Running Bare
Lacks transparency. Publishes some details, but doesn't show its workers are paid and treated fairly.
Last researched 2 November 2026 · 5 sources
Sydney women's activewear label, bought by Brand Collective in 2026.
Running Bare is rated as part of a company that scored 9/100 in the 2026 Ethical Fashion Report.
Know something we've missed? Send evidence. Represent Running Bare? Send a right of reply.
Compare Running Bare with another brand
Why it's graded Lacks transparency
- Not met: Meets 4 of 7 Good requirements.
- Holds the grade back: It has a red flag for a failing or very low rating (Ethical Fashion Report 9/100 in 2026, for the company it's rated with). On Track needs no forced or child labour, clear labour breaches or failing independent ratings.
- 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 unprotected.
Good requirements 4 of 7
- Met: Pays a living wage, or holds a strong fair-pay certificationLiving wage: presumed because legal wages in Australia are about a living wage, not checked at the company
- Met: Respects worker rights
- Met: Supply chain independently audited or certified, or at least 80% made in countries with strong labour standardsPresumed from where it's made, not audited
- Not met: Shows where its earlier production stages happen, not just the final oneA "Made in" claim can cover only the final stage. Earlier stages to show: yarn, fabric, dyeing and, for shoes, uppers
- 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 1
- Red flag: Failing or very low score on an independent rating: Ethical Fashion Report 9/100 (2026, the company it's rated with)
Stars it would earn as Good
None yet. Stars only show on Good companies. About stars
Estimates for its products
Our rules applied to one kind of product at a time, using Running Bare's evidence and, where it has product lines, that line's countries. They're estimates: we don't know which factory made any single item.
Activewear: Lacks transparency, the same as Running Bare overall, because nothing we know differs between them.
Holding one? Scan its barcode for an estimate that uses its care label or ingredients.
Where it's made
Running Bare says which countries it makes its products in, but doesn't name the factories.
| Country | Worker rights | Legal minimum wage | Forced labour risk |
|---|---|---|---|
| Australia | Strong protections | About a living wage | Low |
Evidence
What we found
- "Made in Australia" only means the last major stage happened there: under customs and consumer law, yarn, fabric, dyeing and, for shoes, uppers can be made elsewhere. It hasn't shown where those earlier stages happen, so where it's made counts towards On Track but not Good. Source
- 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 Running Bare's site says its stretch garments are cut in-house in Sydney and sewn at a factory in a nearby suburb, under Australian award wages; it also uses offshore cotton partners and fabric mills from Brisbane to Italy, none named. Brand Collective bought the label in September 2026 after it had been out of business for about six months, and has not said where it will make it. There is no Ethical Clothing Australia accreditation, supplier list or audit. Brand Collective scored 9/100 in the 2026 Ethical Fashion Report.
What independent sources say
| Source | Result | Details |
|---|---|---|
| Baptist World Aid Ethical Fashion Report | Problem found | Owner Brand Collective scored 9/100 in the 2026 Ethical Fashion Report; Running Bare is not scored on its own. View |
Sources and actions
Sources 5
Show all 5 sources
- Brand Collective - Good Shopping Guide (ethical.org.au) · search the archive · Brand Collective scored 9/100 in the 2026 Ethical Fashion Report; owns Running Bare as a subsidiary
- Running Bare - Good Shopping Guide (ethical.org.au) · search the archive · Running Bare Australia Pty Ltd wholly owned by Brand Collective, acquired in 2026; no score of its own
- Brand Collective acquires Glue Store, The Dom and Running Bare (Inside Retail, 2026) · search the archive · September 2026: Brand Collective acquiring Running Bare, inactive for about six months; no manufacturing plans stated
- David Jones acquires activewear label (Ragtrader, 2016) · search the archive · Running Bare described as an Australian women's activewear brand with a David Jones partnership
Published by Running Bare or its owner
- Our World - Running Bare · search the archive · Stretch fabrics cut at Sydney HQ, sewn one suburb over; offshore cotton partners; mills Brisbane to Italy; no certifications
Company details
- Headquarters
- Australia
- Last researched
- 2 November 2026
- Cite this page
- Labour Lens, "Is Running Bare ethical? Labour rating", https://www.labourlens.net/brand/running-bare, last researched 2 November 2026, accessed [date].
- Method
- Researched with AI assistance against published rules. How we check · What Lacks transparency means
Better-graded activewear
No activewear brand selling new goods is Good yet. These are the strongest so far.
Something missing or wrong?
Grades are opinions based on the evidence listed here. Send us evidence, or a right of reply if you represent Running Bare.