Health Warning!
The grades in this rating show how well a company is doing in the task of aliviating poverty wages in its supply chain. We believe that how a company performs on living wages is a good indicator of its current commitment to workers' rights more generally. That's why we've homed in on just this one issue. There are other things that make up the picture of how 'ethical' a company is, such as Fairtrade cotton, environmental sustainability, and animal rights. These are not included in this survey. Should you wish to find out about these, Ethical Consumer offers some good information.
The Grades
 |
Grade 0: Does not accept the principle of a living wage. Companies whose codes of conduct and/or submissions do not refer to living wages, or which explicitly do not accept that they are responsible for ensuring that living wages are paid. |
 |
Grade 1: Accepts the principle of a living wage, but applies legal minimum/industry benchmark. Companies that refer to the living wage, but which use this interchangeably with legal minimum/ industry benchmark wages, or which argue that minimum and/or prevailing wages constitute a living wage. |
 |
Grade 2: Acknowledges that minimum and industry benchmark wages are not sufficient standards, but no real efforts to apply living wage. Companies that accept that progress is needed on wages, but are unable to offer any concrete examples of steps they have taken on this matter. |
 |
Grade 2.5: Can offer concrete examples of steps to increase wages in the supplier base, but pilot projects are limited in scope and have significant omissions. Grades 2.5 - 3.5 refer to companies citing pilot projects that are designed specifically to address wages. We have outstanding concerns with some pilot projects – frequently because they commit only to raising wages, not to implementing living wages, they fail to include workers in the design planning and implementation of the project, or projects are interesting but the retailer does not appear committed to rolling the learning out across its supply base. |
 |
Grade 3.0: Can offer concrete examples of steps to increase wages in the supplier base, but there are either significant omissions or there is no clear plan to move beyond pilot projects. |
 |
Grade 3.5: Can offer concrete examples of steps to develop and implement a living wage methodology in the supplier base, with clear plans to move beyond pilot projects. |
 |
Grade 4: Sophisticated and serious engagement with a living wage, beginning to move beyond pilot programmes, but still not systematic across supplier base. Companies that have made efforts to implement living wages beyond pilot projects, with a clear plan for how this will be accomplished for all workers and demonstrable progress towards that end. This year we added the need to be working systematically on freedom of association to this grade. |
 |
Grade 5: Sustained implementation of an effective living wage policy across entire supply base. Companies that have a clear rationale and evidence that all workers in their supply chain earn a living wage. |
Our methodology is not perfect.
The grades are based upon information that brands and retailers have themselves submitted, and information that is publicly available. Drafts of the profiles were sent to the companies for comment
prior to publication and they were invited to send any corrections or comments. Where appropriate, changes were made to reflect this. We would have liked to have verified information we received with partners on the ground but this would have been difficult to achieve and inexact.
Our profiles are as much a measure of how much effort individuals within the companies put into their responses to us as they are of company policy and practice. This is not a bad thing: transparency and engagement with stakeholders are important aspects of the steps companies should be taking. Each profile is based on a limited (but, we think, sufficient) amount of opportunities for dialogue with the company over the last five years, rather than an exhaustive discussion. Further correspondence might have opened up new issues and answered some questions, but a cut-off point had to be drawn somewhere. Information is based on a survey carried out in summer 2011 and the profiles are accurate as of October 2011, but things can and do change over time.
