Lipsy
Lacks transparency. Publishes some details, but doesn't show its workers are paid and treated fairly.
Last researched 3 November 2026 · 6 sources
London brand known for party and occasion dresses.
Lipsy 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.
Better-graded everyday fashion
Graded higher than Lipsy, selling the same kinds of things. Second-hand first.
3 resale and rental platforms, Good by ruleBuying second-hand or refurbished: SWOP Clothing Exchange, AirRobe and Grailed · See them allGoodThe Social StudioClothing & footwearSocial enterprise fashion labelIts own factories in Australia hold Ethical Clothing Australia accreditation.GoodGoes Above and Beyond: Gives workers a real voice; Finds and fixes problems, or invests in communities4 starsMiddlemostClothing & footwearOne-off clothing from vintage textilesIts own factories in Australia hold Ethical Clothing Australia accreditation.GoodGoes Above and Beyond: Open supply chain3 starsThe Social OutfitClothing & footwearSydney-made social enterprise fashionIts own factories in Australia hold Ethical Clothing Australia accreditation.GoodGoes Above and Beyond: Gives workers a real voice3 stars
Second-hand and refurbished goods create no new factory work, so they're Good by rule and come first.
Know something we've missed? Send evidence. Represent Lipsy? Send a right of reply.
Compare Lipsy with another brand
Why it's graded Lacks transparency
- Not met: Meets 2 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 (child labour link, last recorded in 2025) was found by its own checks and is being fixed.
- 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. Lipsy looks for problems in its own supply chain and publishes what it finds. It found child labour in 2025, forced labour in 2025 and unpaid or underpaid wages in 2025 and is fixing them, so they don't count against the grade. They're 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 rights91% 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 it isn't fixingIts own checks found child and forced labour, which it is fixing. That's listed below and doesn't count 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
- Not met: High-risk raw materials (cotton) traced or certified, or not a major part of its rangeNot traced or certified: cotton
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 Next's supplier list, which covers Lipsy and its sister brands. Lipsy publishes no breakdown of its own, so these are group-wide shares. The rest is shown as where clothes and shoes are usually made.
| Country | Share | Worker rights | Legal minimum wage | Forced labour risk |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bangladesh | 34% | No guarantee of rights | Far below a living wage | Moderate |
| China | 29% | No guarantee of rights | Below a living wage | Moderate |
| India | 13% | No guarantee of rights | Well below a living wage | High |
| Cambodia | 5% | No guarantee of rights | Far below a living wage | Moderate |
| Türkiye | 4% | No guarantee of rights | Below a living wage | Very high |
| Pakistan | 4% | No guarantee of rights | Far below a living wage | High |
| Sri Lanka | 4% | Systematic violations | Well below a living wage | Moderate |
| Vietnam | 4% | Systematic violations | Well below a living wage | Moderate |
| Myanmar | 2% | No guarantee of rights | Far below a living wage | Very high |
| United Kingdom | 1% | Regular violations | Close to a living wage | Low |
| IndonesiaUsual for the industry | under 1% | No guarantee of rights | Well below a living wage | Moderate |
Evidence
What we found
- Publishes supplier list
- Signed the International Accord on garment factory safety
- Modern slavery statement
- Doesn't show where its cotton comes from. Cotton is linked to forced labour in Xinjiang and Turkmenistan, and child labour in several growing regions, so it can't be graded Good until it traces or certifies it.
Research notes Lipsy is covered by Next plc's group modern slavery statement, which names Lipsy Limited but gives no Lipsy-specific factory data, so the shares shown are Next's group sourcing split (mainly Bangladesh, China and India). Next audits suppliers with its own team, publishes a factory list, signs the International Accord and takes part in the ACT living wage initiative, but has no living wage target. Its audits found child labour, recruitment fees and wage retention at group suppliers, not tied to Lipsy.
What independent sources say
| Source | Result | Details |
|---|---|---|
| Baptist World Aid Ethical Fashion Report | Listed | Owner Next scored 49 out of 100 in the 2026 Ethical Fashion Report, above the 31.5 average (46 in 2024); Lipsy is listed as a Next brand but not scored separately. View |
| Fashion Transparency Index (Fashion Revolution) | Listed | Owner Next scored 36% in the 2023 Fashion Transparency Index, above the 26% average; Lipsy is not rated separately. View |
| UK Modern Slavery Statement Registry | Listed | Next's 2026 group modern slavery statement is made on behalf of Lipsy Limited among other group companies; it gives no Lipsy-specific supply chain data. View |
Confirmed issues 3
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 | Link through a supplierNext's own audits found child labour at a supplier factory in China; the statement does not say which group brands it made (Next, 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. | PartlyThe supplier refused to remediate and Next removed the factory from its supply base (2026 statement). |
| 2025 | Link through a supplierNext's audits found Nepali migrant workers paid recruitment fees at a Turkish supplier; the statement does not say which group brands it made (Next, 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. | YesThe factory reimbursed 34 workers and Next's audit team checked the repayments (2026 statement). |
| 2025 | Link through a supplierNext's audits found wages held back at 11 supplier factories in 2025-26; the statement does not say which group brands they made (Next, 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. | PartlyOf 42 risk cases, 9 factories were remediated, 12 have plans and 21 were dropped, 11 over wage retention (2026 statement). |
Sources and actions
Sources 6
Show all 6 sources
- Next - Shop Ethical! (ethical.org.au) · search the archive · Next: Ethical Fashion Report 2026 49/100 (average 31.5); Lipsy listed as a brand; FTI 2023 36%; Accord and ACT
- NEXT PLC modern slavery statement summary 2026 (UK registry) · search the archive · Next group statement for 2025-26 registered on the UK modern slavery statement registry
- Lipsy - Wikipedia · search the archive · Bought by Next plc in 2008; sold through Next, ASOS, Next stores, wholesale and franchise since its own website closed in 2018
Published by Lipsy or its owner
- NEXT plc Modern Slavery Transparency Statement 2026 · search the archive · Statement made for Lipsy Limited and other group companies; Tier 1 shares by country; audit findings in 2025-26; Accord; ACT
- Next Australia: Lipsy dresses for occasion · search the archive · Lipsy dresses are sold on Next's Australian website, which delivers to Australia
- Next Australia: Lipsy girls' dresses · search the archive · Lipsy sells a girls' clothing range
Company details
- Owned by
- Next plc (owner since 2008)
- Headquarters
- United Kingdom
- Last researched
- 3 November 2026
- Cite this page
- Labour Lens, "Is Lipsy ethical? Labour rating", https://www.labourlens.net/brand/lipsy, 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 Lipsy.