Portmans
Lacks transparency. Publishes some details, but doesn't show its workers are paid and treated fairly.
Based on what Portmans publishes, with few independent checks. Researched with AI assistance against published rules. Last researched 2 November 2026 · 6 sources · How we check
Australian women's label selling workwear and dresses.
Portmans' parent, Just Group, scored 20/100 in the 2026 Ethical Fashion Report, and there's no proof it pays more than the legal minimum, which in China is below a living wage.
Other suits and tailoring brands
4 suits and tailoring brands are graded better than Portmans, but we don't know that any of them makes workwear.
See every suits and tailoring brand · Ask us to grade a suits and tailoring brand
Know something we've missed? Send evidence. Represent Portmans? Send a right of reply.
Compare Portmans with another brand
Why it's graded Lacks transparency
Meets 1 of 6 Good requirements, with 3 red flags.Open why it has this gradeClose why it has this grade
- Not met: Meets 1 of 6 Good requirements.
- Holds the grade back: It has 3 red flags: no evidence of a living wage, unaudited production in high-risk countries and a failing or very low rating (Ethical Fashion Report 20/100 in 2026, for the company it's rated with). 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 rights94% of its products are made in China, India 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 confirmed child or forced labour findings or linksAn unconfirmed report of forced labour is listed below. It doesn't affect the grade.
- 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 3
- 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
- Red flag: Failing or very low score on an independent rating: Ethical Fashion Report 20/100 (2026, the company it's rated with)
Stars it would earn as Good
None yet. Stars only show on Good companies. About stars
Where it's made
China 77%, India 9%, Bangladesh 8% and 1 more country.Open where it's madeClose where it's made
China has the largest share, 77%. India is next, at 9%.
| Country | Share | Worker rights | Legal minimum wage | Forced labour risk |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| China | 77% | No guarantee of rights | Below a living wage | Moderate |
| India | 9% | No guarantee of rights | Well below a living wage | High |
| Bangladesh | 8% | No guarantee of rights | Far below a living wage | Moderate |
| Vietnam | 6% | Systematic violations | Well below a living wage | Moderate |
Evidence
1 unconfirmed report, 3 things we found and what 3 independent sources say.Open the evidenceClose the evidence
What we found
- Modern slavery statement
- Signed the International Accord on garment factory safety
- 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 Portmans is a Just Group womenswear label, owned by Myer since January 2025 after years under Premier Investments. Its clothes are made by outside suppliers; the shares shown are Myer's FY25 count of audited Apparel Brands factories (China 83, India 10, Bangladesh 9, Vietnam 6), and Bangladesh is the second-largest source by volume. Just Group belongs to the International Accord and funds the Amader Kotha helpline in Bangladesh, but has never published a factory list (due in FY26) and has no dated living wage target. Owner Just Group scored 20/100 in the 2026 Ethical Fashion Report, down from 36 in 2024.
What independent sources say
| Source | Result | Details |
|---|---|---|
| Baptist World Aid Ethical Fashion ReportAnother organisation's rating | Owner scored 20/100, failing | Owner Just Group scored 20 out of 100 in the 2026 Ethical Fashion Report (average 31.5), after 36 in 2024. View |
| Australian Modern Slavery Register | Statement filed | Covered by Myer's FY25 modern slavery statement (Myer Apparel Brands, formerly Just Group) and before that by Premier Investments' statements; FY25 audits found one zero-tolerance issue (attempted bribery, Vietnam) and 17 critical issues, mainly excessive overtime in Bangladesh. View |
| Business & Human Rights Resource Centre | Alleged | Just Group did not respond to a 2019 request about forced labour in Xinjiang cotton and factories supplying apparel brands. View |
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.
- In 2019, after ABC reports of forced labour in Xinjiang's cotton industry, Just Group said 84% of its products came from China but would not rule out Xinjiang cotton, and did not respond to the Business & Human Rights Resource Centre (2019). Source
Sources and actions
6 sources, company details, and how to send evidence or a right of reply.Open the sources and company detailsClose the sources and company details
Sources 6
Show all 6 sources
- Australian brands sourcing cotton from north west China to investigate (BHRRC) · search the archive · 2019: Just Group sourced 84% from China and would not rule out Xinjiang cotton
- Shop Ethical: Just Group Ltd · search the archive · 2026 Ethical Fashion Report: Just Group scored 20/100 (average 31.5); Accord signatory; no published supplier list; Myer owns Just Group
- Fast fashion giant refuses to name suppliers (Ecotextile) · search the archive · Premier chairman declined to publish the Just Group factory list (2021)
- Just Group Living Wage Statement update, January 2024 · search the archive · Open costing and wage gap analysis of 20% of Bangladesh factories; no living wage deadline
Published by Portmans or its owner
- Myer Modern Slavery Statement 2025 · search the archive · Apparel Brands audits: China 83, India 10, Bangladesh 9, Vietnam 6 factories; 17 critical overtime findings; Accord; FY26 factory list
- Premier Investments Modern Slavery Statement FY24 · search the archive · Just Group Accord member since 2021; FY24 Taiwan ID retention and recruitment fee findings; Taiwan sourcing suspended
Company details
- Headquarters
- Australia
- Last researched
- 2 November 2026
- Cite this page
- Labour Lens, "Is Portmans ethical? Labour rating", https://www.labourlens.net/brand/portmans, 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 Portmans.
Choose a better-graded brand
4 brands in suits and tailoring are graded higher than Portmans.
See 4 better-graded brands in suits and tailoringSearch another brand