Lacks transparency. Publishes some details, but doesn't show its workers are paid and treated fairly.
Last researched 2 November 2026 · 6 sources
Independently owned supermarkets supplied by Metcash, which owns the brand.
There's no proof IGA pays more than the legal minimum, which in Thailand is below a living wage.
Know something we've missed? Send evidence. Represent IGA? Send a right of reply.
Compare IGA with another brand
Why it's graded Lacks transparency
- Not met: Meets 2 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.
- Checks its own supply chain. IGA 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. It's listed below under Confirmed issues.
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 rightsJudged on where its products are made: worker rights are poorly protected in Thailand, India 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
- 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: Farm and labour hire checks published
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
These are Metcash's countries across all its brands; IGA doesn't say where its own products are made. The rest is shown as where own-brand and fresh food is usually grown or made.
| Country | Share | Worker rights | Legal minimum wage | Forced labour risk |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Australia | 55% | Strong protections | About a living wage | Low |
| Thailand | Not given | No guarantee of rights | Below a living wage | Moderate |
| India | Not given | No guarantee of rights | Well below a living wage | High |
| Vietnam | Not given | Systematic violations | Well below a living wage | Moderate |
| Malaysia | Not given | No guarantee of rights | Below a living wage | Moderate |
| Egypt | Not given | No guarantee of rights | Well below a living wage | Moderate |
| Türkiye | Not given | No guarantee of rights | Below a living wage | Very high |
| Philippines | Not given | No guarantee of rights | Well below a living wage | Moderate |
| Indonesia | Not given | No guarantee of rights | Well below a living wage | Moderate |
| United States | Not given | Systematic violations | Below a living wage | Low |
| ChinaUsual for the industry | 4% | No guarantee of rights | Below a living wage | Moderate |
| New ZealandUsual for the industry | 1% | Strong protections | About a living wage | Low |
| ItalyUsual for the industry | 1% | Strong protections | Close to a living wage | Low |
Evidence
What we found
- Risk across the industry, not a finding about this company: fresh and own-brand food relies on Australian farms and meatworks where labour hire firms have underpaid migrant workers, and on imported ingredients such as tomato paste, palm oil and seafood linked to forced labour.
- Modern slavery statement
- Requires Fair Farms certification or ethical audits of the Australian farms and meatworks that supply its fruit, vegetables and meat
- Independent social audits of all its main factories
- It requires ethical audits or Fair Farms certification of its Australian suppliers, but doesn't publish what the checks find and what workers were repaid, so it can't show that farm and labour hire workers get what they're owed.
Research notes IGA's roughly 1,250 stores are independently owned and supplied by Metcash, whose group modern slavery statement covers its own brands and fresh food; most suppliers are in Australia, and its Food business also buys from Thailand, India, Vietnam, Malaysia, Egypt, Turkey, the Philippines, Indonesia and the US, with no shares or supplier names. About 340 private label food sites are covered by SMETA audits (161 audits in FY25 found 131 critical problems, mostly wage records and excessive overtime), and 30 key fresh suppliers are checked through Sedex, but Metcash publishes no amounts repaid and doesn't cover produce stores buy directly. Workforce compliance in the stores rests with each owner, and the Fair Work Ombudsman has taken several IGA franchisees to court.
What independent sources say
| Source | Result | Details |
|---|---|---|
| Australian Modern Slavery Register | Listed | Metcash Limited lodges a joint modern slavery statement covering its Food business, which supplies about 1,250 IGA stores; the FY25 statement reports 161 SMETA audits of private label food sites with 131 critical non-conformances. 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 | Metcash's FY25 modern slavery statement reports that an Australian supplier in its fresh food supply chain charged migrant workers recruitment fees and made deductions from their wages (Metcash, 2025). Source · archived copyFound 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. | YesMetcash says the recruitment fees and wage deductions were remediated, and the supplier changed its service providers and recruitment processes. |
| 2020 | The Federal Circuit and Family Court penalised S & L Lenz, the former franchisee of the IGA supermarket in Byford, Perth, $21,450 in 2022 for deliberately failing to comply with a Fair Work Ombudsman compliance notice over about $35,000 owed to a manager employed until 2020 (Fair Work Ombudsman, 2022). Source · archived copy | Not knownThe court ordered the company to back-pay the worker with superannuation and interest; payment was not confirmed. |
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.
- The Fair Work Ombudsman alleges that Kinsfolk Retail, which runs IGA Narrandera, paid a Nepalese visa holder a flat $15 an hour, mostly in cash, for 51 to 77 hours a week, underpaying him $93,257 from 2021 to 2023, and gave the Ombudsman false records; the case is before the court (Fair Work Ombudsman, 2026). Source
- The Fair Work Ombudsman alleges that Bulmer Farms, a Victorian vegetable grower reported to supply IGA and Coles, underpaid 28 Pacific workers on PALM visas $645,567 between 2019 and 2023, including unlawful deductions; the case is before the court (Inside FMCG, 2025). Source
Sources and actions
Sources 6
Show all 6 sources
- Former Byford IGA franchisee penalised (Fair Work Ombudsman, 21 Sep 2022) · archived copy · S & L Lenz, former franchisee of IGA Byford, penalised $21,450 for not complying with a compliance notice over about $35,000 owed to a manager employed 2013-2020; back-pay ordered
- IGA supermarket allegedly underpaid migrant worker $93,000 (Fair Work Ombudsman, 28 Jul 2026) · search the archive · FWO litigation against Kinsfolk Retail, operator of IGA Narrandera, alleging $93,257 underpaid to a visa holder from 2021 to 2023
- Coles supplier accused of underpaying migrant workers by $645,000 (Inside FMCG, 17 Dec 2025) · search the archive · FWO alleges Bulmer Farms underpaid 28 PALM workers $645,567; reported to supply Coles and IGA; not yet decided
- Court penalises IGA operator over $320,000 (Franchise Executives, 24 Oct 2018) · search the archive · Operator of Fairfield and Altona IGA stores underpaid six workers $11,373 in 2013-2015 and falsified records; penalties of about $320,000; all employees back-paid
Published by IGA or its owner
- Metcash FY25 Modern Slavery Statement · archived copy · Joint statement for 1 May 2024 to 30 April 2025; about 1,250 IGA stores in an independently owned network; about 480 private label suppliers; about 340 food private label sites covered by SMETA audits
- Human rights and ethical sourcing (Metcash) · search the archive · Metcash publishes its Modern Slavery Statement 2025, Human Rights and Anti-Slavery Policy and Responsible and Ethical Sourcing Principles
Company details
- Owned by
- Metcash
- Headquarters
- Australia
- Last researched
- 2 November 2026
- Cite this page
- Labour Lens, "Is IGA ethical? Labour rating", https://www.labourlens.net/brand/iga, last researched 2 November 2026, accessed [date].
- Method
- Researched with AI assistance against published rules. How we check · What Lacks transparency means
Other independent and fresh food grocers brands
Nothing we've rated in independent and fresh food grocers is better than Lacks transparency yet.
Something missing or wrong?
Grades are opinions based on the evidence listed here. Send us evidence, or a right of reply if you represent IGA.