Dr. Martens

Lacks transparency. Publishes some details, but doesn't show its workers are paid and treated fairly.

Last researched 2 November 2026 · 6 sources

British footwear brand known for air-cushioned leather boots.

Dr.

Also worth knowing

Martens can't show that the workers who make its products in Vietnam and Laos earn a living wage, which workers there are very unlikely to.

Better-graded footwear

Graded higher than Dr. Martens, selling the same kinds of things. Second-hand first.

14 op shops and resale platforms, Good by ruleBuying second-hand or refurbished: Blue Spinach and SWOP Clothing Exchange and 12 more · See them allGood Jumbo Ugg AustraliaClothing & footwearAustralian-made sheepskin ugg bootsIts own factories in Australia hold Ethical Clothing Australia accreditation.GoodVerified Redback BootsClothing & footwearAustralian-made leather work bootsIts own factories in Australia hold Ethical Clothing Australia accreditation.GoodGoes Above and Beyond VejaClothing & footwearSneakersHolds Fair Trade USA factory certification.GoodGoes Above and Beyond

Second-hand and refurbished goods create no new factory work, so they're Good by rule and come first.

See every footwear brand

See better footwear options

Know something we've missed? Send evidence. Represent Dr. Martens? Send a right of reply.

Compare Dr. Martens with another brand

Brand to compare with

Why it's graded Lacks transparency

Not met: Meets 4 of 6 Good requirements.
Holds the grade back: It doesn't show that workers are paid a living wage, and isn't certified as working towards one. On Track needs at least one of these.
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.

How grades are decided

Good requirements 4 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 Vietnam, Laos and Thailand.
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
Met: High-risk raw materials (cotton and leather) traced or certified, or not a major part of its rangeTraced or certified: leather. Only in a few products: cotton

Red flags 1

Red flag: No evidence it pays a living wage

Stars it would earn as Good

None yet. Stars only show on Good companies. About stars

Where it's made

Vietnam has the largest share, 62%. Laos is next, at 31%.

Where it's made, share by country, and conditions there
Country	Share	Worker rights	Legal minimum wage	Forced labour risk
Vietnam	62%	Systematic violations	Well below a living wage	Moderate
Laos	31%	No guarantee of rights	Far below a living wage	Moderate
Thailand	4%	No guarantee of rights	Below a living wage	Moderate
Pakistan	2%	No guarantee of rights	Far below a living wage	High
United Kingdom	1%	Regular violations	Close to a living wage	Low

Evidence

What we found

Passes the raw-material check for clothes and shoes: traces or certifies its leather.
Publishes supplier list
Modern slavery statement
Independent social audits of all its main factories
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.
Traces or certifies most but not all of its leather. That doesn't count against it for Good, but the "Open supply chain" star needs all of it traced, certified or upcycled.

Research notes Planned footwear sourcing for autumn/winter 2025 was Vietnam 62%, Laos 31%, Thailand 4%, Pakistan 2% and 1% at its own factory in Wollaston, England. It works with 27 Tier 1 factories in Asia and Europe, publishes its factory list, and says all Tier 1 and key Tier 2 suppliers (including tanneries) passed Intertek social audits in FY25. Leather is its main material: it traces 97% to the abattoir and over 98% comes from Leather Working Group-certified tanneries. It makes no living wage commitment and is not a member of any multi-stakeholder labour initiative. It scored 43/100 in the 2026 Ethical Fashion Report.

What independent sources say

Source	Result	Details
Baptist World Aid Ethical Fashion Report	Listed	Scored 43 out of 100 in the 2026 Ethical Fashion Report, above the 31.5 average, up from 37 in 2024. View
Fashion Transparency Index (Fashion Revolution)	Listed	Scored 35% in the 2023 Fashion Transparency Index, above the 26% average. View
UK Modern Slavery Statement Registry	Listed	Publishes an annual statement under the UK Modern Slavery Act; the FY25 statement reports no forced or child labour found and all 27 Tier 1 factories passing audits. View

Sources and actions

Sources 6

Show all 6 sources

Dr Martens - Shop Ethical! (ethical.org.au) · search the archive · Ethical Fashion Report 2026: 43/100 (avg 31.5); Fashion Transparency Index 2023: 35%; Leather Working Group member
How ethical is Dr. Martens? (Good On You) · search the archive · Rated Not Good Enough for people in 2022; no evidence of living wage payment

Published by Dr. Martens or its owner

Dr. Martens plc Annual Report FY25 · search the archive · AW25 Tier 1 footwear sourcing: Vietnam 62%, Laos 31%, Thailand 4%, Pakistan 2%, Wollaston UK 1%; made in nine countries; 2,348 people
Dr. Martens plc Annual Report FY26 · search the archive · Year to 29 March 2026: over 98% of leather sourced from Leather Working Group-certified tanneries; CSR audits of Tier 1 suppliers
Dr. Martens Modern Slavery and Transparency Statement FY25 · search the archive · 27 Tier 1 factories; factory list published; all audited by Intertek WCA; no forced or child labour found; 97% leather traced; no living wage target
Dr. Martens Modern Slavery Statement FY24 · search the archive · 27 Tier 1 factories at end of FY24 across Asia and Europe; one owned UK manufacturing site

Company details

Headquarters: United Kingdom
Employees: About 2,348
Last researched: 2 November 2026
Cite this page: Labour Lens, "Is Dr. Martens ethical? Labour rating", https://www.labourlens.net/brand/dr-martens, last researched 2 November 2026, accessed [date].
Method: Researched with AI assistance against published rules. How we check · What Lacks transparency means

Something missing or wrong?

Grades are opinions based on the evidence listed here. Send us evidence, or a right of reply if you represent Dr. Martens.

Send evidence Send a right of reply