G-Star RAW
Lacks transparency. Publishes some details, but doesn't show its workers are paid and treated fairly.
Last researched 2 November 2026 · 7 sources
Amsterdam denim brand selling jeans and casual clothing.
G-Star RAW can't show that the workers who make its products in Bangladesh 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 G-Star RAW? Send a right of reply.
Compare G-Star RAW 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 unaudited production in high-risk countries. Two or more red flags means a poor grade.
- It isn't Harm on record: the most serious problem on its record (forced labour, last recorded in 2023) has been put right.
- 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 rights77% of its products are made in countries such as Bangladesh and China, 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, other than one it has put rightForced labour was found in its supply chain in 2023, which it has since put right. That's listed below and no longer counts against the grade.
- 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: cotton. Only in a few products: 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 G-Star RAW's own disclosure: it publishes its supplier list.
| Country | Share | Worker rights | Legal minimum wage | Forced labour risk |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bangladesh | 30% | No guarantee of rights | Far below a living wage | Moderate |
| China | 17% | No guarantee of rights | Below a living wage | Moderate |
| India | 16% | No guarantee of rights | Well below a living wage | High |
| Italy | Not given | Strong protections | Close to a living wage | Low |
| Türkiye | 9% | No guarantee of rights | Below a living wage | Very high |
| Vietnam | 9% | Systematic violations | Well below a living wage | Moderate |
| Tunisia | 5% | No guarantee of rights | Well below a living wage | Low |
| Mauritius | 2% | Regular violations | Below a living wage | Low |
| Morocco | 2% | Regular violations | Well below a living wage | Low |
Evidence
What we found
- Passes the raw-material check for clothes and shoes: traces or certifies its cotton.
- Publishes supplier list
- Signed the International Accord on garment factory safety
- Modern slavery statement
- Uses leather 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 cotton. That doesn't count against it for Good, but the "Open supply chain" star needs all of it traced, certified or upcycled.
Research notes G-Star publishes a manufacturing map and list (April 2026) covering about 95% of volume in nine countries, led by Bangladesh (34%), China and India; Italy is listed without a share. It signs the International and Pakistan Accords, belongs to ACT on living wages and has a Fair Wear remedy partnership, but reports only that workers get the minimum wage and sets no dated living wage target. In 2025 72% of its cotton was certified organic, regenerative or recycled; leather (1% of materials) comes from LWG-certified tanneries.
What independent sources say
| Source | Result | Details |
|---|---|---|
| Fashion Transparency Index (Fashion Revolution) | Listed | Scored 49% in the 2023 Fashion Transparency Index, well above the 26% average. View |
| Open Supply Hub | Listed | Publishes its manufacturing list (April 2026) on Open Supply Hub, updated every six months. View |
| Business & Human Rights Resource Centre | Listed | Company profile records the Mauritius migrant worker investigation with two response requests, both answered. View |
Confirmed issues 1
Only confirmed problems are listed, and old ones drop off after 10 to 15 years. A problem the company has fully put right no longer counts against it, and nor does one it finds and is fixing itself. How problems are counted
| Last recorded | What happened | Made amends? |
|---|---|---|
| 2023 | A two-year Transparentem investigation published in 2023 found forced labour indicators, including high recruitment fees, deception and threats, among migrant workers at Mauritian supplier Denim de l'Ile, which supplied G-Star.Put right The company has put this right for the people affected, so it no longer counts against the grade. | YesG-Star's 2025 sustainability report says all recruitment fees were repaid to the affected migrant workers in Mauritius, with the supplier; not independently confirmed. |
Sources and actions
Sources 7
Show all 7 sources
- Transparentem: Labor Rights Abuses in Mauritius' Apparel Factories · search the archive · Forced labour indicators at DDI; G-Star among buyers in DDI remediation group; no fee reimbursement
- G-Star RAW response re remediation to migrant workers in Mauritius (BHRRC, 2024) · search the archive · G-Star part of DDI brand group; commissioned independent audit and second fee review; no repayment stated
- G-Star - Shop Ethical (ethical.org.au) · search the archive · FTI 2023 49%; Accord and Pakistan Accord signatory; 99% cotton from certified sources; WHP Global majority owner
Published by G-Star RAW or its owner
- G-Star Manufacturing Map · search the archive · 29 suppliers; volume BD 34%, CN 19%, IN 18%, TR 10%, VN 10%, TN 6%, MU 2%, MA 2%; Italy now also listed (shares not shown Nov 2026)
- G-Star Strategy and Reporting · search the archive · Modern slavery statement, April 2026 manufacturing list on Open Supply Hub; ACT, Accord, Better Cotton, AGT memberships
- G-Star Materials & Animal Welfare Policy 2025 · search the archive · Leather allowed as meat co-product from LWG Gold tanneries; certified cotton chain of custody required
- G-STAR Sustainability Report 2025 · search the archive · All recruitment fees repaid to migrant workers in Mauritius; 100% minimum wage; ACT; 72.3% certified cotton; leather 100% LWG
Company details
- Headquarters
- Netherlands
- Last researched
- 2 November 2026
- Cite this page
- Labour Lens, "Is G-Star RAW ethical? Labour rating", https://www.labourlens.net/brand/g-star-raw, last researched 2 November 2026, accessed [date].
- Method
- Researched with AI assistance against published rules. How we check · What Lacks transparency means
Better-graded everyday fashion
None of the everyday fashion brands we know to make jeans is Good yet. These are the strongest so far. The Social Studio, Middlemost and The Social Outfit are Good, but we don't know that they make jeans. 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 G-Star RAW.