2026 Baptist World Aid Ethical Fashion Report reveals stagnant industry progress

Consensus Summary

The 11th Baptist World Aid Ethical Fashion Report, released in 2026, revealed that the fashion industry’s ethical and sustainability efforts have barely improved over the past two years. The report, covering 138 companies and 543 brands, found that only 13% of surveyed companies could prove they paid workers a living wage. Despite widespread commitments to ethical practices, the average score across all brands remained stagnant at 31.5 out of 100, with just a 0.2% improvement since 2024. Fast-fashion giant Shein scored 28, outperforming several Australian retailers like Ghanda and Windsor Smith, which scored zero. The findings underscore a persistent gap between policy promises and real-world implementation, particularly in areas like worker empowerment and environmental responsibility.

The report’s methodology involved assessing 48 different measures, including supply-chain transparency, governance, and sustainability efforts. Baptist World Aid’s researchers collected over 15,000 data points during a 13-month engagement period, contacting companies repeatedly to ensure awareness of their inclusion. The Guardian noted that 58% of businesses were evaluated solely on publicly available data, while 42% provided additional information. This disparity highlights challenges in securing full cooperation from brands, particularly those like Temu and Myer, which either refused to participate or provided minimal data. The report also revealed that Australia’s textile consumption—over 200,000 tonnes annually—contributes significantly to landfill waste, exacerbating sustainability concerns.

Key figures in the report, including Baptist World Aid’s Katherine Halliday, emphasized that while brands are improving their policies, these changes rarely translate into tangible benefits for workers. Halliday stated that modern slavery statements and sustainability commitments often fail to address core issues like living wages or worker advocacy. The ABC highlighted that only 7% of brands achieved a perfect score for responsible purchasing practices, and just 20% of workers at less than a quarter of brands had access to grievance mechanisms. Outdoor and technical brands, such as Patagonia, performed well, scoring 70 points, while luxury brands averaged 38.63—only slightly higher than fast fashion’s 37.91—demonstrating that price does not necessarily correlate with ethical performance.

The two sources diverged slightly on specific figures, with the Guardian reporting 543 brands assessed across 138 companies, while the ABC cited 500 brands. The Guardian also detailed Shein’s improved score as a result of public scrutiny, whereas the ABC focused more on the broader industry’s stagnation. Both outlets agreed that the report’s findings were disappointing, but the ABC placed greater emphasis on the need for stronger government action, such as amending the Modern Slavery Act to require concrete due diligence rather than just reporting. RMIT University’s Harriette Richards, quoted by the ABC, warned that textile recycling remains unproven and may be used as a distraction from deeper systemic issues, including the pressure on offshore producers to meet unrealistic deadlines set by Australian brands.

The report’s release has reignited calls for collective responsibility from consumers and policymakers. Halliday urged governments to enforce stricter regulations, while Richards and the ABC suggested that consumer pressure—such as boycotting unethical brands—could drive change. The Guardian noted that companies like Lorna Jane, which showed significant improvement, are pushing for industry-wide collaboration rather than isolated efforts. However, the overall message remains clear: without stronger regulatory measures and greater transparency, the fashion industry’s ethical progress will continue to stall. The next steps, as outlined by both sources, hinge on whether governments and consumers will take decisive action to hold brands accountable.