A Movement To Reform Fashion
Victoria’s Secret, which previously operated under parent company L Brands, now operates under Victoria’s Secret & Co. For more details on Victoria’s Secret’s social and environmental commitments, see the Remake Brand Directory.
There is no public information about Victoria Secret’s commitment to suppliers during the pandemic.
KEEP WORKERS SAFE
The Keep Workers Safe demand requires brands to ensure their garment workers’ financial and economic safety during the pandemic by signing onto the Severance Guarantee Fund, which creates a social safety net for laid-off workers; by contributing to direct relief for garment workers; and by protecting human rights, democracy, and the right to organize. It’s estimated the cost to ensure a social safety net for garment workers is just $.10 cents more per garment. And yet Victoria’s Secret made no additional efforts to Keep Workers Safe during the pandemic, earning the brand a “NO” for Keep Workers Safe.
11-3-20 – More than 7,000 cases of coronavirus in Sri Lanka, a third of the nation’s total, are linked back to a factory that manufacturers clothing for Victoria’s Secret, among other large brands. Workers were forced back to work after feeling ill in order to fulfill orders for brands.
While Victoria’s Secret & Co. does publicly disclose a list of what appears to be its active tier 1 cut-and-sew garment factories, the company has not committed to The Transparency Pledge nor does it reveal the level of detail that’s now industry best practice, and so we have given VS A “NO” for Go Transparent.
In addition to complying with The Transparency Pledge, to receive a “YES” for Action 3 on the PayUp Fashion Tracker, VS must disclose its tier 2 (fabric mills), tier 3 (yarn and fiber mills) and tier 4 (raw materials) suppliers; disclose the wages of the lowest-earning workers at each factory and share audit and remediation reports publicly, and make these findings available to the garment workers in the audited factories.
END STARVATION WAGES
Victoria’s Secret has made no public commitment to pay living wages in its supply chain, nor can it demonstrate that the workers in its supply chain earn above poverty wages, earning it a “NO” for End Starvation Wages.