Vivienne Westwood
Lacks transparency. Publishes some details, but doesn't show its workers are paid and treated fairly.
Last researched 2 November 2026 · 4 sources
London fashion house.
There's no proof Vivienne Westwood pays more than the legal minimum, which in Thailand and Türkiye is below a living wage.
Better-graded luxury and designer
Graded higher than Vivienne Westwood, selling the same kinds of things. Second-hand first.
No luxury and designer 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.
Know something we've missed? Send evidence. Represent Vivienne Westwood? Send a right of reply.
Compare Vivienne Westwood with another brand
Why it's graded Lacks transparency
- Not met: Meets 2 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, 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 2 of 6
- Not met: Pays a living wage, or holds a strong fair-pay certificationLiving wage: no evidence
- Met: Respects worker rights
- 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 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
Italy has the largest share, 51%. The United Kingdom is next, at 14%.
| Country | Share | Worker rights | Legal minimum wage | Forced labour risk |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Italy | 51% | Strong protections | Close to a living wage | Low |
| United Kingdom | 14% | Regular violations | Close to a living wage | Low |
| Thailand | 10% | No guarantee of rights | Below a living wage | Moderate |
| Portugal | 8% | Strong protections | Close to a living wage | Low |
| Türkiye | 5% | No guarantee of rights | Below a living wage | Very high |
| China | 2% | No guarantee of rights | Below a living wage | Moderate |
| Hong Kong | 2% | No guarantee of rights | Below a living wage | Low |
| Japan | 2% | Strong protections | Close to a living wage | Low |
| Kenya | 2% | Systematic violations | Well below a living wage | Moderate |
| Madagascar | 2% | Systematic violations | Well below a living wage | Moderate |
| Tunisia | 2% | No guarantee of rights | Well below a living wage | Low |
Evidence
What we found
- Modern slavery statement
- Being made in Italy doesn't count towards a living wage or audit here: Italian fashion and leather goods, where Milan prosecutors have found luxury brands' subcontractors exploiting migrant workers. It would need to publish its suppliers or have them independently audited.
- 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 Vivienne Westwood uses independent suppliers. Its modern slavery statement for 2025 counts 59 direct manufacturing suppliers: 31 in Italy, 8 in the UK, 6 in Thailand, 5 in Portugal, 3 in Turkey and one each in Kenya, Tunisia, Madagascar, Japan, Hong Kong and China; shares shown are based on these counts. Licensed rugs, watches and eyewear are made in China, Hong Kong, Bangladesh and Nepal. It names no factories, external audits covered 10 direct suppliers and 31 sub-suppliers in 2025, and it makes no living wage commitment. Shoes and bags use leather.
What independent sources say
| Source | Result | Details |
|---|---|---|
| UK Modern Slavery Statement Registry | Listed | Publishes an annual UK modern slavery statement; the statement for 2025 (signed June 2026) lists 59 direct manufacturing suppliers, 31 in Italy, and reports external audits of 10 of them and 31 sub-suppliers in 2025. View |
Sources and actions
Sources 4
Show all 4 sources
- Vivienne Westwood - Good Shopping Guide (ethical.org.au) · search the archive · Owned by Latimo SA; fur-free since 2007; non-mulesed wool; no Ethical Fashion Report score listed
- Vivienne Westwood Limited - Business & Human Rights Resource Centre · search the archive · No allegations or response requests recorded
Published by Vivienne Westwood or its owner
- Vivienne Westwood - Modern Slavery Statement (2026) · search the archive · FY2025 statement: 59 tier 1 suppliers (Italy 31, UK 8, Thailand 6, Portugal 5, Turkey 3, 1 each in 6 others); 10 audited; parent Latimo S.A.
- Vivienne Westwood - Supply chain · search the archive · External social audits since 2019; mapping of leather and textile origins beyond tier 2 is ongoing; organic cotton traceability pilot 2019-2021
Company details
- Headquarters
- United Kingdom
- Last researched
- 2 November 2026
- Cite this page
- Labour Lens, "Is Vivienne Westwood ethical? Labour rating", https://www.labourlens.net/brand/vivienne-westwood, 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 Vivienne Westwood.