Are companies greenwashing workers’ rights?

75% of workers in the hospitality sector say they’ve experienced workplace discrimination, far above the national UK average of 45%, according to a 2025 survey of 4,000 UK adults commissioned by human resources company Ciphr.

Here we explore McDonald’s approach to the issue.

What company policy says: It protects vulnerable workers

McDonald’s says it prohibits discrimination, and ensures a safe and healthy working environment.

It states, “We strive to foster safe, inclusive and respectful workplaces”. It says that it pays particular attention to “groups which may be vulnerable to negative human rights impacts, including migrant workers, Indigenous Peoples, women, socially disadvantaged minority communities, persons with disabilities or children and young people”.

What workers say: Management are accused of harassing vulnerable workers

Hundreds of current and former McDonald’s staff who were aged 19 or under when employed at franchises are suing the company over alleged harassment. The workers claim to have experienced “discrimination, homophobia, racism, ableism, and harassment”.

Workers claim managers have called them homophobic names, asked how many people they have slept with, touched staff inappropriately, preyed on young female workers, made racist comments, and ridiculed disabilities.

McDonald's has said in response that it had "fallen short" and that it apologised. It stated that there was "no place for harassment, abuse or discrimination" at McDonald's, and that it would investigate the claims.

This isn’t the first time McDonald’s has faced allegations related to discrimination. McDonald’s uses a franchise model – it issues individuals with licenses to run a McDonald’s restaurant in a specific location, and in exchange the licensee pays rent and a share of profits to McDonald’s. In 2020, 52 Black former owners of McDonald’s franchises filed a lawsuit against the company, alleging that McDonald’s steered Black franchisees to less profitable restaurants in poor neighborhoods, and didn’t give them financial support made available to white franchisees.

The lawsuit appears to be ongoing in 2026 and has grown to 77 plaintiffs, according to the Chicago Crusader.

The NGO Coffee Watch says human rights abuses are widespread and systematic in the coffee industry. Some estimates suggest that coffee bean farmers earn just 1% of a cup of coffee’s retail price, and households that depend on coffee production are more likely to experience poverty and food insecurity than others in the same country.

Here we explore Starbucks’ approach to the issue.

What company policy says: It sources 99% of coffee ethically

According to the Starbucks website, the company’s coffee “has been verified as 99% ethically sourced” since 2015.

The company says, “Starbucks understands our future is inextricably tied to the future of farmers and their families” and that its practices protect “the well-being of coffee farmers and workers, their families and their communities… and positively impact the lives and livelihoods of coffee farmers and their communities.”

It adds, “The Starbucks Global Farmer Fund plays a crucial role in helping to address the financial challenges coffee farmers face.” This fund provides loans to farmers so they can “plant new trees, enhance their infrastructure and bolster their financial stability”.

What workers say: “Slavery-like” conditions in supply chains

In 2025, The Guardian published an investigation revealing that Brazilian workers were suing Starbucks over “slavery-like conditions”. A 16-year-old reported doing an unpaid 12-hour shift without protective equipment in the scorching sun, with only a 20 minute break, on a coffee farm that supplied Starbucks. He was ultimately rescued in a raid by Brazilian authorities, who said he has been subjected to “child labour” and that other workers had been “trafficked”.

Starbucks told the Guardian: “The cornerstone of our approach to buying coffee is Coffee and Farmer Equity (Cafe) Practices, one of the coffee industry’s first set of ethical sourcing standards when it launched in 2004 and is continuously improved.” It stated that the programme “measures farms against economic, social, and environmental criteria”.

In 2024, the consumer advocacy group National Consumers League also filed a court case against Starbucks. The lawsuit alleged that Starbucks was misleading the public by widely marketing its “100% ethical” sourcing commitment on its coffee and tea products while knowingly sourcing from suppliers with “documented, severe human rights and labor abuses.” The case cited human rights and labour abuses at coffee and tea farms at Starbucks’ suppliers in Guatemala, Kenya, and Brazil.

Starbucks denied the allegations and said it would “aggressively defend against the asserted claims”. The lawsuit appears to be ongoing. 

Garment sector workers – the majority of whom are women – face low pay and precarious employment. Investigative journalist Tansky Hoskins says retailers “exercise almost total control over the pay and conditions of garment workers by forcing factories to accept rock-bottom prices”. The Institute for Business and Human Rights argues that “If global brands are truly committed to a living wage, they need to stop driving down prices”.

In 2021 Boohoo Group bought Debenhams, and in 2025 rebranded itself as Debenhams Group. Here we explore Debenhams Group’s approach.

What company policy says: It pays suppliers fairly

Debenhams Group says “We understand what a fair price is for garments and commit to paying this… We are committed to having fair and ethical purchasing agreements with our suppliers”. It says it communicates with suppliers with “clarity and frequency”.

What suppliers say: It squeezes low prices out of suppliers and is slow to pay up

In 2020, the Boohoo Leicester scandal revealed that workers were being paid less than minimum wage at a Boohoo supplier – as little as £3.50 per hour. Following this, Boohoo said it was committed to “eradicating any instance of noncompliance”.

However, in 2023 a BBC Panorama investigation revealed that Boohoo staff were still pressuring suppliers to lower prices. A Boohoo staff member told an undercover BBC reporter how to negotiate with suppliers on prices: "Go in low and if you're not getting anywhere then just say that you can get it cheaper elsewhere… just lie." Boohoo said it was investigating the claims and took supplier code of conduct breaches “seriously”.

In a 2025 Drapers report, suppliers across the UK claimed the group owed them thousands of pounds in late payments. One supplier told the outlet “They aren’t paying and we are getting no response: nothing… It’s been like this for years on and off… Business is tough as it is... The least someone can do is pay on time and communicate.” Debenhams Group declined Drapers’ request for comment.

Researchers and NGOs question whether workers in the gig economy, in particular food delivery, have fair working conditions when it comes to pay and working hours. A Bristol University study showed UK gig economy workers earned on average below the minimum wage.

Here we explore Deliveroo’s approach to the issue.

What company policy says: It offers competitive wages

Deliveroo says, “Our riders are the heart of Deliveroo, and we ask that you treat them with respect… We offer competitive compensation, plus a wide range of benefits”.

It says that its “understanding of what riders care about most” has helped it to “develop an offer that prioritises the things they value: flexible work, good earnings and security.”

What unions say: It faces a court case for human trafficking

In 2026, four associations that support delivery drivers in France filed a lawsuit against Deliveroo, accusing it of “human trafficking” and “deplorable” working conditions. The plaintiffs accused Deliveroo of practices they described as a “system of exploitation”. The case is said to include “a considerable appendix of testimonies, evidence, information, and documents shared by numerous delivery drivers throughout France".

Deliveroo said it "strongly contests the allegations" and "firmly rejects any comparison of its business model to exploitation or human trafficking". A lawsuit was also filed against Uber Eats.

In 2021, the Bureau for Investigative Journalism revealed that some Deliveroo workers earned as little as £2 per hour. Its analysis of hundreds of riders’ invoices showed many earnings per session were lower than minimum wage. It said, “This is perfectly legal because riders are treated by Deliveroo as being self-employed.”

Deliveroo responded to the investigation to say that rider satisfaction was “at an all time high”, and that flexibility mattered most to riders, some of whom earn £13 per hour during busy times. 

Trade unions help protect human rights in the workplace, by ‘collectively bargaining’ with employers about key issues like pay, safety, and other issues. According to the International Trade Union Confederation, the right to collective bargaining was restricted in 80% of countries worldwide, up from 79% in 2024.

Here we explore Amazon’s approach.

What company policy says: It respects unions and values worker safety

On the right to unionise, Amazon says “We respect the rights to freedom of association and collective bargaining, and workers’ right to join, form, or not to join a labor union or other lawful organization of their own selection, without fear of reprisal, intimidation, or harassment.”

In terms of worker safety, Amazon says “Safety is at the heart of Amazon's vision to be Earth’s Best Employer”. It adds, “We believe every individual deserves to have their fundamental dignity respected”.

What workers say: It opposes unionisation and leaves workers unsafe

On many occasions Amazon has opposed unionisation and organising efforts at its warehouses.

In April 2024, GMB filed legal proceedings against Amazon, claiming that Amazon had engaged in widespread attempts to coerce staff to cancel their trade union membership. Union recognition would mean Amazon would be forced to sit down with GMB on matters relating to pay, hours, and holidays.

GMB said that the company had spent tens of millions on anti-union consultants whose job was to convince workers not to unionise, raising serious concerns about fair treatment and collective bargaining. These consultants delivered anti-union talking points in meetings with workers, according to the Huffington Post.

In response to the allegations, Amazon said, “we place enormous value on engaging directly with our employees and having daily conversations with them. This is why we've always worked hard to listen to them, act on their feedback, and invest heavily in great pay, benefits and skills development - all in a safe and inclusive workplace with excellent career opportunities”. The case appears to be ongoing.

Amazon has also been accused of prioritising speed and profit over worker safety. In 2023, the US campaign group Strategic Organizing Center recorded more serious injuries in Amazon warehouses than in the rest of the warehouse industry combined.

The company has faced multiple fines in the US for putting workers’ safety at risk by placing punitive production targets on them. Workers were at greater risk of lower back injuries and musculoskeletal disorders at Amazon warehouses in three US states, inspections by the US Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration in 2023 showed.

In 2023 Amazon workers tried to sue Amazon claiming they had to pee in a bottle for fear that taking breaks would cause them to miss harsh work quotas.

Amazon disputes ongoing criticisms regarding worker safety: “nothing’s more important than the safety of our employees”.

More and more companies are claiming to incorporate ‘worker voices’ into their efforts to protect worker rights, for example having workers at the table in meetings and encouraging workers to share what problems they face and what might support them.

While this sounds good on paper, advocacy groups fear that companies are painting a misleading picture, making it look like workers are being listened to without translating the talk into action.

As a Business & Human Rights Resource centre blog says, “In the absence of a real enforcement mechanism, these ‘worker voice’ initiatives… simply contribute to a crisis of ‘standards without enforcement’.”

Here we explore Brewdog’s claims.

What company policy says: It’s committed to listening to workers’ voices

BrewDog says “Our people are central to our strategy… we commit to including their voice in major business decisions that will impact them.”

The company says that it consults workers on “upcoming changes and concepts that might impact their colleagues. Their feedback is then shared with senior teams to influence the path forward”.

What workers say: Management does not listen to workers

In 2021, 61 former workers wrote an open letter alleging that Brewdog had cut corners on health and safety and created a “toxic” culture that left staff suffering from mental illness.

In response, the company acknowledged that “on many occasions we haven’t got it right”, and stated: “We are committed to doing better, not just as a reaction to this, but always; and we are going to reach out to our entire team past and present to learn more.”

Since then, however, problems have continued. In March 2026, a BBC article showed that Brewdog made several staff redundant when bars closed, but the bars later reopened and workers were invited to re-apply for their former jobs. Unite the Union said workers were invited to reapply on “potentially worse terms”.

"This is a blatant attempt to strip workers of their rights and force them to compete for work they should still be in,” Unite said.

BrewDog did not respond to the BBC’s request for comment.

In 2024, Brewdog also u-turned on its commitment to pay the real living wage, which is set in the UK by the accreditor the Living Wage Foundation. A Brewdog staff member told the Guardian, “Last year there was a staff vote surrounding benefits and what staff want to keep. No 1 was the real living wage. Barely a year later and they’ve turned back on their promise.”

In response to the allegations, BrewDog said that it was raising wages and claimed that its benefits package was “far more generous than the industry average."

Worldwide, women’s jobs are remunerated less than men’s jobs. The UN says women earn 77 cents for every dollar that men earn, doing work of equal value. In the UK, the gender pay gap in 2025 was 6.9%.

Here we explore Asda’s approach to the issue.

What company policy says: It’s against discrimination

Asda says “Our aim is to promote a supply chain where all workers are free from discrimination and share equal rights”.

In 2022, the company undertook a “gender assessment”, and used feedback from the assessment to “develop a road map” to implement gender-based due diligence in its supply chains.

What workers say: It faces a major pay discrimination lawsuit

In reality, since 2014, Asda has been fighting an equal pay case, despite its anti-discrimination claims.

60,000 Asda workers – mostly women in shop-based jobs – were paid up to £3.74 less per hour than their mainly male colleagues employed in warehouse roles. A 2025 ruling found that some staff, such as checkout operators and shop floor assistants, were doing work of equal value to certain warehouse roles that were paid a higher rate.

In the final stage of  the claim, currently ongoing, Asda has an opportunity to provide a reason, not related to sex, for the difference in pay. If the supermarket loses the case, it could have to pay out £1.2bn to workers. A GMB officer called on Asda to “stop wasting time and money dragging this case through the courts and get round the table with us to agree a settlement”.

Asda is defending itself against the claims, and says “We strongly reject any claim that Asda’s pay rates are discriminatory.”

A 2023 census of nearly 6,000 working musicians in the UK found that almost half earn less than £14,000 a year. Singer-songwriter Kate Nash has been vocal in calling for more support and better conditions for emerging and working musicians: “Caring actually isn’t enough. If you profit from artists, what are you doing to help?”

Here we explore Spotify’s approach.

What company policy says: It’s committed to supporting emerging artists

Spotify says “emerging artists face an unprecedented challenge in building the early fanbase every successful career needs. We’re working across multiple fronts to increase the opportunities available, and ensure more artists have real pathways to success.”

The company commits to “growing in ways that better support artists who are serious about building a career…. Our focus is ensuring that growth creates clear, reliable paths for artists to reach fans, and sustain careers.”

What workers say: It provides scant opportunity for emerging artists to earn money

Ethical Consumer’s ‘artist compensation’ rating showed that Spotify did not pay significantly more to artists than industry norms, and was not meaningfully acting to provide better compensation to artists.

According to Ethical Consumer’s guide to music streaming services, streaming is generally “terrible” for artists who have small but highly engaged audiences. In the pre-streaming world, an artist with 1,000 engaged fans who each bought an album could receive a meaningful sum of money. Today, 1,000 fans streaming a full album 10 times each will earn the artist just a few hundred pounds.

Liz Pelly – author of ‘Mood Machine: The rise of Spotify and the costs of a perfect playlist’ – said in an interview in 2025 that artists now get paid “fractions of pennies per stream”, showing an “economic devaluing” of artists and music.

Icelandic musician Björk has also raised major concerns about the fact that younger artists must rely on streaming to grow their fanbases when there’s little money available. “Spotify is probably the worst thing that has happened to musicians,” she said.

In many parts of the world governments force certain people to work so they can generate state income, or as a form of punishment because of what they believe or who they are, for example for their political or religious views. The Chinese government, for example, forces the Uyghur Muslim community to make products that are sold by brands around the world

Here we explore IKEA’s approach.

What company policy says: It promotes human rights

IKEA says, “We play our part in contributing to a fair and equal society by respecting and promoting human rights across the value chain”.

“No matter where we operate, we do not accept any form of forced or bonded labour, anywhere in the IKEA value chain”, it says.

What investigations say: It allegedly sourced from suppliers using prison labour

In 2022, the NGO Disclose accused IKEA of using suppliers who sourced from penal units in Belarus that hold political prisoners.

Hundreds of people have been “unjustly incarcerated” by the authoritarian government in Belarus on political grounds, according to the UN Special Rapporteur Nils Muižnieks, and made to do “hard, dangerous forced labour for meagre or no pay as a form of punishment”. Half of the Belarusian suppliers of Ikea had links to the country’s penal colonies, Disclose found.

A detainee held in one of the prisons that an Ikea supplier sourced from said, “Many political prisoners were beaten up, and so was I. We were not allowed parcels and letters or to have visitors. Many of us ended up in solitary confinement. I spent a total of 55 days there”. Disclose could not trace items from the prison to Ikea, but the prisoner said that there were “rumours” the products were exported to Europe.

Ikea said that it reacted early to the issue and decided “not to develop business in Belarus until further notice”. It said it always looked into allegations when notified, and stated there was “no evidence to substantiate the claims made in the news reports”.

We report transparently on our cocoa sourcing through the Nestlé Cocoa Plan, including the number of farmers in our supply chain. Today, around 175,000 farmers are part of the Nestlé Cocoa Plan. The Nestlé Income Accelerator Programme, launched in 2022, currently reaches around 45,000 cocoa farming households after three crop cycles. As a reminder, we started at scale with 10,000 households, nearly quintupling our reach over this period. The programme is considering the two heads of the households and not the farmer alone. Given the complexity and scale of the programme, we consider this an important achievement and will continue to expand it.

It is true that the impact of programmes like this can vary from year to year, influenced by factors such as weather conditions and the broader operating environment. This underlines the importance of assessing impact over time. In the latest income accelerator progress report, the KIT Institute notes that while the programme continues to have a positive impact on key indicators such as productivity and total household net income compared to the comparison group, progress in closing the living income gap was more limited. This is partly explained by an increase in household size among income accelerator participating families, which raises overall living costs but with encouraging results on key foundation for long term farm and household resilience around: productivity, good agricultural practices (like pruning, agroforestry), women empowerment or school rates. Our focus is therefore to continuously strengthen the programme by improving delivery, reinforcing its foundations and increasing resilience - both at farm level through good agricultural practices and at household level through women’s empowerment and access to education. We are encouraged by the progress observed on key metrics. For example, the income accelerator programme delivered higher cocoa productivity and around 15% higher total household net income compared to the comparison group, as highlighted in the latest report. Sharing these results reflects our commitment to transparency and shows that this approach is delivering impact - though not uniformly and with room for improvement - and that combining practices, training, and targeted incentives can make a difference.

We understand the point being made, but we believe that comparisons of this kind simplify a complex issue. Ensuring a living income for cocoa-farming families cannot be achieved through a single lever such as increasing premiums alone.

We pay the market price for cocoa, the Living Income Differential (LID), as well as premiums for quality and responsibly sourced cocoa. At the same time, we focus on what most effectively helps close the remaining living income gap, particularly for smallholder farmers in countries where the farmgate price is set by the government. Our approach therefore combines these price mechanisms with targeted support at farm and household level. Through the Income Accelerator Programme, families can receive up to €500 in additional incentives- representing around a 20% increase in average income - alongside training and support to improve productivity, strengthen climate resilience and diversify income sources.

This includes support for agroforestry, alternative income activities, school enrolment and women’s economic empowerment. These elements are critical to ensuring that income gains are both sustainable and more equitably distributed within households. Experience across the sector shows that even where higher prices are paid, reaching a full living income remains challenging due to structural factors such as farm size, yields and household dynamics. This is why we believe a broader, multi-dimensional approach is needed to deliver lasting impact at scale. Addressing the living income gap ultimately requires collective action across the sector, including governments, industry and other stakeholders working together on both pricing and long-term investment in farming communities.”