Lacks transparency. Publishes some details, but doesn't show its workers are paid and treated fairly.
Last researched 2 November 2026 · 5 sources
Auckland women's fashion chain.
There's no proof Max pays more than the legal minimum, which in China is below a living wage.
Know something we've missed? Send evidence. Represent Max? Send a right of reply.
Compare Max 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 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
- 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: High-risk raw materials (cotton and leather) traced or certified, or not a major part of its rangeNot traced or certified: cotton
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
Max names some of the countries it makes in: China. 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 |
| BangladeshUsual for the industry | No guarantee of rights | Far below a living wage | Moderate |
| 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 |
| CambodiaUsual for the industry | No guarantee of rights | Far below a living wage | Moderate |
| TürkiyeUsual for the industry | No guarantee of rights | Below a living wage | Very high |
| IndonesiaUsual for the industry | No guarantee of rights | Well below a living wage | Moderate |
| PakistanUsual for the industry | No guarantee of rights | Far below a living wage | High |
Evidence
What we found
- 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.
- Uses leather in only a few products and traces or certifies most of it. That doesn't count against it for Good, but the "Open supply chain" star needs all of it traced, certified or upcycled.
Research notes Max says the majority of its garments are made in China by a small number of long-term factories it deals with directly, and that all its apparel factories are audited every two years by SGS, with offsite worker interviews. It publishes no supplier list, factory counts or country shares. Its policy only requires the legal minimum wage and it has no living wage commitment. It bans Uzbek cotton and requires Leather Working Group certified leather. Max and its owner Barkers ranked among the lowest New Zealand brands in the 2020 COVID-19 Fashion Report. New Zealand has no modern slavery reporting law.
What independent sources say
| Source | Result | Details |
|---|---|---|
| Baptist World Aid Ethical Fashion Report | Listed | Ranked among the lowest New Zealand brands, with owner Barkers, in the 2020 Baptist World Aid and Tearfund COVID-19 Fashion Report, with no evidence of identifying or supporting vulnerable workers. View |
Sources and actions
Sources 5
Show all 5 sources
- Max - Good On You · search the archive · Final-stage production in countries at extreme risk of labour abuse; no evidence of living wages
- Corporate responsibility - Max · search the archive · Majority made in China; all apparel factories SGS-audited every 2 years with offsite interviews; legal minimum wage; LWG leather; no Uzbek cotton
- Max is revamped with sustainable focus (FashioNZ, 2019) · search the archive · Barkers bought MAX in 2018; organic cotton and linen line; stocks leather footwear
- Covid fashion report ranks 11 Kiwi brands (Otago Daily Times, 2020) · search the archive · Max and Barkers among the lowest-ranked NZ brands; owner did not respond
- Barkers - Wikipedia · search the archive · Barkers acquired MAX in October 2018
Company details
- Headquarters
- New Zealand
- Last researched
- 2 November 2026
- Cite this page
- Labour Lens, "Is Max ethical? Labour rating", https://www.labourlens.net/brand/max, last researched 2 November 2026, accessed [date].
- Method
- Researched with AI assistance against published rules. How we check · What Lacks transparency means
Better-graded everyday fashion
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 Max.