In 2016, Australian fashion label Gorman became embroiled in a public accountability dispute over the secrecy surrounding its manufacturing network. Factory X, the company that purchased Gorman in 2010, appeared on Oxfam Australia’s annual “Naughty List” after failing to disclose the factories and suppliers producing its garments. The criticism did not establish that Gorman’s factories were responsible for a specific collapse, fire, forced-labor case, or other documented mass-casualty disaster; the controversy instead centered on the difficulty of independently evaluating wages, working conditions, subcontracting, and labor rights when a brand refuses to identify its manufacturers. The same year, Gorman received an “F” in the Baptist World Aid fashion report for declining to participate in its survey, intensifying concerns about corporate transparency in an industry where hidden subcontractors can obscure exploitation. Gorman defended the decision, arguing that its manufacturers possessed distinctive techniques, trims, and treatments that the company did not want competitors to copy, and stated that withholding supplier identities was not “naughty.” In later years, the brand changed course by working with organizations that compile ethical-fashion assessments and subsequently received “B” grades, providing a partial reputational recovery while leaving the 2016 episode as a notable example of the tension between fashion brands’ claims of proprietary design protection and the public’s demand for supply-chain accountability.
Preparing the daily feature…
AI concept artworkArchive Record · 2010s
Gorman’s 2016 Supplier-Transparency Backlash and the Refusal to Reveal Its Factories
Gorman and Factory X / 2010s
In 2016, Australian fashion label Gorman became embroiled in a public accountability dispute over the secrecy surrounding its manufacturing network. Factory X, the company that purchased Gorman in 2010, appeared on Oxfam Australia’s annual “Naughty List” after failing to disclose the factories and suppliers producing its garments. The criticism did not establish that Gorman’s factories were responsible for a specific collapse, fire, forced-labor case, or other documented mass-casualty disaster; the controversy instead centered on the difficulty of independently evaluating wages, working conditions, subcontracting, and labor rights when a brand refuses to identify its manufacturers. The same year, Gorman received an “F” in the Baptist World Aid fashion report for declining to participate in its survey, intensifying concerns about corporate transparency in an industry where hidden subcontractors can obscure exploitation. Gorman defended the decision, arguing that its manufacturers possessed distinctive techniques, trims, and treatments that the company did not want competitors to copy, and stated that withholding supplier identities was not “naughty.” In later years, the brand changed course by working with organizations that compile ethical-fashion assessments and subsequently received “B” grades, providing a partial reputational recovery while leaving the 2016 episode as a notable example of the tension between fashion brands’ claims of proprietary design protection and the public’s demand for supply-chain accountability.
The daily editorial is currently unavailable. There’s still an entire archive to explore.