Lacks transparency. Publishes some details, but doesn't show its workers are paid and treated fairly.
Last researched 3 November 2026 · 7 sources
Alphabet's hardware: Pixel phones, Pixel Watch and Nest devices.
Google's supply chain was linked to forced labour in 2019, and workers in Vietnam and India are very unlikely to earn a living wage.
Know something we've missed? Send evidence. Represent Google? Send a right of reply.
Compare Google with another brand
Why it's graded Lacks transparency
- Not met: Meets 0 of 6 Good requirements.
- Holds the grade back: It has 3 red flags: no evidence of a living wage, unaudited production in high-risk countries and forced or child labour. Two or more red flags means a poor grade.
- It isn't Harm on record: the most serious problem on its record (forced labour link, last recorded in 2019) is more than 5 years old.
- 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.
- Checks its own supply chain. Google looks for problems in its own supply chain and publishes what it finds. It found unpaid or underpaid wages in 2025 and is fixing it, so it doesn't count against the grade. Another problem on its record counts against the grade: a forced labour link in 2019. They're listed below under Confirmed issues.
Good requirements 0 of 6
- Not met: Pays a living wage, or holds a strong fair-pay certificationLiving wage: no evidence
- Not met: Respects worker rightsMost of its products are made in countries such as China and India, 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
- Not met: No child or forced labour findings or links
- Not met: Names the factories or farms that make its products, or is fully certified by a scheme that holds and audits that list
- Not met: Traces its cobalt, gold and other conflict minerals to the mine
Red flags 3
- 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
- Red flag: Forced, slave or child labour found in or linked to its supply chain
Stars it would earn as Good
None yet. Stars only show on Good companies. About stars
Where it's made
From press and retailer reports; Google doesn't say where its products are made. The rest is shown as where electronics are usually made.
| Country | Worker rights | Legal minimum wage | Forced labour risk |
|---|---|---|---|
| China | No guarantee of rights | Below a living wage | Moderate |
| Vietnam | Systematic violations | Well below a living wage | Moderate |
| India | No guarantee of rights | Well below a living wage | High |
| TaiwanUsual for the industry | Strong protections | Close to a living wage | Low |
| MalaysiaUsual for the industry | No guarantee of rights | Below a living wage | Moderate |
| South KoreaUsual for the industry | No guarantee of rights | Close to a living wage | Low |
Evidence
What we found
- Risk across the industry, not a finding about this company: cobalt, tin, tantalum, tungsten and gold mining carry child and forced labour risk (DR Congo, Indonesia), and assembly overtime is widespread. (partly offset by certification or direct sourcing)
- Modern slavery statement
- Uses high-risk raw materials such as tanned leather, mica or artisanal gold.
- Uses recycled metals or fibres
- It publishes its smelters or uses some recycled or responsibly mined metals, but can't yet trace its cobalt and gold to the mine.
Research notes Google relies on contract manufacturers for Pixel and Nest products, reported mainly in China, Vietnam and India, but does not publish a supplier list or production shares. It is an RBA member, assessed 236 supplier sites in 2025 and publishes the results as conformance rates, an annual modern slavery statement and a conflict minerals report; it works on child labour in DRC mining through the Responsible Minerals Initiative. Its supplier code requires only legal minimum wages, and it makes no living wage commitment.
What independent sources say
| Source | Result | Details |
|---|---|---|
| Australian Modern Slavery Register | Listed | Google publishes an annual statement against modern slavery covering Google Australia, lodged on the Australian Modern Slavery Register. View |
| UK Modern Slavery Statement Registry | Listed | Google's tenth annual statement against modern slavery, covering 2025, was published in May 2026. View |
| News reporting and NGO investigations | Problem found | ASPI's 2020 Uyghurs for Sale report named Google among brands linked to factories using transferred Uyghur workers. View |
Confirmed issues 2
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? |
|---|---|---|
| 2025 | Google's 236 supplier site assessments in 2025 found 1,079 non-conformances; only 35% of sites met its working hours rules, 52% its wage rules and 73% its forced labour rules before corrective action (Google Supplier Responsibility Report, 2026). Source · search the archiveFound and being fixed by the company Not counted against the grade while the company is actively fixing it, because it found and published it itself. | PartlyGoogle required corrective action plans; conformance on hours rose from 35% to 50% and on wages from 52% to 64% afterwards. |
| 2019 | Link through a supplierThe Australian Strategic Policy Institute named Google among 83 brands whose supply chains included Chinese factories using Uyghur workers moved there under state labour transfer programmes (ASPI, 2020). Source · search the archive | Not known |
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.
- A Justice For All report linked Pixel maker Foxconn, Pixel Buds maker Goertek's subcontractor and a display materials supplier to Uyghur forced labour, and noted Google publishes no supplier list (Justice For All, 2023). Source
- Families of Congolese children killed or injured in cobalt mines sued Google, Apple, Microsoft, Dell and Tesla; a US appeals court upheld dismissal of the case in 2024 without ruling on the abuses (Jurist, 2024). Source
Sources and actions
Sources 7
Show all 7 sources
- Uyghurs for Sale (ASPI, 2020) · search the archive · Lists Google among 82 brands potentially benefiting from Uyghur labour transfers outside Xinjiang as recently as 2019
- Google Modern Slavery Statement 2020 (Australian Modern Slavery Register) · search the archive · Audit findings on hours, wages, deductions and fees; corrective actions; RMI child labour work in DRC; covers Google Australia and Nest
- RBA Members · search the archive · Alphabet Inc. is a Regular member of the Responsible Business Alliance
- Uncovering Slave Labor (Justice For All, 2023) · search the archive · Links Foxconn, Goertek and other Pixel suppliers to Uyghur labour; notes no Google supplier list
- US appeals court dismisses DRC child labor case against Tesla, other tech companies (Jurist, 2024) · search the archive · Cobalt child labour lawsuit naming Google dismissed on appeal in 2024
- Google reportedly plans to move all Pixel production out of China (TechRepublic) · search the archive · Pixel production in China, Vietnam and India
Published by Google or its owner
- Google Supplier Responsibility Report 2026 · search the archive · FY2025: 236 supplier site assessments, 1,079 non-conformances; conformance on hours, wages and forced labour before and after corrective action
Company details
- Owned by
- Alphabet Inc.
- Headquarters
- United States
- Last researched
- 3 November 2026
- Cite this page
- Labour Lens, "Is Google ethical? Labour rating", https://www.labourlens.net/brand/google, last researched 3 November 2026, accessed [date].
- Method
- Researched with AI assistance against published rules. How we check · What Lacks transparency means
Better-graded phones
No phones brand selling new goods is Good yet. This is the strongest so far. 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 Google.