Nasty Gal
Lacks transparency. Publishes some details, but doesn't show its workers are paid and treated fairly.
Last researched 2 November 2026 · 7 sources
Online retailer selling women's clothing and shoes.
There's no proof Nasty Gal pays more than the legal minimum, which in China is below a living wage, and it has no full independent audit.
Better-graded everyday fashion
Graded higher than Nasty Gal, selling the same kinds of things. Second-hand first.
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 Nasty Gal? Send a right of reply.
Compare Nasty Gal with another brand
Why it's graded Lacks transparency
- Not met: Meets 1 of 6 Good requirements.
- Holds the grade back: It has 2 red flags: no evidence of a living wage and a hidden, unaudited supply chain 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 (unpaid or underpaid wages, last recorded in 2020) is more than 5 years old.
- 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 1 of 6
- Not met: Pays a living wage, or holds a strong fair-pay certificationLiving wage: no evidence
- Not met: Respects worker rights88% of its products are made in countries such as China and Pakistan, 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 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) 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: Hidden supply chain, mostly in countries with poor worker rights
Stars it would earn as Good
None yet. Stars only show on Good companies. About stars
Where it's made
China has the largest share, 51%. Pakistan is next, at 12%.
| Country | Share | Worker rights | Legal minimum wage | Forced labour risk |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| China | 51% | No guarantee of rights | Below a living wage | Moderate |
| Pakistan | 12% | No guarantee of rights | Far below a living wage | High |
| India | 11% | No guarantee of rights | Well below a living wage | High |
| Türkiye | 10% | No guarantee of rights | Below a living wage | Very high |
| United Kingdom | 6% | Regular violations | Close to a living wage | Low |
| Bangladesh | 3% | No guarantee of rights | Far below a living wage | Moderate |
| Morocco | 3% | Regular violations | Well below a living wage | Low |
| Italy | 2% | Strong protections | Close to a living wage | Low |
| Egypt | 1% | No guarantee of rights | Well below a living wage | Moderate |
| Vietnam | 1% | Systematic violations | Well below a living wage | Moderate |
Evidence
What we found
- 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 From 2017 to 2026 Nasty Gal was made through boohoo group's (later Debenhams Group's) supplier base: of 525 Tier 1 factories in 2025, 51% were in China, with most of the rest in Pakistan, India, Turkey and the UK, under group audits and the International Accord. In September 2026 the brand was sold to WSG Brands, a New York brand owner (Von Dutch, Allbirds) that plans to grow it largely through licensing. WSG has not published a factory list, modern slavery statement or labour standards for Nasty Gal, so where it will be made from now on is not disclosed.
What independent sources say
| Source | Result | Details |
|---|---|---|
| Baptist World Aid Ethical Fashion Report | Listed | Not listed separately in the 2026 Ethical Fashion Report, in which its owner at the time, Debenhams Group (formerly boohoo group), scored 29 out of 100 (26 in 2024). View |
| Fashion Transparency Index (Fashion Revolution) | Listed | Then-parent boohoo group scored 24% in the 2023 Fashion Transparency Index, below the 26% average. View |
| Business & Human Rights Resource Centre | Listed | Records the 2020 independent Levitt review of boohoo's Leicester supply chain, which found pay and conditions allegations substantially true. View |
| News reporting and NGO investigations | Listed | Rated with its then-parent boohoo group, which got the lowest possible grade in the Clean Clothes Campaign's 2019 Tailored Wages report, for showing no evidence that any worker making its clothes earned a living wage. Shop Ethical cites it in rating the group F (checked October 2026). View |
| UK Modern Slavery Statement Registry | Listed | Covered until its 2026 sale by Debenhams Group's 2025 UK modern slavery statement: 525 Tier 1 factories, about half in China, annual third-party audits required. View |
Confirmed issues 1
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? |
|---|---|---|
| 2020 | A 2020 Sunday Times undercover investigation filmed Nasty Gal clothes being packed at Leicester factory Jaswal Fashions, where staff were told to expect £3.50 an hour, well below the minimum wage; a 2020 independent review found the pay claims substantially true. Source · search the archive | Partlyboohoo commissioned an independent review, accepted its recommendations and dropped 64 Leicester factories; no compensation for underpaid workers has been reported. |
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.
- A 2023 BBC Panorama investigation reported boohoo group buyers, who then sourced Nasty Gal, pushing suppliers for price cuts on agreed orders, raising the risk of low pay; the group said these were standard practices (FashionUnited, 2023). Source
Sources and actions
Sources 7
Show all 7 sources
- Independent review into the boohoo Group plc's Leicester supply chain (BHRRC) · search the archive · Levitt review (2020) found low pay allegations substantially true and supply chain monitoring inadequate
- BooHoo - Good Shopping Guide (ethical.org.au) · search the archive · Debenhams Group (formerly boohoo) 29/100 in 2026 EFR (avg 31.5), 26 in 2024; rated F citing Tailored Wages 2019; FTI 2023 24%
- Boohoo accused of slavery practices in Leicester factory (Retail Gazette) · search the archive · Sunday Times reporter filmed packing Nasty Gal garments at Jaswal Fashions; told to expect £3.50 an hour (2020)
- Boohoo exits 64 Leicester factories over code of conduct breaches (City AM) · search the archive · boohoo dropped 64 Leicester factories after the 2020 scandal
- Disposal of Nasty Gal for $16m (Debenhams Group RNS) · search the archive · Sale of Nasty Gal to WSG Brands for US$16m completed 15 September 2026
- Allbirds IP owner WSG Brands buys Nasty Gal for $16M (Retail Dive) · search the archive · WSG owns Von Dutch and co-owns Allbirds; plans expansion largely via licensing; sold via Nordstrom, Macy's, Amazon
Published by Nasty Gal or its owner
- Debenhams Group Modern Slavery Statement 2025 · search the archive · Group (then incl. Nasty Gal) 525 Tier 1 factories: China 269, Pakistan 63, India 58, Turkey 52, UK 30; annual audits
Company details
- Owned by
- WSG Brands (White Space Group New York); owned by Debenhams Group (formerly boohoo) 2017-2026
- Headquarters
- United States
- Last researched
- 2 November 2026
- Cite this page
- Labour Lens, "Is Nasty Gal ethical? Labour rating", https://www.labourlens.net/brand/nasty-gal, last researched 2 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 Nasty Gal.