Marks & Spencer
Harm on record. Has recent confirmed harm to workers that it hasn't put right.
Last researched 2 November 2026 · 7 sources
British retailer selling own-brand clothing, homeware and food.
In 2024, migrant workers at two Asian supplier sites had paid recruitment, health check or visa fees, a sign of forced labour.
Also worth knowing
There's no public record of Marks & Spencer putting this right.
Know something we've missed? Send evidence. Represent Marks & Spencer? Send a right of reply.
Compare Marks & Spencer with another brand
Why it's graded Harm on record
- Not met: Meets 2 of 6 Good requirements.
- Holds the grade back: It has 2 red flags: no evidence of a living wage and forced or child labour. Two or more red flags means a poor grade.
- Holds the grade back: It's Harm on record because of a serious confirmed problem from the last 5 years with no public record of it being put right: forced labour, last recorded in 2024.
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 China, Bangladesh and Vietnam.
- 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
- 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: 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 Marks & Spencer's own disclosure: it publishes its supplier list. Its list covers only part of its range. The rest is shown as where clothes and shoes are usually made.
| Country | Worker rights | Legal minimum wage | Forced labour risk |
|---|---|---|---|
| China | No guarantee of rights | Below a living wage | Moderate |
| Bangladesh | No guarantee of rights | Far 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 |
| Cambodia | No guarantee of rights | Far below a living wage | Moderate |
| Türkiye | No guarantee of rights | Below a living wage | Very high |
| Pakistan | No guarantee of rights | Far below a living wage | High |
| Sri Lanka | Systematic violations | Well below a living wage | Moderate |
| IndonesiaUsual for the industry | 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
- Independent social audits of all its main factories
- 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 M&S clothing is made by independent suppliers; its key sourcing countries are Bangladesh, China, Cambodia, India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Turkey and Vietnam, but it does not publish shares by country. It has disclosed all its Tier 1 factories since 2016 (now via Open Supply Hub), audits them annually, signs the International and Pakistan Accords, belongs to the Ethical Trading Initiative and left Myanmar in 2023. It bans Xinjiang cotton and tests cotton origin monthly, but has published no living wage commitment or evidence wages meet one, and scored the lowest grade in the Clean Clothes Campaign's 2019 wage review.
What independent sources say
| Source | Result | Details |
|---|---|---|
| Baptist World Aid Ethical Fashion Report | Listed | Scored 49 out of 100 in the 2026 Ethical Fashion Report (average 31.5). View |
| Fashion Transparency Index (Fashion Revolution) | Listed | Scored 38% in the 2023 Fashion Transparency Index, above the 26% average. View |
| UK Modern Slavery Statement Registry | Listed | Publishes an annual UK modern slavery statement (latest 2025) naming forced labour risk in China, recruitment fee risk in Taiwan and high-risk cotton; it bans Xinjiang cotton. View |
| Business & Human Rights Resource Centre | Listed | Company profile lists 27 response requests with a 100% response rate, including stories from Bangladesh, Jordan, Myanmar and Thailand. View |
| Corporate Human Rights Benchmark (World Benchmarking Alliance) | Listed | Scored 49.4/100 in the 2026 Corporate Human Rights Benchmark. 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? |
|---|---|---|
| 2024 | Audits at two M&S Clothing & Home supplier sites in the Far East found migrant workers had paid recruitment, health check or visa fees (M&S Modern Slavery Statement, 2024). Source · archived copyFound by the company, fix not shown The company found and published this itself but hasn't shown it is fixing it, so it counts against the grade. | Not knownM&S commissioned research into migration corridors and remediation practice; no repayment of fees has been reported. |
| 2021 | Garment factories in Karnataka, India, including M&S suppliers, failed to pay workers the legally required dearness allowance wage increase from April 2020 (M&S, 2024). Source · archived copyPut right The company has put this right for the people affected, so it no longer counts against the grade. | YesM&S worked with the ETI and other brands, and in February 2022 all its suppliers in the state committed to repay the 2020 and 2021 wage increases. |
| 2020 | A 2020 BBC investigation found forced overtime and threats of dismissal at a south Indian factory supplying M&S, which admitted overtime practices there were unacceptable. Source · archived copy | PartlyM&S admitted unacceptable overtime practices and agreed a remediation plan with other brands, checked by unannounced audits. |
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.
- Workers at the Erdos garment factory in Myanmar reported wage theft, forced overtime and wage cuts for missing a day of work; M&S was among brands asked to respond, though it had committed to leave Myanmar by March 2023 (BHRRC, 2024). Source
Sources and actions
Sources 7
Show all 7 sources
- Marks & Spencer - Shop Ethical! (ethical.org.au) · search the archive · 2026 Ethical Fashion Report 49/100; CHRB 2026 49.4/100; FTI 2023 38%; Remake 2024 18/150
- Marks & Spencer - Business & Human Rights Resource Centre · search the archive · 27 response requests, 100% response rate
- Myanmar: workers at garment factory face wage cuts if they miss a day (BHRRC) · search the archive · Erdos factory workers reported wage theft and forced overtime; M&S asked to respond in 2024
- UK high-street supermarket clothes made in factories where workers are exploited (BBC via Yahoo News) · archived copy · BBC found forced overtime in south Indian factories; M&S found unacceptable overtime and agreed a remediation plan
Published by Marks & Spencer or its owner
- Supporting our Clothing & Home supply chain (M&S) · search the archive · Key sourcing countries; 100% of Tier 1 sites disclosed via Open Supply Hub; annual audits; Accord and Pakistan Accord; ETI
- M&S Modern Slavery Statement 2024 · archived copy · Recruitment fees found at two Far East sites; undeclared homeworking; Xinjiang cotton ban and monthly Oritain testing
- M&S - Responding to stakeholder concerns (December 2024) · archived copy · Karnataka dearness allowance unpaid from 2020; suppliers committed to repay in Feb 2022; Myanmar exit by March 2023
Company details
- Owned by
- Marks and Spencer Group plc
- Headquarters
- United Kingdom
- Last researched
- 2 November 2026
- Cite this page
- Labour Lens, "Is Marks & Spencer ethical? Labour rating", https://www.labourlens.net/brand/marks-and-spencer, last researched 2 November 2026, accessed [date].
- Method
- Researched with AI assistance against published rules. How we check · What Harm on record means
Better-graded underwear and sleepwear
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 Marks & Spencer.