Oliver Footwear
Lacks transparency. Publishes some details, but doesn't show its workers are paid and treated fairly.
Last researched 2 November 2026 · 7 sources
Ballarat-founded brand of leather work and safety boots.
There's no proof Oliver Footwear pays more than the legal minimum, which in China is below a living wage, and it has no full independent audit.
Know something we've missed? Send evidence. Represent Oliver Footwear? Send a right of reply.
Compare Oliver Footwear 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, 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 1 of 6
- Not met: Pays a living wage, or holds a strong fair-pay certificationLiving wage: no evidence
- Not met: Respects worker rightsMost of its products are made in countries such as China and Bangladesh, 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 (leather) traced or certified, or not a major part of its rangeNot traced or certified: leather
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
From product labels; Oliver Footwear doesn't say where its products are made. 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
- Uses little or no cotton (e.g. wool, linen or leather products)
- Doesn't show where its leather comes from. Leather is linked to hazardous tannery work and forced labour on some cattle ranches, so it can't be graded Good until it traces or certifies it.
Research notes Oliver closed its Ballarat factory in 2018 and its boots are now made overseas, but neither Oliver nor its owner says in which countries or factories, and no supplier list is published; US retailer listings give China as the country of origin. Its parent's Australian arm, PIP ANZ, publishes a modern slavery statement saying it sources mainly from China and requires annual SMETA audits, but its latest statement (to January 2025) predates the Oliver purchase. Oliver is not rated in the Ethical Fashion Report and has no living wage programme.
What independent sources say
| Source | Result | Details |
|---|---|---|
| Australian Modern Slavery Register | Listed | PIP ANZ's modern slavery statement for the year to January 2025 covers Bisley and Paramount, not yet Oliver; it says most suppliers are in China and audits found overtime above legal limits. View |
Sources and actions
Sources 7
Show all 7 sources
- Oliver Footwear - Good Shopping Guide (ethical.org.au) · search the archive · Owned by PIP ANZ, PIP Inc (USA) and Odyssey Investment Partners; sold to PIP in 2025; no Ethical Fashion Report score
- Protective Industrial Products Completes Acquisition of Honeywell's PPE Business (Business Wire, 2025) · search the archive · May 2025: PIP, an Odyssey Investment Partners company, completed its purchase of Honeywell's PPE business, including Oliver
- Ballarat leaders lament loss of city's manufacturing icon (The Courier) · search the archive · 2017: Oliver to move manufacturing overseas, with about 30 Ballarat jobs lost in 2018; destination country not named
- Noble: Oliver by Honeywell 6-inch work boot · search the archive · Country of Origin: China
- Noble: Oliver by Honeywell work boots · search the archive · Country of Origin: China
Published by Oliver Footwear or its owner
- Tradition & History - Oliver · search the archive · Honeywell owned Oliver from 2011; PIP Global Safety bought it in 2025; no manufacturing countries named
- PIP Australia Modern Slavery Statement (FY to Jan 2025) · search the archive · Covers Bisley and Paramount; most suppliers in China; annual SMETA audits required; overtime above Chinese limits found
Company details
- Headquarters
- Australia
- Last researched
- 2 November 2026
- Cite this page
- Labour Lens, "Is Oliver Footwear ethical? Labour rating", https://www.labourlens.net/brand/oliver-footwear, last researched 2 November 2026, accessed [date].
- Method
- Researched with AI assistance against published rules. How we check · What Lacks transparency means
Better-graded footwear
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 Oliver Footwear.