Accessorize
Lacks transparency. Publishes some details, but doesn't show its workers are paid and treated fairly.
Last researched 3 November 2026 · 6 sources
London accessories chain selling fashion jewellery, bags and scarves.
Until Accessorize traces its gold and gemstones to the mine, it can't show that the miners who dig them are safe or fairly paid.
Know something we've missed? Send evidence. Represent Accessorize? Send a right of reply.
Compare Accessorize with another brand
Why it's graded Lacks transparency
- Not met: Meets 3 of 6 Good requirements.
- Holds the grade back: It relies on high-risk mined materials it can't trace. That alone means a poor grade until it takes steps to trace them.
- It isn't Harm on record, because there's no serious confirmed problem on its record.
- Lacks transparency is still a poor grade: in supply chains like this, workers who can't be seen to be treated fairly are usually underpaid or unprotected.
Good requirements 3 of 6
- Not met: Pays a living wage, or holds a strong fair-pay certificationLiving wage: no evidence
- Not met: Respects worker rightsJudged on where its products are made: worker rights are poorly protected in China, India and Bangladesh.
- Met: Supply chain independently audited or certified, or at least 80% made in countries with strong labour standards
- Met: No child or forced labour findings or links
- Met: Names the factories or farms that make its products, or is fully certified by a scheme that holds and audits that listPublishes its supplier list
- Not met: Conflict-free: diamonds, gems and gold traced to the mine, lab-grown, recycled or Fairmined (the Kimberley Process alone isn't enough)
Red flags 2
- Red flag: No evidence it pays a living wage
- Red flag: Relies on high-risk mined materials it can't trace
- Red flag: Fails its category's raw-material check (means Lacks transparency)
Stars it would earn as Good
None yet. Stars only show on Good companies. About stars
Where it's made
From Accessorize's own disclosure: it publishes its supplier list. Its list covers only part of its range. The rest is shown as where jewellery and watches are usually made.
| Country | Worker rights | Legal minimum wage | Forced labour risk |
|---|---|---|---|
| China | No guarantee of rights | Below a living wage | Moderate |
| India | No guarantee of rights | Well below a living wage | High |
| Bangladesh | No guarantee of rights | Far below a living wage | Moderate |
| Türkiye | No guarantee of rights | Below a living wage | Very high |
| Vietnam | Systematic violations | Well below a living wage | Moderate |
| ThailandUsual for the industry | No guarantee of rights | Below a living wage | Moderate |
| ItalyUsual for the industry | Strong protections | Close to a living wage | Low |
| SwitzerlandUsual for the industry | Regular violations | About a living wage | Low |
Evidence
What we found
- Risk across the industry, not a finding about this company: gold and gemstone mining are linked to child labour, forced labour and mercury poisoning.
- Publishes supplier list
- Modern slavery statement
- Independent social audits of all its main factories
- Relies on gold and gemstones from artisanal mines where workers face mercury poisoning, silica dust and deadly collapses. It hasn't shown any steps to trace these materials to the mine, so it's graded Lacks transparency until it does.
Research notes Accessorize products are made by independent suppliers; the group says over 90% of sourcing for Monsoon, Accessorize and East comes from China, India, Turkey, Bangladesh and Vietnam, with China, India and Turkey its key regions, but gives no shares. It publishes a factory list (September 2025) for all its brands, requires annual SMETA audits of all tier 1 sites, has adopted the Ethical Trading Initiative Base Code and has worked with GoodWeave against child labour since 2016. Its code requires wages that meet basic needs, but no wage data or time-bound plan is published.
What independent sources say
| Source | Result | Details |
|---|---|---|
| UK Modern Slavery Statement Registry | Listed | Adena Brands (Monsoon, Accessorize, East) publishes a UK modern slavery statement; the 2022-23 statement says most stock suppliers are in China and India. View |
| Fashion Transparency Index (Fashion Revolution) | Not listed | Monsoon Accessorize scored 100/250 (40%) in the 2020 Fashion Transparency Index; not found in the 2023 index. View |
| Baptist World Aid Ethical Fashion Report | Not covered | Not rated in Baptist World Aid's 2026 Ethical Fashion Report (or the 2024 edition), which covers brands with a large Australian presence. View |
| Business & Human Rights Resource Centre | Listed | Company profile records no allegations; notes Transparency Pledge alignment and no public evidence of living wages paid (Fashion Checker, 2023). (2023 edition; latest is 2026) View |
Sources and actions
Sources 6
Show all 6 sources
- Monsoon Accessorize - Business & Human Rights Resource Centre · search the archive · FTI 2020 score 100/250; Transparency Pledge aligned; no evidence of living wages (2023)
- Monsoon Accessorize owner buys firm out of administration (Just Style, 2020) · search the archive · Founder Peter Simon bought Monsoon Accessorize out of administration in June 2020
- Monsoon Accessorize - Corporate policies · search the archive · Group publishes a factory list (Sep 2025), code of conduct and modern slavery statement for Monsoon and Accessorize
- Adena Brands Modern Day Slavery Report 2022-2023 · search the archive · Adena Brands owns Accessorize; most stock suppliers in China and India; ETI member; GoodWeave homeworker programmes
- Sustainability Sourcing Chapter (April 2026) · search the archive · Over 90% from China, India, Turkey, Bangladesh, Vietnam (no shares in text); annual SMETA audits for tier 1; ETI Base Code
- Accessorize on ASOS Australia · search the archive · Accessorize jewellery sold online to Australian shoppers via ASOS
Company details
- Headquarters
- United Kingdom
- Last researched
- 3 November 2026
- Cite this page
- Labour Lens, "Is Accessorize ethical? Labour rating", https://www.labourlens.net/brand/accessorize, last researched 3 November 2026, accessed [date].
- Method
- Researched with AI assistance against published rules. How we check · What Lacks transparency means
Other fashion jewellery brands
Nothing we've rated in fashion jewellery is better than Lacks transparency yet.
Something missing or wrong?
Grades are opinions based on the evidence listed here. Send us evidence, or a right of reply if you represent Accessorize.