Mint Velvet
Lacks transparency. Publishes some details, but doesn't show its workers are paid and treated fairly.
Last researched 3 November 2026 · 4 sources
British women's brand selling clothing and knitwear.
There's no proof Mint Velvet pays more than the legal minimum, which in China is below a living wage.
Know something we've missed? Send evidence. Represent Mint Velvet? Send a right of reply.
Compare Mint Velvet 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, India and Bangladesh.
- 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, leather and cashmere) 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
Mint Velvet names some of the countries it makes in: China, India, Morocco and Türkiye. 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 |
| India | No guarantee of rights | Well below a living wage | High |
| BangladeshUsual for the industry | No guarantee of rights | Far below a living wage | Moderate |
| Türkiye | No guarantee of rights | Below a living wage | Very high |
| VietnamUsual for the industry | Systematic violations | Well below a living wage | Moderate |
| Morocco | Regular violations | Well below a living wage | Low |
| CambodiaUsual for the industry | No guarantee of rights | Far below a living wage | Moderate |
| 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
- 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.
- Uses leather and cashmere in only a few products and doesn't show where they come from. That doesn't count against it for Good, but the "Open supply chain" star needs all of them traced, certified or upcycled.
Research notes Mint Velvet's latest statement (interim, July to December 2023) names China, Turkey, India, Morocco and Europe; its 2022 statement counted 44 suppliers and 113 factories in 13 countries. It gives no shares or public factory list. All tier 1 sites must hold an independent audit under two years old. It joined the Ethical Trading Initiative in 2022. A 2024 recruitment-fee concern at one factory is under an improvement plan. No living wage commitment. Not in the 2026 Ethical Fashion Report.
What independent sources say
| Source | Result | Details |
|---|---|---|
| UK Modern Slavery Statement Registry | Listed | Publishes UK modern slavery statements; the latest, an interim statement for July to December 2023, was approved in January 2024. View |
| Baptist World Aid Ethical Fashion Report | Not covered | Not assessed in the 2026 Ethical Fashion Report, which covers brands with a large Australian presence. View |
Sources and actions
Sources 4
Show all 4 sources
- Ethical Fashion Guide 2026 (Baptist World Aid) · search the archive · The 2026 Ethical Fashion Report list does not include Mint Velvet
- River Island owners acquire Mint Velvet in 100 million pound deal · search the archive · Owned by the Lewis Trust Group, the family business behind River Island, since 2019
Published by Mint Velvet or its owner
- Modern slavery act | Mint Velvet · search the archive · Suppliers, factories and countries (China, Turkey, India, Morocco, Europe), audits, ETI, Better Cotton, LWG, staff numbers, issues found
- Delivery | Mint Velvet · search the archive · Mint Velvet's site says it now ships worldwide, so it can be ordered online from Australia
Company details
- Owned by
- Lewis Trust Group (Lewis family)
- Headquarters
- United Kingdom
- Employees
- About 850
- Last researched
- 3 November 2026
- Cite this page
- Labour Lens, "Is Mint Velvet ethical? Labour rating", https://www.labourlens.net/brand/mint-velvet, last researched 3 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 Mint Velvet.