Lacks transparency. Publishes some details, but doesn't show its workers are paid and treated fairly.
Last researched 3 November 2026 · 2 sources
British fresh handmade soap, bath and skincare maker with its own shops.
There's no proof Lush pays more than the legal minimum, which in Hong Kong is below a living wage, and it has no full independent audit.
Know something we've missed? Send evidence. Represent Lush? Send a right of reply.
Compare Lush 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: the most serious problem on its record (forced and child labour, 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. Lush looks for problems in its own supply chain and publishes what it finds. It found forced and child labour in 2025 and child labour 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 rightsSome of its products are made in countries such as the United Arab Emirates and Hong Kong, 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 listMakes its products in its own factories
- Not met: Uses only synthetic mica or none, or traces natural mica to independently checked mines, and traces or certifies other high-risk ingredients (palm oil) where they're a major part of its rangeNot traced or certified: palm oil
Red flags 2
- Red flag: No evidence it pays a living wage
- Red flag: Made partly 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 Lush'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 beauty and personal care products are usually made.
| Country | Worker rights | Legal minimum wage | Forced labour risk |
|---|---|---|---|
| Australia | Strong protections | About a living wage | Low |
| Japan | Strong protections | Close to a living wage | Low |
| United Kingdom | Regular violations | Close to a living wage | Low |
| United Arab Emirates | No guarantee of rights | Not rated | Very high |
| Canada | Regular violations | About a living wage | Low |
| Hong Kong | No guarantee of rights | Below a living wage | Low |
| Croatia | Strong protections | Not rated | Moderate |
| United StatesUsual for the industry | Systematic violations | Below a living wage | Low |
| FranceUsual for the industry | Regular violations | About a living wage | Low |
| ChinaUsual for the industry | No guarantee of rights | Below a living wage | Moderate |
| ThailandUsual for the industry | No guarantee of rights | Below a living wage | Moderate |
| ItalyUsual for the industry | Strong protections | Close to a living wage | Low |
| South KoreaUsual for the industry | No guarantee of rights | Close to a living wage | Low |
| GermanyUsual for the industry | Strong protections | About a living wage | Low |
| SpainUsual for the industry | Strong protections | Close to a living wage | Low |
| IndonesiaUsual for the industry | No guarantee of rights | Well below a living wage | Moderate |
| IndiaUsual for the industry | No guarantee of rights | Well below a living wage | High |
Evidence
What we found
- Owns or runs its own production
- Modern slavery statement
- Uses only synthetic mica, or no mica
- Doesn't show where its palm oil comes from. Palm oil is linked to forced and child labour on some Malaysian and Indonesian plantations, so it can't be graded Good until it traces or certifies it.
Research notes Lush makes nearly all its products in its own factories in the UK, Canada, Croatia, Japan and Australia (with smaller sites in Hong Kong and Dubai), and the products sold in Australia are made here; candles, bags and books come from outside suppliers. It has used no natural mica since 2018, and publishes human rights assessments of its riskiest ingredients (jasmine, peppermint, rose, cocoa), reporting child labour and debt bondage it found and the fixes under way. About 48% of its portfolio is palm-derived, and suppliers of 80% of that cannot yet offer segregated certified palm; it shows no living wage commitment for suppliers.
What independent sources say
| Source | Result | Details |
|---|---|---|
| Australian Modern Slavery Register | Listed | Lush Australasia Retail and Lush Australasia Manufacturing lodge modern slavery statements; their 2019-20 statement says Lush makes products for Australia and New Zealand in one Australian manufacturing unit and has used no natural mica since 2018. 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 | Lush's own social impact assessment of its Egyptian jasmine supplier (Impactt, 2023, follow-up September 2025) found children working, including night harvesting and work in term time (Lush, Combating Modern Slavery 2024-2025). 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 fixed age checks and compulsory overtime; contracts, grievance channels and safety are partly fixed. A September 2025 follow-up found far fewer children. |
| 2025 | Lush's own human rights assessments of its Indian peppermint suppliers (June and July 2024, June 2025, by the Re-Assurance Network) found debt bondage among farmers and workers, child labour outside school hours, unsafe conditions and pay below the legal minimum (Lush, 2024-2025). 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. | PartlyLush set out steps to record crop sources, identify core farmers, keep payment records and work towards a minimum guaranteed price; it has not said it stopped buying. |
| 2025 | Lush's own assessments of its Bulgarian rose suppliers (2024 and 2025) found child labour, including Roma children, poor conditions, no formal contracts and payment through intermediaries (Lush, 2024-2025). 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. | PartlyLush now buys rose water only from the supplier's own farms; for rose oil it has an action list on child labour prevention and wage transparency, not reported complete. |
Sources and actions
Sources 2
Show all 2 sources
- Lush Australasia modern day slavery statement 2019-20 (Modern Slavery Register) · search the archive · Australian manufacturing unit supplies Australia and New Zealand; no natural mica since 1 January 2018; supplier visits
Published by Lush or its owner
- 2024-2025 Combating Modern Slavery (Lush) · search the archive · Own factories in UK, Canada, Croatia, Japan, Australia plus Hong Kong and Dubai; 1,493 suppliers; no natural mica since 2018; palm 47.97% of portfolio, 80% of volume can't be segregated; Egypt jasmine, India peppermint and Bulgaria rose findings and responses; about 13,343 employees
Company details
- Headquarters
- United Kingdom
- Employees
- About 13,343
- Last researched
- 3 November 2026
- Cite this page
- Labour Lens, "Is Lush ethical? Labour rating", https://www.labourlens.net/brand/lush, last researched 3 November 2026, accessed [date].
- Method
- Researched with AI assistance against published rules. How we check · What Lacks transparency means
Other soap, bath and body brands
Nothing we've rated in soap, bath and body 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 Lush.