King Living
Lacks transparency. Publishes some details, but doesn't show its workers are paid and treated fairly.
Last researched 3 November 2026 · 4 sources
Family-owned Australian maker of premium sofas and beds.
There's no proof King Living pays more than the legal minimum, which in China and Thailand is below a living wage, and it has no full independent audit.
Better-graded furniture
Graded higher than King Living, selling the same kinds of things.
None of the furniture brands we know to make furniture is Good yet. These are the strongest so far. Le Klint is Good, but we don't know that it makes furniture.
Know something we've missed? Send evidence. Represent King Living? Send a right of reply.
Compare King Living 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.
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 rightsMost of its products are made in countries such as China and Thailand, 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 or links
- Met: Names the factories or farms that make its products, or is fully certified by a scheme that holds and audits that listMakes its products in its own factories
- Not met: High-risk raw materials (leather and timber) traced or certified, or not a major part of its rangeNot traced or certified: timber
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 King Living's own disclosure: it makes its products in its own factories. Its list covers only part of its range. The rest is shown as where homewares and appliances are usually made.
| Country | Worker rights | Legal minimum wage | Forced labour risk |
|---|---|---|---|
| China | No guarantee of rights | Below a living wage | Moderate |
| Thailand | No guarantee of rights | Below a living wage | Moderate |
| Australia | Strong protections | About a living wage | Low |
| VietnamUsual for the industry | Systematic violations | Well below a living wage | Moderate |
| IndiaUsual for the industry | No guarantee of rights | Well below a living wage | High |
| PolandUsual for the industry | Regular violations | Close to a living wage | Moderate |
| IndonesiaUsual for the industry | No guarantee of rights | Well below a living wage | Moderate |
| MalaysiaUsual for the industry | No guarantee of rights | Below a living wage | Moderate |
Evidence
What we found
- Owns or runs its own production
- Modern slavery statement
- Doesn't show where its timber comes from. Timber is linked to illegal logging linked to forced labour, so it can't be graded Good until it traces or certifies it.
- 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 King Living makes most of its furniture in two wholly owned factories, Gold Lion Furniture in Shanghai, China (since 1995) and King Furniture Thai in Thailand (since 2022), which together employ over 700 people; it gives no split by country. Leather comes from Germany and Italy, though no tanneries are named. Its modern slavery statement names Chinese timber and textiles as a forced labour risk but reports no audits, findings or wage data for its own factories or suppliers.
What independent sources say
| Source | Result | Details |
|---|---|---|
| Australian Modern Slavery Register | Listed | 2024 statement (latest on the register): nearly 90% of goods made in Australia or its own factories in Shanghai, China and Thailand (over 700 staff); leather from Germany and Italy; no audit results reported. View |
| Baptist World Aid Ethical Fashion Report | Not covered | Baptist World Aid's reports cover fashion and electronics, not furniture. View |
| Business & Human Rights Resource Centre | Unclear | No labour abuse allegations involving King Living or its factories were identified. View |
Sources and actions
Sources 4
Show all 4 sources
- King Living - AustCham Shanghai member directory · search the archive · Own Shanghai factory since 1995, sofas since 2003; over 500 staff
- About King Living - Green Magazine · search the archive · Australian company operating since 1977 that designs and manufactures its furniture
Published by King Living or its owner
- King Living Modern Slavery Statement 2024 · search the archive · Own factories in China and Thailand; nearly 90% of goods from them or Australia; leather from Germany and Italy; Chinese timber flagged as risk
- King Living Modern Slavery Statement 2021 · search the archive · Gold Lion Shanghai wholly owned since 1995; Thai factory 100% owned, first shipment 2022; no audits completed
Company details
- Headquarters
- Australia
- Employees
- About 1,200
- Last researched
- 3 November 2026
- Cite this page
- Labour Lens, "Is King Living ethical? Labour rating", https://www.labourlens.net/brand/king-living, last researched 3 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 King Living.