 2020 plan, PFC elimination and Transparency. This company is "ahead of the curve and on track to meet their commitments".
Source: Greenpeace (2016)
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 (2019)
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; put a price on carbon; commit to 100% renewable power; responsible corporate engagement in climate policy; report climate change information in mainstream reports as a fiduciary duty; commit to smart energy use.
Source: We Mean Business (2021)
This company has publicly banned sandblasting. Sandblasting is a dangerous and deadly process which involves workers firing sand at jeans under high pressure. It has been known to kill workers within months as the inhalation of large amounts of silica dust generated during sandblasting causes silicosis, a potentially lethal pulmonary disease.
Source: Clean Clothes Campaign (2012)
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)
In 2009 this company announced a permanent policy against selling any exotic skins, including those of snakes, alligators, crocodiles, lizards, ostriches, and other animals.
Source: PETA (2009)
This company has committed to making products with RWS-certified wool. The Responsible Wool Standard (RWS) is a voluntary global standard which ensures that sheep are treated with respect to their five freedoms and also ensures best practices in the management and protection of the land. However PETA claim the RWS is a kind of greenwash. (http://bit.ly/2oH56o6)
Source: Responsible Wool Standard (2018)
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 has announced that they don't sell animal fur or are phasing in a fur-free policy.
Source: Humane Society (2019)
This company uses the "PETA-Approved Vegan" logo on some of its clothing, accessories, furniture, or home decor items made of vegan alternatives to animal-derived materials such as leather, fur, silk, feathers, or bone.
Source: PETA (2020)
This company has committed to making products with RDS-certified down. The Responsible Down Standard (RDS) is an independent, voluntary global standard which ensures that down and feathers come from ducks and geese that have been treated well, with no live plucking or force feeding. However the RDS has been criticised by PETA, who claim live plucking still occurs at RDS farms. (https://bit.ly/3TAiNB6)
Source: RDS (2022)
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)
This company received a score of 76.7/100 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)
This company is a member of the CanopyStyle initiative, which came about when research found that millions of trees are used every year to produce dissolving pulp, a key ingredient for fabrics such as rayon/viscose. The campaign seeks to phase out the use of endangered forest fibre in fabric.
Source: Canopy (2018)
This company is a member of the Textile Exchange, a global non-profit that works closely with its members to drive textile industry transformation in preferred fibres, integrity and standards and responsible supply networks. They identify and share best practices regarding farming, materials, processing, traceability and product end-of-life in order to reduce the textile industry's impact on the world's water, soil and air, and the human population.
Source: Textile Exchange (2019)
This company is a global partner of the Ellen MacArthur Foundation, whose stated mission is to accelerate the transition to a circular economy. The Ellen MacArthur Foundation works with business, government and academia to build a framework for an economy that is restorative and regenerative by design.
Source: Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2019)
This company is a core partner of Make Fashion Circular, a multi-stakeholder platform run by the Ellen MacArthur Foundation, which drives collaboration between industry leaders and other key stakeholders to create a textiles economy fit for the 21st century. Its ambition is to ensure clothes are made from safe and renewable materials, new business models increase their use, and old clothes are turned into new. This new textiles economy would benefit business, society, and the environment.
Source: Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2019)
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)
This company is a member of the Responsible Mica Initiative, a Do-Tank which aims to eradicate child labour and unacceptable working conditions in the Indian mica supply chain by joining forces across industries.
Source: Responsible Mica Initiative (2020)
This company is a signatory to the Fashion Industry Charter for Climate Action, a United Nations initiative which contains the vision to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050.
Source: UNFCCC (2020)
This company is a founding 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 (2020)
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 Fashion Pact, a global initiative of companies in the fashion and textile industry (ready-to-wear, sport, lifestyle and luxury) including their suppliers and distributors, all committed to a common core of key environmental goals in three areas: stopping global warming, restoring biodiversity and protecting the oceans.
Source: The Fashion Pact (2022)
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 signatory to the New Plastics Economy Global Commitment, whose goal is to eliminate plastic pollution at its source.
Source: New Plastics Economy (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 (2017)
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)
Call to boycott by BDS due to involvement in Israel. [This assessment has not been used in calculation of ratings].
Source: BDS (2010)
This company is listed on the Facing Finance website as a company that manufactures weapons or profits from violations of human rights, pollution, corruption, or international law. Follow link for further details.
Source: Facing Finance (2014) |
||
Company Details
| Type | Wholly-owned subsidiary |
Contact Details
| Address | 4/414 Kent St, Sydney, NSW, 2000, Australia |
| Phone | 02 9277 1000 |
| Freecall | 1800 828 1000 |
| Website | www.hm.com/au/ |