Zara is a well-known high-street clothes shop with stores across Europe. Its owner Inditex is one of the biggest 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 responsible for between 8-10% 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 rated in 2023, the company stated that it had “increased engagement” with its suppliers to reduce supply chain emissions, but gave no details of actual actions taken or which it planned to take with them.
Zara and Inditex have also faced criticisms from NGOs and research organisations for their contribution to climate breakdown. For example, 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, “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.
Zara and Inditex scored very 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 2022, the research organisation Business and Human Rights Resource Centre also published an article that stated, "In December 2021, it was reported that more than 400,000 garment workers in Karnataka, India, had been receiving wages below the legal minimum at more than 1,000 factories since April 2020. [...] labour groups estimate the total amount of unpaid wages to be more than US$50m and claim it is the 'worst wage theft' ever documented in the global garment industry. [...] Workers owed wages say they are unable to cover basic living costs, such as food, rent and schooling for their children." Inditex was among the brands implicated, according to the article.
Inditex pointed to its Code of Conduct, which requires suppliers to pay legal wages, and ensure that they are “enough to meet at least the basic needs of workers and their families”. The Business and Human Rights Resource Centre also stated that it was one of just five brands to have indicated that affected workers in their supply chain had started to receive some of the wages owed to them.
Inditex also scores badly for its approach to cotton sourcing.
In 2022, over 85% of Inditex’s cotton was accredited by the Better Cotton Initiative or as organic – initiatives that ensure some more sustainable sourcing practices. Yet, the company has also faced multiple criticisms over its cotton supply chain.
The Chinese government forces many members of the Uyghur ethnic minority to work on cotton farms and in factories in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region and elsewhere in China.
In 2021, Inditex was said to have removed a statement on its website stating that the company had a zero-tolerance policy for forced labour and that it did not have relationships with any factories in Xinjiang. Since then, human rights and anti-corruption organisations have made complaints to multiple governmental authorities over accusations that Zara has links to forced labour in its supply chains – allegations that the company denies.
For example, in November 2023, Canada’s watchdog the Canadian Ombudsperson for Responsible Enterprise (CORE) launched an investigation into Zara following a complaint made by 28 civil society organisations the previous year. The organisations alleged that Zara had supply chain links with three Chinese companies identified as using or benefitting from Uyghur forced labour.
As of June 2025, no outcome from the case could be found. Zara denied the allegations, claiming to have “no commercial relationship with any factory in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR),” according to CORE.
The fashion industry uses many animal products, and Inditex and its brands use leather, wool, down, suede and others. 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 folds of a sheep’s skin is 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: "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 [where the company is registered]. In this regard, the incorporation of companies located in territories considered as tax havens is limited to situations where it is absolutely indispensable for the development of the Group’s own commercial activities, as is the case with the companies which operate the stores located in Macao SAR and Monaco."
While it has reported some figures for the taxes paid in various countries and regions, much of this information was vague. For example, almost half of the tax it paid in "Asia & Rest of the world" in 2022 was paid in countries listed as "other".
It therefore scored poorly in Ethical Consumer’s tax conduct rating overall.
The text above was written June 2025, and most research was conducted in December 2023.
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.