Oasis
Lacks transparency. Publishes some details, but doesn't show its workers are paid and treated fairly.
Last researched 3 November 2026 · 7 sources
British women's fashion brand, now sold online only.
There's no proof Oasis pays more than the legal minimum, which in China is below a living wage.
Know something we've missed? Send evidence. Represent Oasis? Send a right of reply.
Compare Oasis with another brand
Why it's graded Lacks transparency
- Not met: Meets 3 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 (unpaid or underpaid wages link, last recorded in 2020) was a link through a supplier, which the company has only partly acted on.
- 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 3 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, Pakistan and India.
- 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
- 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 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
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
- 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 Oasis is a Debenhams Group brand covered by the group's shared supplier base and modern slavery statement; the shares shown are for all 525 group Tier 1 factories in 2025 (51% in China), as no Oasis breakdown is published. The group backs the International Accord and audits every Tier 1 factory. Its 2026 fair wages policy asks suppliers to work toward wages that meet basic needs but sets no living wage commitment or deadline, and the group scored 29/100 in the 2026 Ethical Fashion Report, below the 31.5 average.
What independent sources say
| Source | Result | Details |
|---|---|---|
| Baptist World Aid Ethical Fashion Report | Listed | Not rated separately in the 2026 Ethical Fashion Report, in which owner Debenhams Group (formerly boohoo group) scored 29 out of 100 (average 31.5), after 26 in 2024. View |
| Fashion Transparency Index (Fashion Revolution) | Listed | Owner boohoo group scored 24% in the 2023 Fashion Transparency Index, below the 26% average. View |
| UK Modern Slavery Statement Registry | Listed | Covered by Debenhams Group's 2025 UK modern slavery statement, which applies to all group brands and lists 525 Tier 1 factories; Oasis is not named in it. View |
| Business & Human Rights Resource Centre | Listed | Records the 2020 independent Levitt review of the boohoo group's Leicester supply chain, which found pay and conditions allegations substantially true. View |
| News reporting and NGO investigations | Listed | Rated with its 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 November 2026). 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 | Link through a supplierA 2020 independent review by Alison Levitt QC found reports of very low pay and poor conditions in the Leicester supply chain of Oasis's owner, boohoo group, 'substantially true'; the review did not say which of the group's brands those factories made (BHRRC, 2020). Source · search the archive | PartlyThe group accepted the review's recommendations, launched an 'Agenda for Change' programme and dropped 64 Leicester factories; no compensation for workers is 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 pushing suppliers for price cuts on orders already agreed and shortening lead times, which raises the risk of low pay and excessive hours; the group said these were standard industry practices (FashionUnited, 2023). Source
Sources and actions
Sources 7
Show all 7 sources
- 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%; Accord
- Independent review into the boohoo Group plc's Leicester supply chain (BHRRC) · search the archive · Levitt review (2020) found Leicester low pay allegations substantially true; brands affected not specified
- New investigation claims Boohoo breaks past promises of fair production (FashionUnited) · search the archive · Panorama 2023: group buyers pushed price cuts on agreed orders and shorter lead times
- Fair Wages Policy (Debenhams Group, via MarketScreener) · search the archive · Feb 2026 group policy: suppliers to work toward wages meeting basic needs; no living wage deadline or targets
- ASOS Australia: Oasis skater dress · search the archive · Oasis listed on ASOS Australia, priced in AUD (A$38)
Published by Oasis or its owner
- Debenhams Group Modern Slavery Statement 2025 · search the archive · 525 Tier 1 own-brand factories: China 269, Pakistan 63, India 58, Turkey 52, UK 30; covers all group brands
- Debenhams Group brands launch in the US across Macy's, Bloomingdale's and Nordstrom · search the archive · Names Coast, Oasis, Warehouse, Karen Millen and Nasty Gal as Debenhams Group brands (September 2025)
Company details
- Headquarters
- United Kingdom
- Last researched
- 3 November 2026
- Cite this page
- Labour Lens, "Is Oasis ethical? Labour rating", https://www.labourlens.net/brand/oasis, 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
3 resale and rental platforms, Good by ruleBuying second-hand or refurbished: SWOP Clothing Exchange, AirRobe and Grailed · See them allGoodThe Social StudioClothing & footwearSocial enterprise fashion labelIts own factories in Australia hold Ethical Clothing Australia accreditation.GoodGoes Above and Beyond: Gives workers a real voice; Finds and fixes problems, or invests in communities4 starsMiddlemostClothing & footwearOne-off clothing from vintage textilesIts own factories in Australia hold Ethical Clothing Australia accreditation.GoodGoes Above and Beyond: Open supply chain3 starsThe Social OutfitClothing & footwearSydney-made social enterprise fashionIts own factories in Australia hold Ethical Clothing Australia accreditation.GoodGoes Above and Beyond: Gives workers a real voice3 stars
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 Oasis.