Is Fast Fashion Ethical in 2026? 6 Brands Scored
Open your wardrobe. Count the labels. Odds are strong that Zara, H&M, Nike, or Gap is in there -- and each of those labels carries a supply chain that stretches through factories in Bangladesh, Cambodia, Vietnam, and Turkey.
Lululemon is under investigation by Competition Bureau Canada for alleged greenwashing after its own Impact Report revealed a 100% increase in total climate pollution since deploying its "Be Planet" campaign. Over 250 garment workers died in a single factory fire at a facility supplying H&M. Inditex emitted 16.4 million tonnes of CO2 in 2023 while claiming 100% renewable electricity.
We scored six of the largest apparel companies across four dimensions: Fair Pay & Worker Respect, Planet-Friendly Business, Zero Waste & Sustainable Products, and Fair Trade & Ethical Sourcing. Scores are derived from regulatory enforcement records, labour investigations, and NGO monitoring. For a wider view of consumer brands, see our breakdown of the biggest consumer brands' ethics scores.
The Companies We Scored
We analysed four fast fashion retailers and two athletic apparel companies for comparison:
- H&M (Hennes & Mauritz) -- the Swedish fast fashion giant, 4,000+ stores worldwide
- Inditex (Zara, Bershka, Pull&Bear) -- Spain-based, the world's largest fashion retailer
- Gap Inc. (Gap, Old Navy, Banana Republic) -- American retail, once the category leader
- Associated British Foods (Primark) -- the UK-based conglomerate behind Primark's ultra-low-cost model
- Nike -- athletic apparel, included as a benchmark from outside fast fashion
- Lululemon -- premium athletic wear, included as a higher-price-point comparison
Each company was scored from -100 (worst) to +100 (best) on each dimension. A score of 0 means insufficient evidence or neutral positioning. Negative scores indicate documented harm. Positive scores reflect verified, concrete action.
The Scorecard
| Company | Fair Pay | Planet | Zero Waste | Supply Chain | Average |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Inditex (Zara) | +20 | -50 | -20 | -40 | -22.5 |
| Nike | -30 | +20 | 0 | -30 | -10.0 |
| H&M | 0 | 0 | -30 | -10 | -10.0 |
| Lululemon | -30 | -40 | -30 | 0 | -25.0 |
| Gap | -20 | 0 | -40 | 0 | -15.0 |
| ABF (Primark) | -30 | -30 | -20 | -40 | -30.0 |
Scores from -100 to +100. Bold indicates notably strong or weak scores.
Not a single company scored positively on average. The best individual score belongs to Inditex for Fair Pay (+20), driven by verified wage parity audits and zero fatalities. The worst belongs to Inditex for Planet-Friendly Business (-50), reflecting 16.4 million tonnes of CO2 emissions in 2023 despite its renewable energy targets.
H&M, Zara, and Gap: How Do Workers in Fast Fashion Factories Fare?
Every company in this sample has a supplier code of conduct. Most reference the ILO core standards. The data shows a gap between policy and practice.
Inditex earned the only positive labour score in the group. The company reported zero fatalities in both 2022 and 2023, 59% collective bargaining coverage, and verified wage parity in Spain. Its UK operations show a median gender pay gap of just 0.1%. These are concrete, auditable figures.
The rest of the group presents a different picture. H&M has a documented supply chain safety record that includes over 250 garment worker deaths in the Ali Enterprises factory fire in Pakistan. Over a dozen deaths and 30 serious safety incidents were reported in the 18 months leading up to a 2026 investigation. Workers described blocked exits, explosions, and exposure to harmful substances. The factory had been certified "safe" weeks before the fire.
Nike faced accusations in 2023 of owing $2.2 million in unpaid wages to 4,000 garment workers in Cambodia after a supplier factory closed. A Fair Labor Association investigation in 2024 found evidence of retaliation against a worker at a Nike supplier who sought compensation for unpaid leave -- indicating that even with third-party monitoring, enforcement gaps persist in the garment supply chain.
Gap's CEO-to-worker pay ratio stands at 2,160-to-1. Its voluntary turnover rate reached 84% in 2023.
Primark's parent company, ABF, reported a CEO pay ratio to median employee of 218:1 and a mean gender pay gap of 25.60%, meaning women earn approximately 74.4% of what men earn.
Lululemon's supply chain has been flagged for possible forced labour connections in Xinjiang and anti-union activities at a supplier factory in Bangladesh. Excessive overtime and retaliation against union leaders were also reported.
Climate Impact: Which Fashion Brand Has the Lowest Emissions?
Fast fashion's environmental problem is structural. The business model depends on producing enormous volumes of disposable clothing. Targets do not change that equation unless emissions actually fall.
Nike earned the only positive climate score (+20) in the group. The company sourced 96% renewable energy for owned facilities in 2023, achieved a 69% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from a 2015 baseline, and diverted 100% of waste from landfills in Tier 1 manufacturing. 78% of Nike, Jordan, and Converse products contained recycled materials.
Inditex presents a contradiction. The company has SBTi-validated 1.5-degree targets, 100% renewable electricity since 2022, and 92% renewable energy overall in 2024. But total emissions were approximately 16.4 million tonnes of CO2 in 2023, with emissions flat year-over-year in 2024. At that volume, efficiency gains are offset by production growth. The score: -50.
Lululemon has SBTi-validated near-term targets and achieved a 29% reduction in Scope 3 emissions intensity since 2018. However, the company is under investigation by Competition Bureau Canada for alleged greenwashing related to its "Be Planet" campaign. Its own Impact Report documented a 100% increase in total climate pollution since deploying that slogan.
H&M scored 0 on climate. The company's own reporting claims a 41% reduction in Scope 1 and 2 emissions and a 24% reduction in Scope 3 from a 2019 baseline, but independent corroboration was lacking in the data sources reviewed.
Waste and Circularity: Packaging Wins, Structural Problems
Packaging improvements are the industry's most tangible achievement. Every company in this sample has reduced single-use plastics and increased recycled content in packaging. But packaging is a fraction of fashion's waste problem. Overproduction and textile waste remain largely unaddressed.
H&M collected 17,100 tonnes of garments through its in-store programme in 2024, with 66% directed for reuse and 24% for recycling. The company uses 29.5% recycled materials in commercial products and targets 100% sustainable materials by 2030. At over 5 billion garments produced annually, the collection programme recaptures a small percentage of output. H&M scores -30.
Inditex eliminated 100% of single-use carrier bags and reduced paper bag consumption by over 50% in 2024. Its "Green to Pack" programme cut paper use in shipping boxes by nearly 80%. The score (-20) reflects real progress tempered by the scale of production waste.
Gap scored -40 on waste. Only 19% of polyester used in 2023 came from recycled sources, well below its own 45% target for 2025.
Supply Chain Audits: Transparency vs. Accountability
This dimension closely tracks our Fair Trade & Ethical Sourcing criteria, which measures verifiable sourcing practices rather than stated intentions.
Inditex conducted 19,030 audits across 6,615 factories in 2024. That volume averages roughly one audit every four months per factory. But Know The Chain gave the company a lower score in 2023 than in 2021. Compliance for no child labour was 99.13% in Asia and 90.84% in Europe outside the EU. At Inditex's scale, that gap represents real numbers of people. The score: -40.
H&M publishes a monthly supplier list covering 99% of Tier 1 suppliers. It requires all partners to sign a Sustainability Commitment and Code of Ethics. But the company has only traced approximately 44 million out of 200 million pieces on the TextileGenesis platform. Transparency at Tier 1 does not guarantee visibility deeper in the supply chain. The score: -10.
ABF (Primark) scored -40 on supply chain, with external ethical audits of manufacturing sites occurring only every two years in the UK and Poland. For a retailer built on ultra-low prices, the audit frequency raises questions about oversight capacity.
Nike publicly discloses Tier 1 and Tier 2 supplier facilities. In FY24, forced labour non-compliances were reported at 0.8% for Tier 1 and 2.9% for distribution centres. A 2024 Fair Labor Association investigation found evidence of retaliation against a worker at a supplier who sought compensation for unpaid leave. Nike scores -30.
What About Shein?
Shein is not publicly listed and therefore not in the Mashinii database. The company that has arguably done the most to accelerate the disposability of clothing operates outside the disclosure frameworks that apply to public companies. No earnings calls. No mandatory climate reporting. No shareholder resolutions.
Can Fast Fashion Be Sustainable?
The data shows scattered, genuine improvements -- Inditex's labour conditions, Nike's renewable energy, H&M's garment collection programme -- coexisting with factory deaths, unpaid wages, greenwashing investigations, and emissions that have not fallen at the rate promised.
No company in this analysis scored a positive average. For investors for whom supply chain conditions and environmental impact matter, every company in this article can be explored in full on the Mashinii platform. For related comparisons in the consumer goods space, see our Nestle vs Unilever ethics comparison.
Brand-by-Brand Verdict
Inditex (Zara): Best: +20 Fair Pay (zero fatalities, verified wages in Spain). Worst: -50 Climate (16.4M tonnes CO2 despite 100% renewable electricity). Key fact: 19,030 supplier audits in 2024, but Know The Chain scores declined from 2021 to 2023.
Nike: Best: +20 Climate (96% renewable energy, 69% emissions reduction from 2015 baseline). Worst: -30 Fair Pay and Supply Chain (Cambodia wage dispute, FLA-documented worker retaliation). Key fact: 78% of products contain recycled materials, but forced labour non-compliances still appear in Tier 1 and distribution centres.
H&M: Best: 0 Fair Pay, 0 Climate (no strongly positive score in any dimension). Worst: -30 Zero Waste (produces over 5 billion garments annually; garment collection recaptures a fraction). Key fact: the Ali Enterprises factory fire killed over 250 workers at a facility certified "safe" weeks prior.
Lululemon: Best: 0 Supply Chain. Worst: -40 Climate (under greenwashing investigation; total emissions doubled since the "Be Planet" campaign launched). Key fact: supply chain flagged for possible connections to forced labour in Xinjiang.
Gap: Best: 0 Climate, 0 Supply Chain. Worst: -40 Zero Waste (only 19% recycled polyester against a 45% target). Key fact: CEO-to-worker pay ratio of 2,160-to-1 with 84% voluntary turnover.
ABF (Primark): Best: -20 Zero Waste. Worst: -40 Supply Chain (ethical audits every two years in the UK and Poland). Key fact: built on ultra-low prices; the audit frequency raises questions about oversight at scale.
How We Score
Every score is derived from enforcement records, labour investigations, and independent monitoring. No corporate sustainability reports used as primary evidence. Learn more about our methodology.
Advisors with clients holding consumer or retail sector exposure can use Mashinii to identify supply chain risks. See the advisor solution.
Audit My Portfolio | Search Any Company | View Rankings
Mashinii provides integrity data for informational purposes. This content does not constitute financial advice.