Paul Smith
Lacks transparency. Publishes some details, but doesn't show its workers are paid and treated fairly.
Last researched 2 November 2026 · 5 sources
British designer fashion house.
We couldn't confirm where it makes the rest, and most clothes and shoes are made in countries such as China and Bangladesh, where the legal minimum is below a living wage.
Know something we've missed? Send evidence. Represent Paul Smith? Send a right of reply.
Compare Paul Smith 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 unaudited production 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 rights83% 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 (cotton and leather) 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: Made mostly in countries with poor worker rights, without a full independent audit of its supply chain
Stars it would earn as Good
None yet. Stars only show on Good companies. About stars
Where it's made
Paul Smith names some of the countries it makes in: the United Kingdom. The rest is shown as where clothes and shoes are usually made.
| Country | Share | Worker rights | Legal minimum wage | Forced labour risk |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ChinaUsual for the industry | 29% | No guarantee of rights | Below a living wage | Moderate |
| BangladeshUsual for the industry | 19% | No guarantee of rights | Far below a living wage | Moderate |
| VietnamUsual for the industry | 15% | Systematic violations | Well below a living wage | Moderate |
| IndiaUsual for the industry | 10% | No guarantee of rights | Well below a living wage | High |
| CambodiaUsual for the industry | 8% | No guarantee of rights | Far below a living wage | Moderate |
| TürkiyeUsual for the industry | 7% | No guarantee of rights | Below a living wage | Very high |
| IndonesiaUsual for the industry | 5% | No guarantee of rights | Well below a living wage | Moderate |
| PakistanUsual for the industry | 5% | No guarantee of rights | Far below a living wage | High |
| United Kingdom | 2% | Regular violations | Close to a living wage | Low |
Evidence
What we found
- Modern slavery statement
- 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 doesn't show where it comes from. That doesn't count against it for Good, but the "Open supply chain" star needs all of it traced, certified or upcycled.
Research notes Paul Smith uses 248 independent factories. In FY2022/23, 47.7% of units were made elsewhere in Europe, 38% in Asia, 11.7% in Africa and 2.5% in Great Britain, but it names no other production countries, so only Great Britain is shown; Japanese clothing and accessories are made under licence. It publishes no factory list and checks suppliers mainly through visits and self-assessment questionnaires rather than independent audits. It makes no living wage commitment. It is a Leather Working Group member and aims to use only organic or recycled cotton, but gives no current share.
What independent sources say
| Source | Result | Details |
|---|---|---|
| UK Modern Slavery Statement Registry | Listed | Publishes an annual UK modern slavery statement; the FY2022/23 statement reports 248 factories and no modern slavery cases found. View |
Sources and actions
Sources 5
Show all 5 sources
- Paul Smith - Business & Human Rights Resource Centre · search the archive · No labour allegations or response requests recorded
- Paul Smith sells company stake (FashionUnited, 2006) · search the archive · Itochu bought a stake in 2006; Smith and family trust kept 60%
Published by Paul Smith or its owner
- Paul Smith Modern Slavery Statement FY2022/23 · search the archive · 248 factories; units: rest of Europe 47.7%, Asia 38%, Africa 11.7%, GB 2.5%; no other countries named; 1,049 staff; self-assessments; LWG
- Paul Smith - Supply Chain · search the archive · Annual factory visits, supplier self-assessments; no supplier list; many small family-run suppliers
- Paul Smith - Our Commitments · search the archive · Goal of only organic or recycled cotton; leather from LWG, ICEC or ISO 14001 certified suppliers
Company details
- Headquarters
- United Kingdom
- Employees
- About 1,049
- Last researched
- 2 November 2026
- Cite this page
- Labour Lens, "Is Paul Smith ethical? Labour rating", https://www.labourlens.net/brand/paul-smith, last researched 2 November 2026, accessed [date].
- Method
- Researched with AI assistance against published rules. How we check · What Lacks transparency means
Better-graded suits and tailoring
No suits and tailoring brand selling new goods is Good yet. These are the strongest so far. 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 Paul Smith.