Zara is a well-known high-street clothes shop with stores across Europe. Its owner Inditex is one of the biggest fast fashion clothing conglomerates on the continent, with brands including Bershka, Pull & Bear and Stradivarius.
In this profile, we explore the ethics of Zara and the whole Inditex company group.
Since 1989 we've been researching and recording the social and environmental records of companies, and making the results available to you in a simple format.
Learn more about our company profiles →Our research highlights several ethical issues with Zara and its owner Inditex, including accusations of workers’ rights violations, claims of links to forced labour, and likely use of tax avoidance strategies.
Below we outline some of these issues. To see the full detailed stories, and Zara’s overall ethical rating, please sign in or subscribe.
The fashion industry is estimated to be responsible for up to 10% of worldwide carbon emissions. Its massive climate footprint has been fuelled by fast fashion brands, like Zara, which sell large amounts of items at low prices, profiting from quick purchases and quick disposal.
Inditex Group scored badly in Ethical Consumer’s climate category. The company reports on all its emissions, including those from its supply chain – the biggest source. However, when Ethical Consumer rated Zara in 2026, it was noted that the company's proportion of ‘scope 3’ emissions that came from transport appeared high, at 20%, compared to for example 8% for Primark.
Zara and Inditex have previously faced criticisms from NGOs and research organisations for their reliance on air-freighting their products out to stores. In November 2023, investigative outlet Public Eye published an article titled 'Zara fuels climate crisis with thousands of tons of airborne fashion'. The article stated that Inditex was flying around 100 tonnes of clothing through a Spanish airport each week, amounting to “well over 1,600 aircraft journeys per year”.
In response to the article, Inditex highlighted its climate target of “net zero by 2040”, stated that it was trying to reduce emissions from air freight, and told Public Eye that air freight is “mostly” reserved for intercontinental transportation when alternatives such as rail and road transport are considered to be out of the question and sea freight would take too long. Its 2025 sustainability report had several mentions of using alternatives to fossil fuels for maritime transport, but did not appear to mention air freight.
Zara and Inditex scored poorly in Ethical Consumer’s workers category.
Inditex has a code of conduct outlining its expectations of companies supplying its brands, which includes basic requirements such as no use of forced labour or discrimination. However, the code misses some vital rights, such as ensuring the payment of a living wage.
The corporation has faced a number of accusations of workers’ rights violations. For example, in 2023 the University of Aberdeen Business School and advocacy group Transform Trade published a report about the ‘Impact of Global Clothing Retailers' Unfair Practices on Bangladeshi Suppliers During COVID-19’. According to the study, major international fashion brands, including Zara, were exploiting Bangladesh garment industry workers during the Coronavirus crisis, with some brands involved in unfair practices such as paying the suppliers below the cost of production.
Inditex responded that it had “guaranteed payment for all orders already placed and in process of production and worked with financial institutions to facilitate the provision of loans to suppliers on favourable terms.”
In August 2026 the Business and Human Rights website reported that Inditex had been accused by a Turkish garment workers’ union of failing to act, when a supplier cut communications between its workers and the union.
The fashion industry uses many animal products, and Inditex and its brands use leather, wool, down, suede cashmere and merino wool. The company did not have comprehensive policies in place preventing the worst animal welfare outcomes in these supply chains.
For example, the company sold merino wool, but did not appear to have a policy covering the material. This was despite the fact that a process called ‘mulesing’ is common in this sector, whereby strips of lamb’s skin are carved off to prevent infection, sometimes without anaesthetic.
Inditex owns multiple subsidiaries in the Netherlands, which is a tax haven. Several of the subsidiaries did not appear to be serving the local population and were holding or management companies – high risk structures for tax avoidance.
Regarding its tax strategy, the company stated in an Annex to its 2025 annual report: "The Group is committed to not using structures of a shady nature for tax purposes, putting shell companies located in territories considered as tax havens or uncooperative territories by the Spanish tax authorities. In this regard, and according to the Spanish normative in place in fiscal year 2025, the Group does not develop commercial activities in territories considered as tax havens."
While it has reported some figures for the taxes paid in various countries and regions, on p227 of its annual report, within Europe, America and Asia a proportion of this was paid in countries listed as "other".
It therefore scored poorly in Ethical Consumer’s tax conduct rating overall.
This text was written June 2025, updated in September 2026, and most research was conducted in August 2026.
We always check the ethics of our advertisers
Sign up to see the full company profile including company ethiscores and all the stories behind the scores.