DECJUBA
Lacks transparency. Publishes some details, but doesn't show its workers are paid and treated fairly.
Last researched 2 November 2026 · 5 sources
Melbourne fashion chain selling women's casual clothing and kidswear.
DECJUBA scored 18/100 in the 2026 Ethical Fashion Report, and there's no proof it pays more than the legal minimum, which in China is below a living wage.
Know something we've missed? Send evidence. Represent DECJUBA? Send a right of reply.
Compare DECJUBA with another brand
Why it's graded Lacks transparency
- Not met: Meets 3 of 6 Good requirements.
- Holds the grade back: It has 2 red flags: no evidence of a living wage and a failing or very low rating (Ethical Fashion Report 18/100 in 2026). 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 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, Bangladesh and Vietnam.
- 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) traced or certified, or not a major part of its rangeNot traced or certified: cotton
Red flags 2
- Red flag: No evidence it pays a living wage
- Red flag: Failing or very low score on an independent rating: Ethical Fashion Report 18/100 (2026)
Stars it would earn as Good
None yet. Stars only show on Good companies. About stars
Where it's made
China has the largest share, 83%. Bangladesh is next, at 4%.
| Country | Share | Worker rights | Legal minimum wage | Forced labour risk |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| China | 83% | No guarantee of rights | Below a living wage | Moderate |
| Bangladesh | 4% | No guarantee of rights | Far below a living wage | Moderate |
| Vietnam | 4% | Systematic violations | Well below a living wage | Moderate |
| India | 3% | No guarantee of rights | Well below a living wage | High |
| Australia | 3% | Strong protections | About a living wage | Low |
| Myanmar | 1% | No guarantee of rights | Far below a living wage | Very high |
| Pakistan | 1% | No guarantee of rights | Far below a living wage | High |
| United Arab Emirates | 1% | No guarantee of rights | Not rated | Very high |
Evidence
What we found
- Publishes supplier list
- Modern slavery statement
- Independent social audits of all its main factories
- Doesn't show where its cotton comes from. Cotton is linked to forced labour in Xinjiang and Turkmenistan, and child labour in several growing regions, so it can't be graded Good until it traces or certifies it.
Research notes DECJUBA uses independent suppliers, 83% of them in China, with others in Bangladesh, Vietnam, India, Australia, Myanmar, Pakistan and the UAE. All suppliers provided a current third-party social audit (SMETA, BSCI or WRAP) in FY2025, and it lists factories on Open Supply Hub only where suppliers consent. It bans cotton from Xinjiang, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan and uses traceable Australian cotton, but makes no living wage commitment and reports no audit findings beyond supplier risk ratings.
What independent sources say
| Source | Result | Details |
|---|---|---|
| Baptist World Aid Ethical Fashion Report | Problem found | Scored 18 out of 100 in the 2026 Ethical Fashion Report (average 31.5), after 21 in 2024. View |
| Australian Modern Slavery Register | Listed | FY2025 statement: 83% of manufacturing suppliers in China; all suppliers gave a current third-party social audit; Xinjiang cotton banned; no modern slavery cases reported. View |
Sources and actions
Sources 5
Show all 5 sources
- Decjuba - Good Shopping Guide (ethical.org.au) · search the archive · 2026 Ethical Fashion Report: DECJUBA scored 18/100 (average 31.5)
- Decjuba blasts charity for misleading consumers (Ragtrader) · search the archive · In 2018 Decjuba declined to take part in the Ethical Fashion Report and criticised it
Published by DECJUBA or its owner
- DECJUBA Modern Slavery Statement 2025 · search the archive · FY25 supplier shares: China 83%, Vietnam 4%, Bangladesh 4%, India 3%, Australia 3%, Myanmar, Pakistan, UAE 1% each; all suppliers audited
- DECJUBA Modern Slavery Statement 2024 · search the archive · 40 audits covering about 80% of suppliers; 68% of suppliers disclosed on Open Supply Hub; no remediation required
- DECJUBA Modern Slavery Statement FY23 · search the archive · 1,902 employees; majority of product made in China; Good Earth Cotton partnership
Company details
- Headquarters
- Australia
- Employees
- About 1,900
- Last researched
- 2 November 2026
- Cite this page
- Labour Lens, "Is DECJUBA ethical? Labour rating", https://www.labourlens.net/brand/decjuba, last researched 2 November 2026, accessed [date].
- Method
- Researched with AI assistance against published rules. How we check · What Lacks transparency means
Better-graded kids and baby
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 DECJUBA.