Eetti reports: Workers making clothes for Finland’s largest companies still lack a living wage
27.03.2026
Eetti examined 14 Finnish clothing companies and found that in the production of nearly all of them, workers’ human right to a living wage is being violated. According to Eetti, people manufacturing products for companies such as Marimekko, Finlayson and Makia do not earn wages sufficient for a decent life.
Summary
EETTI assessed the corporate accountability of 14 of Finland’s largest clothing and textile companies. The report examines how many of the production facilities used by these companies pay workers a living wage – defined as an income that secures a dignified standard of living for the worker and their family.
Only three companies were able to convincingly demonstrate that even a small share of their production facilities pay living wages. These companies are Joutsen, Reima and Luhta.
The remaining 11 companies received zero points in Eetti’s assessment: Finlayson, Halti, Kesko, Lindex, Makia, Marimekko, Nanso, SOK, Stockmann, Tokmanni and Varusteleka.
ACCORDING to the investigation, only 0.6% of all production facilities used by the companies studied pay living wages.
The best-performing company was Joutsen, where seven out of nine production facilities pay all workers a living wage. The majority of Joutsen’s production is located in Finland.
Reima ranked second, with one out of its 34 production facilities paying living wages. Luhta achieved the third-best result, with one out of its 164 production facilities paying wages that meet human rights standards.
Nanso, Halti and SOK report that some of their production facilities pay living wages, but this information is based on amfori BSCI audits. This auditing system has significant shortcomings, and information based solely on it cannot be considered sufficient.
Makia, Marimekko, Finlayson, Lindex, Stockmann, Kesko, Varusteleka and Tokmanni did not provide any information on factory wage levels in response to Eetti’s survey. Responsible business conduct is always transparent, allowing independent stakeholders to assess it. Companies that failed to provide information received no points in the investigation.
A LIVING WAGE is a human right, and companies are responsible for ensuring its realization within their supply chains, even when garment workers are employed by subcontractors. The results of Eetti’s investigation are extremely concerning and show that Finland’s largest clothing and textile companies are failing to uphold this human right.
Eetti’s survey was conducted in accordance with the criteria of the international Fashion Checker website. The platform allows users to compare nearly 200 international clothing companies and assess how well living wages are advanced within their supply chains. The Finnish companies assessed by Eetti are also included on the website.
What is a living wage?
ACCORDING to the definition by the International Labour Organization (ILO), a living wage is the wage level that is necessary to afford a decent standard of living for workers and their families, taking into account the country circumstances and calculated for the work performed during the normal hours of work.
Finnish clothing companies are part of a global problem
Over 70 million people work in the garment and textile industry. Low wages, excessively long working hours, and deeply rooted exploitation keep workers and their families trapped in a cycle of poverty. The problem is also highly gendered: the majority of workers in the garment industry are women.
Eetti has been demanding living wages for over 15 years. Companies now communicate more about the issue, but sufficient progress has not been made: of the fourteen companies studied by Eetti, eleven do not report concrete actions to ensure living wages are being paid.
Finnish clothing companies are partly maintaining a structural problem that runs through the entire global garment sector. Since 2019, the Fashion Checker website has examined the efforts of nearly 200 clothing companies to implement living wages. The results are stark: almost none of the production sites used by the companies studied pay enough.
Claims by clothing companies – including Finnish ones – regarding social responsibility are often greenwashing.
For example, Finlayson states on its website about suppliers that “a living wage for workers is an absolute requirement for partnership”. Marimekko promises that “fairness towards everything and everyone” also extends to the workers who make Marimekko’s clothes. Kesko, in turn, boasts that it has been chosen as the world’s most sustainable grocery retailer.
None of these companies provide evidence that the people producing their clothing and textiles actually receive a living wage.
A living wage is not a nice bonus – it is a fundamental human right recognized by the UN. It is also not a final goal, but the minimum acceptable level of earnings sufficient to cover the essential basic needs of workers and their families.
It is deeply disappointing that, despite these fine words, Finnish companies do not do more to ensure this human right in their own operations.
What Eetti examined
- Fourteen Finnish clothing and textile companies with the largest revenues were selected for the review: Finlayson, Halti, Joutsen Finland, Kesko, Lindex, Luhta Sportswear Company, Makia Clothing, Marimekko, Nanso Group, Reima Group, SOK, Stockmann, Tokmanni Group, and Varusteleka.
- The companies were asked to provide information on living wages and transparency (concerning the first tier of the supply chain, i.e. assembly factories) through a survey, to which all 14 companies responded. Eetti also engaged in dialogue with the companies via email and phone.
- The questions and evaluation criteria are the same as those used on the Fashion Checker website, which monitors clothing brands’ efforts globally to promote living wages and transparency. The results of Eetti’s review will also be published on Fashion Checker.
See more information about how the review was conducted at the end of the text.
Results
You can view the results table as a PDF here
Companies and brands included in the review
- Finlayson: Finlayson
- Halti: Halti
- Joutsen Finland: Joutsen
- Kesko: Mywear, Inspire, Pirkka, Andiamo, Remu
- Lindex*: Lindex
- Luhta Sportswear Company: Luhta, Rukka, Icepeak, Dachstein, Ril’s, Yourface
- Makia Clothing: Makia
- Marimekko: Marimekko
- Nanso Group: Nanso, Vogue
- Reima Group: Reima, Reimatec, Tutta, Duraplus
- SOK: Actuelle, Antti Tapani, Aventura, Cheetah, Ciraf, Danskin, House, Ijeans, Inbloom, Jackpot, Joe Boxer, London Fog, Luode 12, Reino&Aino, Starter, WKLY, Xtra, Zooyork
- Stockmann*: A+more, Bogi, Cap Horn, Construe, Essentials by Stockmann, Noom, Stockmann Silk, Casa Stockmann, Villa Stockmann
- Tokmanni Group: Force New Attitude, Future TT Sport, Peuhu, Pola, Pola Plus, R-Cover, Vaeltaja, Catmandoo
- Varusteleka: Varusteleka (former Särmä, Särmä TST)
* Lindex Group Oyj, listed on the Helsinki Stock Exchange, comprises the Lindex and Stockmann divisions. Lindex and Stockmann responded to the survey separately.
1. What proportion of the company’s supplier factories pay a living wage?
Question & Scoring
How many of your suppliers were paying your stated living wage benchmark to all workers in their factories at the time of your last annual report?
- E = The brand does not publicly and precisely claim to pay a living wage to any of its workers (0 %).
- D = The brand publicly claims they pay between 1 and 25% of its supplier factories pay workers a living wage, states which living wage benchmark is used and which portion of the supply chain they are referring (at minimum by country level).
- C = The brand publicly claims they pay more than 26% of its supplier factories pay workers a living wage, states which living wage benchmark is used and which portion of the supply chain they are referring (at minimum by country level).
- B = The brand publicly claims that they pay more than 50% of its supplier factories pay workers a living wage, states which living wage benchmark is used and discloses wage levels at a facility-level in their supply chain.
- A = The brand publicly claims that 100% of its supplier factories pay workers a living wage, states which living wage benchmark is used and discloses wage levels at facility-level in their supply chain.
Of the fourteen companies examined, only three – Joutsen, Luhta and Reima – provided convincing evidence that even a small percentage of their production sites pay living wages. The other eleven companies did not.
The results are very concerning and show that Finnish clothing companies are only at the beginning of implementing living wages.
Joutsen received the best result in the review. Seven of its nine production sites (78%) pay all their workers a living wage. On a scale from A to E, Joutsen reached category C. Based on the percentages, Joutsen would have achieved a B rating if it had reported wage data at the factory level in addition to the country-level breakdown.
Joutsen has two own factories, one in Finland and one in Estonia. In addition, the company’s products are manufactured at four production sites in Finland and three in China.
Joutsen states that all production sites in Finland pay a living wage. The justification given is that wages are at least in line with the collective agreement for salaried employees in the textile and fashion sector. This justification was accepted in the review, as there is no widely used living wage benchmark for Finland.
Joutsen also reports that two of its three production sites in China pay a living wage. The company assessed the wage level itself using an acceptable method, taking into account the lowest base wage excluding overtime and bonuses, and comparing it with Anker living wage benchmarks.
Read more: The Anker Methodology: the most widely used approach to calculating living wages
The Anker Methodology, used by the Global Living Wage Coalition, estimates a worker’s living wage or income. Separate Anker calculations exist for different regions and countries.
The calculation takes into account costs for e.g.:
- healthy and locally accepted food
- housing that meets local and international standards
- healthcare
- education
- transportation
- clothing
- communication
The total cost of a reasonable standard of living for a family is divided by the number of workers in a typical family.
The Anker Methodology involves local people and organizations in the assessment, and the calculations are documented transparently. Calculations are regularly updated, and recalculations are made when necessary to ensure the estimates remain current.
Anker-based calculations are widely recognized and accepted by stakeholders, used by various certification systems, and recommended by organizations such as Finnwatch. They also align with the ILO’s principles for assessing living wages.
An even more ambitious calculation model is the Asian Floor Wage, which also considers care work and assumes that a single worker’s income should cover the costs of both the worker and their family. In contrast, the Anker method assumes that a family may have multiple earners in the same household.
Reima ranked second, with one of its 34 production sites (3%) paying a living wage. The company’s result earned it a D rating.
In its 2024 sustainability report, Reima states that, based on the amfori BSCI audit system, 13% of its production sites pay a living wage. However, the amfori BSCI audit system has limitations, and data based solely on it cannot be considered sufficient.
Reima also compared its wage data with Anker calculations, and as a result, the original 13% dropped by more than half to 6%. The company updated this information on its website following discussions with Eetti.
According to Reima, one of its production sites in China meets the Anker living wage benchmark. Additionally, the company reports that one production site in Italy also meets the benchmark, based on the factory holding an SA8000 certification. However, this certification alone is not sufficient to guarantee a living wage, so Eetti’s review only considered the data for the Chinese site. Thus, the final share of production sites paying a living wage is 3%.
Luhta ranked second, where one of its 164 production sites (less than 1%) reaches a living wage level. The company received a D rating.
Luhta reports that its own production site in Suzhou, China, pays a living wage to all workers. The company has verified that the lowest wage meets the living wage level according to the local Anker calculation.
Makia, Marimekko, Finlayson, Lindex, Stockmann, Kesko, Varusteleka, and Tokmanni did not provide any information in Eetti’s survey regarding wages at their factories. Responsible operations are always transparent so that independent parties can assess them. If a company provided no information, it received zero points in the review.
Nanso, Halti, and SOK reported that some of their production sites pay a living wage, but the information was based on amfori BSCI audits and therefore was not accepted for evaluation. These companies did not provide Eetti with additional data sufficient to demonstrate that they are aware of the wage levels in their supply chains and the methods for calculating living wages in accordance with due diligence obligations. Luhta provided sufficient information only for its own production site.
Read more: The criteria of the amfori BSCI audit system for assessing living wages are not strict enough
Amfori BSCI is a sustainability network and audit system that provides its members with tools to comply with human rights due diligence obligations.
Collecting data on living wages is a relatively recent addition to the amfori BSCI audits. Through the system, clothing companies can obtain information on whether the lowest wage at their production sites meets the living wage level.
However, the accuracy of the wage data obtained through amfori BSCI is questionable.
One of the shortcomings is that the system’s current criteria for calculating a living wage do not, in practice, guarantee that a living wage is paid. According to amfori BSCI guidelines, auditors can use the Global Living Wage Coalition’s Anker calculations, the audit company’s own calculations, or manually collected data. Of these, only the Anker method is sufficiently thorough.
While amfori BSCI recommends using Anker calculations, it also accepts other methods, which are commonly used. For example, of Halti’s 29 calculations, 14 were provided by the audit company, 8 manually collected, and 7 calculated using the Anker method.
Audit company or manually collected calculations are often produced more quickly and on a smaller scale than the comprehensive Anker calculations, and the resulting figures do not always reflect the true cost of living in the region.
Eetti received a “quick calculation” of a living wage used in the audit of a Bangladeshi factory from one company participating in the review. The calculation was manually collected and stated that workers are paid a living wage.
The factory is located in a large Bangladeshi city for which no Anker calculation exists. The closest reference is the Anker calculation for the satellite cities of Dhaka, Bangladesh, where the living wage level in 2024 is 23,100 takas. Research by the Bangladesh Institute for Labour Studies also shows that 23,000 takas is the minimum amount required to support a family in Bangladesh.
However, the living wage level indicated in the amfori BSCI audit calculation was only about half of this amount. The company reported these factory wages as a living wage, highlighting the limitations of amfori BSCI.
Companies must also know the wage level to which the local living wage calculation was compared. According to amfori BSCI guidelines, this should be the lowest wage at the entire production site, excluding overtime and other benefits. Companies need to approach this information critically and ensure that the factory understands these criteria and provides accurate wage data for the audit.
Anker calculations are not available for all production countries and regions, so in some cases, companies must rely on other methods to estimate a sufficient wage level. Even then, it is recommended to use the Anker method for calculations or otherwise ensure that the calculation is credible, based on transparent methods and stakeholder consultation.
Of the companies included in the review, 11 are members of amfori: Makia, Marimekko, Finlayson, Nanso, Stockmann, Halti, Luhta, Kesko, SOK, Reima, and Tokmanni.Member companies cannot simply rely on amfori to advance living wages. They should also influence amfori BSCI to improve the transparency and ambition of audits: only Anker-based calculations or calculations done according to the same method should be accepted for living wage assessments, and paying a living wage should be a binding requirement in the audit criteria.
Knowing wage levels is essential to improving them
Information on how many suppliers pay a living wage provides an overall picture of how well a company is upholding human rights in its operations.
Eetti’s review shows that an alarmingly high number of companies do not disclose information on living wages in their supply chains. Mapping current wage levels is one of the first steps toward promoting the implementation of living wages. If a company does not know the gap between the lowest wages at its production sites and a living wage, it is impossible for the company to develop an action plan to achieve living wages.
According to Fashion Checker’s criteria, companies must report data for at least the first tier of the supply chain (tier 1), i.e., factories that produce garments or textiles. Wages below a living wage are a key human rights risk at other levels of the garment and textile industry as well, such as material processing and raw material production. However, the work to promote living wages is still weak at most companies even at tier 1 production sites, which is why the review focuses on this stage of garment production.
Read more: How companies can improve?
- Map the lowest wage at each production site, excluding overtime and bonuses (at minimum for tier 1).
- Compare the lowest wage at each production site to the local living wage using a credible living wage benchmark, such as the Anker calculations by the Global Living Wage Coalition.
- Critically assess the wage data provided by audit companies and production sites.
- Collaborate with production sites, NGOs, and trade unions.
- Publish information on how many production sites pay a living wage to all workers, broken down by country (minimum level) or by individual production site (advanced level).
- Advocate for Amfori to tighten the criteria for calculating living wages in audits: only Anker-based calculations or calculations following the same method should be accepted.
2. How transparent is the company about its suppliers?
Question & Scoring
Does your company publish the name, address, parent company, product types, and/or number of workers for its production sites? Is the file in a machine-readable format?
- 1 star = The brand does not disclose any information about its suppliers.
- 2 tähteä = The brand discloses a full list of facilities including facility name
- and address.
- 3 stars =The brand discloses a full list of facilities including facility name,
- address, parent company and product/service type..*
- 4 stars = The brand discloses a full list of facilities including facility name,
- address, parent company and product/service type in a machine
- readable format.**
- 5 stars = The brand discloses a full list of facilities including facility name, address, parent company and product/service type in a machine
- readable format AND discloses the lowest average wage at facility-level.
*If the company has not published its parent company but the file is available in a machine-readable format, the company receives 3 stars.
** Machine-readable refers to a file format from which software can easily identify and extract data, such as an Excel sheet.
Transparency regarding the publication of factory lists has improved significantly. Eetti has been calling on companies to publish this information for years, and now almost all of the companies assessed disclose it.
Finlayson, Halti, Lindex, Luhta, Makia, Marimekko, Reima and Stockmann performed best in this area (4 stars). They publish factory lists in a machine-readable format that includes the name, address, parent company and product types for all production sites.
Kesko, SOK and Tokmanni reached the second-best level (3 stars). They publish factory lists in a machine-readable format but do not provide separate information on the parent company of the production site. Nanso provided the same information but not in a machine-readable format, and therefore received two points.
Of the fourteen companies assessed, only two do not publish a factory list at all: Joutsen and Varusteleka.
These two companies represent a minority, as overall companies have already made substantial progress in transparency regarding factory information. This study examines first-tier production sites (so-called assembly factories), but some companies go further: Marimekko, Nanso, Lindex and Reima also publish information on second-tier suppliers (fabric and trim production), and Lindex partially also on third-tier suppliers (raw material production).
Transparency is essential for holding companies accountable
Transparency is an important part of corporate responsibility and the implementation of due diligence obligations.
When a company publishes its suppliers, stakeholders can access to the information where and in what types of factories the company produces its garments. Openness of this information is a key tool for bringing violations in companies’ supply chains to light.
For example, if forced labor were discovered at a particular factory, factory lists make it possible to identify which brands are producing at that specific site. For this kind of information tracking, having the data in a machine-readable format is an important feature.
Once a link between a specific violation and a company is established, the company can be held more effectively accountable and required to take action. Transparency also helps evaluate the effectiveness of companies’ due diligence processes in practice.
Factory lists can also be used to verify wage information: Fashion Checker collects wage data directly from workers at production sites and checks whether the information provided by the brand regarding living wages aligns with the data gathered by Fashion Checker.
Read more: How companies can improve?
- Publish a factory list in a machine-readable format (e.g., Excel spreadsheet) and include at a minimum the following information for first-tier (tier 1) production sites:
- Name of the production site
- Parent company of the production site
- Address and country
- Types of products manufactured at that site
- Tier level of the production site
- Date the list was published or last updated
- The proportion of production sites covered by the list
- It is also recommended to include the following information:
- Number of workers
- Lowest wage per production site
- Update the factory list at least once a year.
- Once all information on assembly factories (tier 1) has been published, proceed to map and publish information on fabric, trim, and raw material suppliers.
“Made in EU” does not guarantee living wages
Production sites meeting living wage standards for Joutsen, Luhta, and Reima are located in Finland, Slovenia, and China.
In China, wages have in some areas increased significantly in recent years. Still, the majority of production sites used by the 14 companies assessed in China do not pay living wages.
In many cases the wage level in Finland is relatively decent, but in many other European countries –also within EU member states – the situation is different: for example, in Hungary and Ukraine, the minimum wage is on average only about a quarter of the living wage level. In Turkey and Romania, the minimum wage is around one-fifth of the living wage.
The production countries of the companies included in this study reflect the global distribution of the garment industry: China is the world’s largest clothing producer, and many of the assessed companies manufacture there. Production is also located in other major manufacturing countries such as Bangladesh, Vietnam, and Turkey, as well as closer to home, for example in Portugal, Lithuania, and Estonia.
Regarding wage levels, it is generally known that living wages are not met in low-cost production countries in Asia, but the problem is also present in Europe.
Therefore, the label “Made in Europe” does not mean that the garment worker has been paid a living wage.
3. Has the company committed to paying living wages?
Question & Scoring
Has your company published a clear commitment to ensure a living wage is paid across its supplier network?
- Yes = The brand’s public commitment mentions that a living wage* is (1) enough to cover workers’ basic needs, (2) is a family wage and (3) is paid for a regular working week of maximum 48 hours (excluding overtime)
- No = The company does not have a public commitment that defines the concept of living wages.
Of the companies assessed, only four have a commitment that meets the criteria. These companies are Kesko, Luhta, Halti, and Nanso.
Not just any commitment is sufficient: it must clearly demonstrate that the company understands what a living wage entails. The commitment should state that wages must cover the basic needs of the worker and their family and be paid for regular working hours, excluding overtime.
As shown by the results of Eetti’s study, having a commitment does not guarantee that the company actually advances living wages sufficiently—or that they are fully realized.
Conversely, the absence of a commitment meeting the criteria does not automatically mean that the company is not taking actions to support living wages.
A commitment indicates that the company recognizes its responsibilities
If a company is committed to respecting human rights in accordance with UN principles, this also includes ensuring a living income. However, a separate commitment to living wages emphasizes that the company acknowledges its responsibility to promote and ensure the payment of living wages throughout its supply chain. Once such a commitment is made, the company can also be held accountable for fulfilling its promise.
Read more: How companies can improve?
- Make a clear, public commitment to ensure the payment of living wages across all of the company’s supply chains. For example: “Our company X is committed to paying living wages in all our operations and throughout our entire supply chain. A living wage covers the basic needs of the worker and their family and is always paid for regular working hours (maximum 48 hours per week) without overtime.”
4. Has the company published an action plan to achieve living wages?
Question & Scoring
Does your company have a public, time-bound action plan or strategy describing how it will achieve a living wage for all the workers across its supplier network in a reasonable timeframe?
- Yes = The company has a public action plan outlining how it will achieve living wages that cover all workers in its supply chain within a reasonable timeframe (maximum 5 years).
- No = The company does not have a public action plan explaining how it will achieve living wages that cover all workers in its supply chain within a reasonable timeframe (maximum 5 years).
Of the companies included in the study, only Luhta has an action plan that meets the criteria: it outlines measures and a timeline for the coming years. During Eetti’s study, the company added additional details and a timeline to the plan published on its website.
Even Luhta still has room for improvement. Ideally, the plan should include a clear target figure and a year by which living wages are to be achieved for a specific portion of production sites or for all sites.
Reima was the only company among those studied to have a concrete target: by 2026, 70% of its largest production sites should pay living wages. However, Reima has not published the steps required to achieve this target.
Halti’s sustainability report includes a plan that almost meets the criteria, but it lacks a timeline for the actions over the coming years.
Well planned is half done
For a company, an action plan is the best way to start advancing living wages. At the same time, it helps the company gain a realistic understanding of the costs and resources required to implement the plan and to secure commitment from staff up to the leadership level.
An action plan is an essential next step once a company has made a commitment to living wages. It also allows trade unions, organizations, and other stakeholders to assess whether the company’s commitment is realistic and credible.
Read more: How companies can improve?
- Develop a clear and public action plan in line with the due diligence obligation, detailing how living wages will be ensured in the company’s own operations and at all tiers of the supply chain, including:
- Numerical targets and interim milestones with a clear timeframe.
- Practical measures that the company commits to implementing.
- Collaborate with relevant stakeholders, such as trade unions representing workers.
- Monitor the implementation of the plan and make adjustments as needed in consultation with worker representatives.
- Measure and report progress regularly to all stakeholders.
5. Does the company publish information about trade unions and collective bargaining agreements at its suppliers?
Question & Scoring
Does your company report publicly on the number of supplier facilities with democratically elected unions, and those covered by collective bargaining agreements?
- Yes = The company reports publicly on the number of supplier facilities with democratically elected unions, and those covered by collective bargaining agreements.
- No = The company does not report publicly on the number of supplier facilities with democratically elected unions, and those covered by collective bargaining agreements.
Of the companies included in the study, only Lindex and Halti disclose how many of their production sites have trade union representation. Halti also reports how many of its production sites are covered by collective bargaining agreements.
Union membership protects workers
Local trade unions play a crucial role in promoting and monitoring workers’ rights and wages. By being members of a union, workers are in a significantly stronger position to negotiate with their employer, for example on wages.
A collective bargaining agreement can secure terms that go beyond the statutory minimum, providing workers with broader and better working conditions.
In many production countries, unionization rates are low, and some workplaces may not have a trade union representation at all. Legislation can also restrict freedom of association, as is the case in China, where many of the companies in Eetti’s study manufacture.
Even where workers seemingly have the freedom to join a union, employers may limit membership or workers may face difficulties – at worst, risking dismissal or even threats to their safety.
It is also essential whether the union is independent and genuinely represents workers’ interests. In many garment-producing countries, the state or employers exert significant influence over unions, which can leave workers’ interests secondary.
It is more likely that production sites pay wages above the legal minimum in countries where there is stronger support for freedom of association and collective bargaining.
Read more: How companies can improve?
- Map whether freedom of association and collective bargaining rights are respected in the areas where the company manufactures products.
- Promote workers’ awareness of their rights at production sites, for example by organizing training together with local trade unions.
- Include compliance with the fundamental principles and rights at work defined by the ILO in procurement practices, one of which is the right to join a trade union.
- Cooperate with democratic and independent trade unions, for example in monitoring freedom of association and assessing the results of social audits. In Finland, for instance, The Trade Union Solidarity Centre of Finland (SASK) supports companies in consulting workers through global trade union networks.
Why living wages are not paid?
In the garment industry, low production costs are generally a key factor in selecting a production site or region. Because there is demand for cheap prices, many governments and production sites keep workers’ wages low to attract foreign investment and brands.
An individual brand that wants to pay living wages cannot achieve this instantly. In addition to the structural pressure to keep prices low, there are several practical challenges.
Most clothing brands do not own the factories where their garments are made. A single brand’s share of a factory’s production may be only a few percent, making it difficult for the brand to influence wages at the factory or region on its own.
The situation becomes even more complicated further up the supply chain: a brand may have a direct relationship with a garment assembly factory, but it rarely has direct contact with, for example, cotton farmers.
An individual factory may also be reluctant to raise wages unless it is confident that all brands producing in the factory will accept the resulting increase in costs.
However, most of the value and power in the garment supply chain rests with the brands and retailers. This means they also have a responsibility to use their influence to promote living wages, working together with other brands and stakeholders.
The accelerating price competition caused by ultra-fast fashion and difficult economic conditions can additionally lead to companies lacking the financial resources or willingness to raise production costs, including wages. Nevertheless, financial constraints cannot take priority over human rights.
Garment and textile companies need to raise their level of ambition
Of the production sites used by the companies included in the study, only 0.6% pay living wages. The companies have a total of 1,763 first-tier production sites, of which only 10 were found by Eetti’s study to pay sufficiently.
The seriousness of the situation is further illustrated by the fact that Reima and Luhta reached the top three rankings solely because one of Luhta’s and one of Reima’s production sites pays a living wage.
Only Joutsen stood out positively: thanks to its production sites in Finland, it achieved the clear number one position. Joutsen has made a notable decision among the companies to keep a significant portion of its production in Finland.
In other areas, one of the clearest examples of progress is Luhta. It is committed to living wages, publishes a comprehensive factory list, and is the only company in the study to have released a time-bound action plan.
Reima was the only company in the study to publish a percentage target for achieving living wages. This is an important and concrete step that one would hope to see from every company.
All 14 companies in the study responded to the survey and engaged in dialogue with Eetti. Some also gathered additional information and updated the content on their websites during the process. This demonstrates that the companies understand the importance of stakeholder collaboration and the relevance of the topic.
Many of the companies included in Eetti’s study have begun to take important first steps toward ensuring living wages. However, the level of ambition needs to be raised significantly.
Read more: How the study was conducted?
Eetti conducted the study in collaboration with the Clean Clothes Campaign network and the Fashion Checker website. The Clean Clothes Campaign is an international network that advocates for garment workers’ rights, and Eetti is one of over 200 organizations in the network.
Fashion Checker, maintained by the Clean Clothes Campaign, Fashion Revolution, and Wikirate, maps and lists data on nearly 200 clothing companies, showing how well they promote living wages. The data collected in Eetti’s study is also added to the Fashion Checker website.
Eetti selected 14 of the largest Finnish clothing companies by revenue for the study. Company size was chosen as a criterion because the operations of large companies have a significant impact on workers throughout the garment supply chain.
All 14 companies responded to an online survey and engaged in dialogue with Eetti via email, with some also participating in phone discussions.
The companies’ data for the year 2024 was assessed using Fashion Checker’s criteria. Percentages in the responses were rounded to the nearest whole number.
All information used in the study must be publicly available, allowing anyone to verify Eetti’s and Fashion Checker’s data from the original sources. This requirement for transparency also supports companies’ due diligence obligations.
After the evaluation, each company received its scores by email and was asked for additional information if needed. Finlayson, Luhta, Reima, Joutsen, and Halti updated their website information during the process.
Eetti will publish a follow-up study on living wages in autumn 2027.
How everyone can promote living wages
Company: Implement the measures listed in this study to advance living wages as part of your due diligence process.
Policy maker: Promote ambitious EU legislation to ensure that respect for human rights is a legal obligation.
Individual: Call on companies to take action on living wages by signing Eetti’s petition.
Further reading
This report was originally published in Finnish on 25th of September 2025.
The content was funded through crowdfunding and co-funding by the European Union. Its contents are the sole responsibility of Pro Ethical Trade Finland and do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Union.
