Clarks
Lacks transparency. Publishes some details, but doesn't show its workers are paid and treated fairly.
Last researched 2 November 2026 · 7 sources
British footwear brand selling shoes, boots and sandals.
Clarks can't show that the workers who make its products in Cambodia and India earn a living wage, which workers there are very unlikely to.
Also worth knowing
It has no full independent audit.
Know something we've missed? Send evidence. Represent Clarks? Send a right of reply.
Compare Clarks with another brand
Why it's graded Lacks transparency
- Not met: Meets 2 of 6 Good requirements.
- Holds the grade back: It has 2 red flags: no evidence of a living wage and unaudited production in high-risk countries. Two or more red flags means a poor grade.
- 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 2 of 6
- Not met: Pays a living wage, or holds a strong fair-pay certificationLiving wage: no evidence
- Not met: Respects worker rights76% of its products are made in countries such as China and Cambodia, where unions are heavily restricted, and it has no full supply chain audit.
- Not 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: High-risk raw materials (cotton and leather) traced or certified, or not a major part of its rangeNot traced or certified: leather
Red flags 2
- Red flag: No evidence it pays a living wage
- Red flag: Made mostly in countries with poor worker rights, without a full independent audit of its supply chain
Stars it would earn as Good
None yet. Stars only show on Good companies. About stars
Where it's made
From Clarks's own disclosure: it publishes its supplier list. Its list covers only part of its range. The rest is shown as where clothes and shoes are usually made.
| Country | Share | Worker rights | Legal minimum wage | Forced labour risk |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| China | 27% | No guarantee of rights | Below a living wage | Moderate |
| Cambodia | 23% | No guarantee of rights | Far below a living wage | Moderate |
| India | 18% | No guarantee of rights | Well below a living wage | High |
| Vietnam | 15% | Systematic violations | Well below a living wage | Moderate |
| Mexico | 6% | Regular violations | Below a living wage | Moderate |
| Bangladesh | 5% | No guarantee of rights | Far below a living wage | Moderate |
| Indonesia | 3% | No guarantee of rights | Well below a living wage | Moderate |
| Portugal | 2% | Strong protections | Close to a living wage | Low |
| Romania | 1% | Regular violations | Below a living wage | Moderate |
| TürkiyeUsual for the industry | under 1% | No guarantee of rights | Below a living wage | Very high |
| PakistanUsual for the industry | under 1% | No guarantee of rights | Far below a living wage | High |
Evidence
What we found
- Publishes supplier list
- Modern slavery statement
- Doesn't show where its leather comes from. Leather is linked to hazardous tannery work and forced labour on some cattle ranches, so it can't be graded Good until it traces or certifies it.
- Uses cotton in only a few products and doesn't show where it comes from. That doesn't count against it for Good, but the "Open supply chain" star needs all of it traced, certified or upcycled.
Research notes Clarks makes almost all its shoes through independent suppliers in Asia: in Spring/Summer 2022 China, Cambodia, India and Vietnam made over 80% of its footwear, with smaller volumes from Mexico, Bangladesh, Indonesia and Europe (Albania 2.2% not shown). It has aligned with the Transparency Pledge to publish its factory sites and is a Leather Working Group and Better Cotton member, but it scored below average on transparency, has no published living wage commitment, and its latest UK modern slavery statement on the register covers 2020-21. The Shoe Group took over Australian distribution from Brand Collective in 2026.
What independent sources say
| Source | Result | Details |
|---|---|---|
| Fashion Transparency Index (Fashion Revolution) | Listed | Scored 17% in the 2023 Fashion Transparency Index, below the 26% average. View |
| Baptist World Aid Ethical Fashion Report | Unclear | Not graded under its own name in the Ethical Fashion Report (2026 is the latest edition). Former Australian licensee Brand Collective, which did not renew the Clarks licence, no longer lists Clarks; new distributor The Shoe Group's Novo Shoes Group does not list Clarks among its rated brands. View |
| UK Modern Slavery Statement Registry | Listed | C. & J. Clark International filed group modern slavery statements on the UK register for 2020 and 2021, naming risks to ethnic minorities in Chinese material supply chains. View |
| Australian Modern Slavery Register | Listed | Former licensee Brand Collective's 2021 Australian modern slavery statement covered its Clarks licence but gave no Clarks-specific supplier or audit data. View |
| Business & Human Rights Resource Centre | Listed | Company profile records three response requests, all answered, including union claims at a Cambodian supplier (2021). View |
Unconfirmed reports
Credible reports that haven't been confirmed by a regulator, completed investigation or the company. They're shown for your information and don't affect the grade.
- In 2021 the Cambodian Alliance of Trade Unions said managers at the Tripos International shoe factory in Cambodia, a Clarks supplier, threatened workers who tried to form a union; Clarks said its investigation could not confirm the claims (Business & Human Rights Resource Centre, 2021). Source
Sources and actions
Sources 7
Show all 7 sources
- Clarks - Good Shopping Guide (ethical.org.au) · search the archive · FTI 2023 17/100; Transparency Pledge aligned; LWG and Better Cotton member; owned by Viva Goods; Brand Collective holds AU licence
- Brand Collective - Good Shopping Guide (ethical.org.au) · search the archive · 2026 Ethical Fashion Report: Brand Collective 9/100; Clarks no longer among its listed brands
- Cambodia: CATU calls on brands sourcing from Tripos International shoe factory (BHRRC) · search the archive · 2021 union claims of dismissal threats at a Clarks supplier in Cambodia
- C. & J. Clark International modern slavery statement summary 2021 (UK register) · search the archive · Group statement for Feb 2020-Jan 2021; risks in China tier 2 sourcing; whistleblowing helpline for workers
- Rivers' new owner TSG takes on Clarks ANZ license (Ragtrader) · search the archive · June 2025: The Shoe Group to distribute Clarks in Australia from 1 January 2026; Brand Collective did not renew
Published by Clarks or its owner
- Where we make our shoes (Clarks corporate) · search the archive · SS22 footwear production: China 26.7%, Cambodia 23%, India 17.8%, Vietnam 14.6%, Mexico 6.3%, Bangladesh 4.7%, others
- Brand Collective 2021 Modern Slavery Statement · search the archive · Covers the Clarks licence; suppliers in China, India, Bangladesh, Vietnam and others; minimum wage, not living wage, required
Company details
- Headquarters
- United Kingdom
- Last researched
- 2 November 2026
- Cite this page
- Labour Lens, "Is Clarks ethical? Labour rating", https://www.labourlens.net/brand/clarks, last researched 2 November 2026, accessed [date].
- Method
- Researched with AI assistance against published rules. How we check · What Lacks transparency means
Better-graded footwear
Second-hand and refurbished goods create no new factory work, so they're Good by rule and come first.
Something missing or wrong?
Grades are opinions based on the evidence listed here. Send us evidence, or a right of reply if you represent Clarks.