How ethical is Boohoo?
Multiple ethical issues are highlighted in our research of Boohoo, including inadequate animal welfare policies, allegations that workers in its UK supply chains have been underpaid, marketing of real feathers as faux, and criticisms that the company is failing to curb its major climate harms.
Below we outline some of these issues. To see the full detailed stories, and Boohoo’s overall ethical rating, please sign in or subscribe.
Which brands does Boohoo own?
In addition to the Boohoo brand itself, the following brands are all also owned by Boohoo Group:
- Burton
- Coast
- Debenhams
- Dorothy Perkins
- Karen Millen
- Maine New England
- MissPap
- Nasty Gal
- Oasis
- Pretty Little Thing
- Principles
- Wallis
- Warehouse
Boohoo bought Debenhams
Boohoo Group bought the bankrupt Debenhams brand and website in January 2021, turning it into an online-only department store. In March 2025, Boohoo Group officially renamed itself Debenhams Group.
Weak on workers' rights
Boohoo has a poor track record when it comes to protecting the rights of workers in its supply chains.
It had an adequate supplier code of conduct covering issues such as living wage, working hours and freedom of association. Plus it published all of its Tier 1 suppliers (suppliers of the final piece of clothing), updated every four months.
Admittedly, compared to when Boohoo first took off as a national brand, the company has improved its reporting and policies, possibly because of the widespread scrutiny it received in the wake of the modern slavery scandal at its Leicester supplier factories. However, in 2024, it was criticised for reinstating a relationship with one of the factories involved.
In 2024, Boohoo brought back its old supplier GN Euro, a large Leicester-based clothing manufacturer, despite being "disengaged" in 2021; 400 suppliers were dropped at that time, following allegations of poor working conditions and low pay at Boohoo factories. GN Euro set up a new site in Morocco under a different name, from where it is once again doing business with the retailer.
In the same year, Boohoo was criticised for putting 'Made in the UK' labels on clothes made in South Asia. BBC Panorama found that thousands of clothes could have been mislabelled. Boohoo said it was human error.
In 2022, the Guardian reported that activists had questioned Boohoo over its alleged failure to pay living wages to garment workers at its factories in Leicester. The revolt “came after activists said workers in factories in Leicester that supply Boohoo could be owed as much as £125m in underpaid wages” while its “chief executive, John Lyttle, was paid almost £1.4m last year after he was awarded a generous bonus despite missing targets”, the article said.
A Boohoo group spokesperson told the Guardian: “We strongly reject any inference that people in our supply chain are paid less than the national minimum wage, and we do not recognise the [historic] figures quoted by Labour Behind the Label referencing the shortfall in pay. When we have requested evidence from Labour Behind the Label [the group behind the allegations] to substantiate these claims, they have failed to provide it.”
Workers’ rights groups have also accused Boohoo of exacerbating conditions in its supply chains through its quick and cheap purchasing and sales model. In 2021, Business and Human Rights Resource Centre, Labour Behind the Label and ShareAction published a statement condemning Boohoo’s slow progress on addressing labour abuse in its supply chain. They said that they had found “little evidence” Boohoo had addressed problems in its buying practices that caused poor labour practice. Namely, the company’s insistence on paying supplies low prices that drive illegally low wages.
“Boohoo and enforcement agencies are trying to place the blame solely on exploitative suppliers, thus ignoring the central role Boohoo and similar brands play in generating and continuing the root causes of labour abuses and exploitation”, they said.
Boohoo responded that it was an “absolute failure” of the three rights groups not to recognise any of the “substantial action” taken by the group and its partners.
However, in November 2023, BBC Panorama also found that the brand had “broken promises to make its clothes fairly and ethically”, after it pledged in 2020 to overhaul its practices. An undercover reporter for the BBC found that the company was driving suppliers to offer lower and lower prices, despite multiple reports that the practice was undercutting wages and workers’ rights.
Slow to act on carbon emissions
Boohoo scores very poorly in Ethical Consumer’s climate rating.
The company reported on some of its emissions in its 2026 annual report, and its carbon emissions reduction targets had been approved by the SBTi which means that corporate targets align with internationally agreed climate goals.
But the company was found to provide inadequate information on its steps to reduce emissions, for example, only making vague statements. Its 2024 Sustainability Report identified its main climate impacts relating to purchased materials, particularly cotton and polyester as well as transportation. To reduce these it stated it was working towards sourcing 'better materials' and switching away from air freight.
In 2023, Boohoo was also criticised by environmental advocacy group Stand.earth, which stated: "Boohoo is lagging far behind its competitors in the fast fashion sector in terms of progressing with an energy transition in the supply chain, engaging in renewable energy advocacy, and use of low-carbon materials. Worse, it reported a significant emission increase in both the purchased goods and services category and the upstream transportation and distribution category from 2019 to 2021.” It urged Boohoo to “start taking its negative climate impacts seriously”.
Boohoo's animal welfare policies
Boohoo and its brands sell animal products including leather, wool, cashmere, feathers, and alpaca.
The company has a number of policies banning the worst practices, such as use of real fur or angora, no exotic animal skins and no use of mulesing – a painful practice whereby sections of flesh are cut from a sheep’s skin to avoid infection.
It had targets to source wool and cashmere, and feathers and down from more responsible sources by 2025. But in 2026, we could find no evidence that it required eg wool to be Responsible Wool Standard certified or feathers to be Responsible Down Standard certified. It merely 'encouraged' it suppliers to source certified products.
In 2023, an investigation by ethical fashion advocacy group Collective Fashion Justice and animal welfare organisation World Animal Protection found that Boohoo, along with a number of other retailers, had falsely labelled real feathers as ‘faux’ on some products. Boohoo said that it had removed the products identified in the investigation from its website.
Registered in a tax haven
Boohoo performs poorly on financial ethics.
The ultimate parent company for the group, Boohoo Group plc is registered in Jersey, a tax haven, despite its primary operations being based in Manchester and the rest of mainland UK. The company therefore scores very badly for tax conduct, under Ethical Consumer’s rating.
The highest paid director was paid a total of £1,523,904 in 2024. Any remuneration over £1m was considered excessive.
Boohoo waste clothing
We rated all clothing companies on whether their waste clothing was being dumped in the Global South. Our Waste Colonialism rating focuses on three places where the consequences are particularly visible: Accra in Ghana, Nairobi in Kenya, and Chile's Atacama Desert.
Labels from most of the brands that it owns were found on Accra’s beaches between June 2023 and May 2025. Additionally, the Boohoo brand was found to be one of the most found labels on those beaches.
The above text was written in September 2026, and was based on research largely conducted in August 2026.
Want more info? Subscribe to see the full detailed stories about Boohoo.