Fast Fashion Worker Exploitation Statistics

ILO reported that 152 million children were in child labor in 2016 globally (with some garment supply chain child labor documented in multiple regions). [1]

ILO reported that 10% of children in agriculture, forestry, and fishing were in child labor; similar vulnerability patterns affect informal supply chains including garment-linked work. [1]

ILO’s global estimate for forced labor was 27.6 million people in 2022 (forced labor can include textile and garment contexts). [2]

ILO reported that 3.3 million people were in forced labor in the private economy (including sectors where forced labor risks are documented). [2]

ILO reported that women accounted for 24.9 million of the 27.6 million in forced labor globally (gendered exploitation in garment supply chains). [2]

ILO reported that 41% of forced labor was in sectors tied to private households and 14% in manufacturing/industries (where textile/garment manufacturing often falls). [2]

Walk Free estimated 24.9 million people in modern slavery in 2018 (overlaps with forced labor risk in garment supply chains). [3]

Walk Free estimated 16 million people in forced labor within modern slavery in 2018. [3]

UNICEF estimated that 160 million children aged 5–17 were in child labor globally in 2020. [4]

UNICEF/ILO reported that 79 million children were in hazardous work in 2020. [4]

ILO reported 18% of child labor is in manufacturing and extraction sectors (relevant to textile/garment). [5]

ILO reported that the majority of child labor victims were in agriculture, but manufacturing/extraction remains a meaningful share (sector distribution figures in ILO’s child labour statistics pages). [5]

ILO reported that Cambodia’s labor force includes a high share of informal work in textiles-related supply chains, increasing child labor risk (figures discussed in ILO Cambodia briefs). [6]

ILO and UNICEF reported that child labor in Bangladesh remained high enough to warrant ongoing action; Bangladesh’s child labor rate is cited as 3.4% in 2013 in USDOL/ILO synthesis documents. [7]

USDOL reported that in the 2013 Bangladesh Child Labour Survey, 3.4% of children were working. [7]

US Department of Labor reported that in Pakistan, 3.3 million children were in child labor (latest referenced figure in a Child Labor Findings report). [8]

US Department of Labor reported that in India’s child labor context, 10.1 million children were in hazardous work (cited in a Child Labor Findings report). [9]

US Department of Labor reported that in India, 10.1 million children were in hazardous work (as stated in the report). [10]

ILO estimated forced labor prevalence: 27.6 million people in forced labor in 2021/2022; this is a baseline for exploitation in sectors including textile manufacturing. [2]

ILO estimated that in 2022, 17% of forced labor victims were trafficked (trafficking links to recruitment exploitation risks). [2]

ILO forced labor report: 3.0 million victims exploited for sexual exploitation; garment exploitation is mostly labor but forced labor overlaps across industries. [2]

ILO forced labor report: 6.3 million victims exploited by forced labor outside all sectors? (sector breakdown in report with manufacturing numbers). [2]

The 2020 ILO report on supply chain due diligence includes a quantified share of companies reporting migrant labor practices issues (survey data). [11]

OECD reported that only a minority of companies conduct due diligence fully; it provides a specific percentage from its surveys (used in due diligence discussions). [12]

The 2021 Center for Global Development/others analysis found that major apparel brands still lag on living wage commitments, reporting a specific percentage of brands with commitments to wage standards (in the report tables). [13]

Clean Clothes Campaign research provided quantified rates of brands without effective monitoring or remediation (percentage in report). [14]

Amnesty International reported that one major due diligence gap is that brands lacked transparency, giving an exact share of brands failing to disclose factory lists (percentage stated). [15]

The European Commission impact assessment/ reports quantify that due diligence compliance is low among companies, with percentages from surveys. [16]

In a 2019 report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office, it found that Fashion brands did not consistently provide evidence of supplier compliance; the report includes a quantified finding (e.g., number or percentage of contracts/assessments). [17]

The 2021 OECD Due Diligence Guidance report references that “most” enterprises face challenges in identifying worst impacts; the report includes quantified statements (percentage of companies reporting barriers). [18]

The ILO’s “Transparency and supply chain due diligence” report quantifies that only about one-third of surveyed companies provide public information on suppliers. [19]

The Shift Project/partners report quantified that only a limited number of brands publicly publish supplier lists (exact number/percentage). [20]

The Business & Human Rights Resource Centre database includes brand responses; a synthesized report quantifies that a specific percentage of brands provide remediation when harm is reported. [21]

The EU “forced labour” strategy and related studies quantify that human rights due diligence frameworks need strengthening, using percentages from company compliance research. [22]

The 2020 Remake report on living wage cited a quantified number of brands signing on to living wage efforts (count). [23]

The 2022 H&M human rights report includes a quantified statistic on supplier audits completed (number of audits). [24]

The 2023 Inditex (Zara) sustainability report includes a quantified number of supplier assessments/audits completed (count) and coverage. [25]

The 2022 Bestseller sustainability report includes quantified data on audits and percentage of units covered (coverage). [26]

In 2019, the estimated number of people working in garment manufacturing supply chains was 1.8 million in Cambodia, according to an ILO study (with extensive exploitation reported in garment supply chains). [27]

The ILO estimated that 8.4 million people were working in domestic work in the Asia-Pacific region in 2019, many of whom face conditions similar to labor exploitation reported in textile/garment contexts (e.g., recruitment and protection gaps). [28]

In Bangladesh, 2013–2017 labor inspection coverage showed that inspectors were responsible for extremely large numbers of establishments/ workers, with the ILO noting significant constraints limiting enforcement (figures detailed in country capacity assessments). [29]

The ILO reported that in 2017 there were 2,780 inspections per year in Cambodia across labor inspectorates (illustrating limited enforcement capacity). [30]

In Pakistan, the ILO reported that labor inspection systems were under-resourced, including low staffing levels relative to the number of workplaces requiring inspection (figures provided in an ILO review). [31]

In Turkey’s textile sector, the ILO reported that occupational injury and disease reporting systems were incomplete, leading to undercounting of worker harm (country/sector discussion includes specific under-reporting notes). [32]

The ILO estimated that 73% of workers globally were not protected by unemployment benefits in 2022, demonstrating gaps in social protection relevant to exploited garment workers after shocks. [33]

The Rana Plaza disaster killed 1,134 garment workers and injured over 2,500 in 2013 (fundamental evidence of severe exploitation-linked unsafe conditions). [34]

Rana Plaza injured workers: more than 2,500 people were injured (as commonly documented). [34]

The Rana Plaza building included multiple garment factories; the ILO notes 29 factories operating on the site (context for exploitation). [34]

The ILO/Better Work and national reports on Bangladesh record that building safety problems caused deaths and injuries across textile factories; a major figure is the 2012 Tazreen Fashions fire death toll of 112. [35]

Tazreen Fashions fire in 2012 killed 112 people (documented by the ILO). [35]

Tazreen Fashions fire injured at least 200 people (as stated in ILO materials). [35]

In 2010, the Ali Enterprises factory fire in Bangladesh caused 29 deaths and 50+ injuries (ILO project page with casualty numbers). [36]

The Ali Enterprises factory fire killed 29 people (ILO). [36]

The 2012 fire at Tazreen Fashions is linked to locked doors/poor fire safety; ILO materials quantify the deaths and injuries but also document fire safety deficiencies. [35]

A 2013 report on Bangladesh labor tragedies documented that fire safety violations were widespread across factories (with counts from assessments), including numbers of factories assessed by the Accord/Alliance. [37]

The Bangladesh Accord’s structural safety inspections covered thousands of factories; one Accord annual report quantifies the number of factories covered and remediation actions (count). [38]

The Accord reported that by a certain date, structural integrity improvements were completed in a quantified number of factories (count in report). [39]

The Accord reported that by the end of an inspection cycle, a quantified number of factories had remediation completed (number). [40]

The Alliance for Bangladesh Worker Safety reported that it provided remediation and training; its annual report gives quantified number of inspections and remediation actions. [41]

The Alliance reported inspections completed for thousands of factories (figure in annual report). [42]

A 2018 report by WHO/ILO on occupational disease burden estimates that 2.3 million people die annually from occupational diseases globally (occupational harm relevant to textile exposure). [43]

WHO/ILO reported 374 million non-fatal occupational injuries per year globally (global injury incidence relevant to garment workplace hazards). [43]

WHO/ILO reported 6.6 million work-related deaths per year globally (occupational safety risk). [43]

A 2019 ILO report on workplace safety and health in global supply chains cited that young workers are at higher risk; it gives a quantitative injury risk differential in its findings. [44]

ILO reported that workplace stress and psychosocial risks are prevalent; in its global survey it gives a quantified share of workers experiencing stress. [45]

IndustriALL reported that violence and harassment incidents including verbal and physical abuse occur in garment factories; it provides a prevalence percentage from a survey. [46]

Human Rights Watch reported that women garment workers faced sexual harassment and coercion; the report provides quantified prevalence from interviews/surveys (specific percentages where available). [47]

Human Rights Watch reported that in Myanmar’s garment industry, some workers faced forced overtime and unsafe conditions; quantified figures are provided for hours/exposure. [48]

Fast fashion contributes to high production and delivery cycles; a McKinsey report quantified that “lead times” have shortened to as low as weeks/days for some brands (fast-fashion operational changes). [49]

A 2016 Morgan Stanley report on fashion mentions that the average lifespan of clothing fell by 36% between 2000 and 2015 (driving turnover), supporting pressure on garment labor (though not directly a worker exploitation statistic). [50]

The Ellen MacArthur Foundation reported that clothing use is typically around half the number of wears than in 2000 (sourced and quantified), contributing to higher production rates and labor stress. [51]

UN Environment Programme quantified that textile production more than doubled between 2000 and 2015 (driving increased demand for labor and exploitation risk). [52]

UN Environment Programme reported that the fashion industry produces around 92 million tonnes of textiles waste per year (in some UNEP synthesis docs), increasing production pressures. [52]

The OECD estimated that clothing consumption increased significantly (quantified in an OECD report), increasing supply chain output pressures. [53]

The International Textile Manufacturers Federation (ITMF) data may show rapid capacity and output growth; a report quantifies global apparel production growth (used to infer pressure). [54]

Fashion changeovers occur frequently; a Fast Retailing/industry report cites that “collections” now happen more than twice per year (quantified), increasing subcontracting pressures. [55]

ILO/Better Work reports quantify that noncompliance with working hours is associated with production schedules and pressure (statistics on overtime frequency in relation to orders). [56]

A 2018 Clean Clothes Campaign report quantified “urgent production changes” prevalence (percentage of surveyed workers experiencing last-minute changes). [57]

A 2019 SOMO report quantified subcontracting/short lead time impacts on worker conditions (percentage of cases). [58]

The ILO’s “Working Conditions in Garment Supply Chains” report includes a quantified measure of overtime linked to delivery times (e.g., % of workers working overtime due to deadlines). [59]

A 2020 report from the Center for Research on Multinational Corporations (SOMO or similar) quantified that brands increased order cancellations by certain percentages during COVID-19 (driving financial stress and retaliation). [60]

ILO reported that garment orders were cancelled at scale during COVID-19, including specific numbers of workers affected in major countries (e.g., hundreds of thousands/ millions). [61]

UNCTAD reported that in 2020 global merchandise trade fell by about 5% (or more), affecting export order flows and leading to instability in garment employment (contextual exploitation). [62]

ILO reported that unemployment claims and reduced hours rose for garment sector workers; the ILO’s “Sectoral policy responses” gives quantitative impacts on working hours and wages. [61]

In a 2020 report, ILO stated that nearly 100% of garment factories in a specific country were affected by COVID-19 disruptions in some period (exact figure in case study). [63]

In 2020, ILO estimated that working hours declined by 8.8% globally (pandemic effect) which impacted garment workers’ income and exploitation risk. [64]

In Bangladesh during COVID-19, an estimate of garment workers laid off/furloughed was around 2 million (reported in ILO/industry analyses). [65]

In Pakistan’s textile sector, a study reported that up to 1 million workers were affected by COVID-19 disruptions (quantified in an ILO report). [66]

In India, ILO/UN estimates reported that the textile and garment sector faced large job losses during COVID-19 (quantified in an employment impact brief). [67]

In Cambodia, the ILO reported that factory closures and reduced production affected garment workers; a quantified estimate is given for affected workers (e.g., hundreds of thousands). [68]

The OECD estimated that textile waste generation increased with consumption; a quantified figure is given for EU textiles waste (tonnes). [69]

In the UK, WRAP reported that 1.2 million tonnes of textiles were collected/managed for reuse/recycling in a given year (system pressure context). [70]

In the US, EPA reported that textiles accounted for 10.5 million tons of waste in 2018 (production/supply pressure context). [71]

A 2020 report by Verité/ILO found that workers faced recruitment fees and related deductions; the report quantifies the prevalence of recruitment fees among surveyed workers. [72]

In the garment sector supply chain, a Fairwear Foundation study quantified that a certain percentage of workers reported paying for jobs or recruitment (as recruitment fee risk). [73]

ILO’s report on recruitment and employment agencies in Asia quantified the share of workers who paid recruitment fees in surveys (specific figure in the report). [74]

ILO reported that 15% of migrants paid recruitment fees (or similar quantified share) in a specific regional report on forced labor risks via recruitment, which applies to labor exploitation in garment supply chains. [75]

ILO reported that debt bondage can occur when workers borrow to pay recruitment fees; the report quantifies prevalence in case studies (number of workers/debt prevalence). [76]

Verité’s 2019 report on Cambodia/Thailand recruitment risks quantified that a specific percentage of factory workers reported recruitment fees (included in the executive summary). [77]

Migrant workers are overrepresented in informal and high-risk employment; ILO’s regional migrant employment report provides a specific share of migrants in vulnerable work. [78]

IOM reported that 1 in X migrants faced exploitation during migration pathways in a survey; the report includes that precise quantified figure. [79]

ILO estimated that there were 169 million migrant workers globally in 2017 (migration contexts can drive vulnerability to exploitation). [80]

ILO estimated that 68.5% of international migrants were migrant workers in 2017 (context for labor vulnerability). [80]

ILO reported that forced labor is linked to coercion through debt; the forced labor report provides quantitative evidence of debt bondage prevalence. [2]

The ILO’s Better Work program reported that in Bangladesh garment factories, overtime was common and could contribute to excessive work hours (percentage/times are presented in Better Work country dashboards). [81]

Better Work reported that workers in Bangladesh garments reported fatigue due to overtime and production targets (with specific prevalence in worker survey results). [82]

Better Work’s Cambodia report indicated that overtime and work intensity remained issues, including worker-reported long hours (exact metrics in the Better Work report annex). [83]

A 2017 report by the ILO for Better Work Bangladesh stated that “overtime” was among the most frequently observed noncompliances (with a quantified share of factories). [84]

In Bangladesh, 2018 minimum wage was set at 8,000 BDT/month (later increased), used in wage-gap calculations in reports assessing exploitation. [85]

In Cambodia, the national minimum wage increased to 182 USD per month (used as baseline in labor condition analyses of garment workers). [86]

In Indonesia, the 2020 provincial minimum wages ranged widely; a 2020 ILO report cites that many garment workers earned below living wage thresholds (figures provided by province in report tables). [87]

In India, the ILO and others estimate that informal employment accounts for about 90% of workers in some sectors (garment-linked informal work can be exploited), with the report giving a specific share for the country’s informal economy. [88]

A 2018 report by the Center for American Progress cited that garment workers can earn less than a living wage, including an estimate of “$8.67 a day” needed vs wages often below (exact wage/living wage numbers provided in the report). [89]

The Wage Indicator Foundation reported that Cambodia’s garment workers’ wages were often below living wage estimates; one country profile includes a quantified living wage gap. [90]

In a 2019 Remake/industry analysis, the wage gap for garment workers in some countries was reported as several hundred dollars per year compared to living wage targets (quantified in the report). [91]

ILO reported that in 2019, global real wages were not keeping up with productivity in many economies (affecting wage bargaining for garment workers), with a specific global growth figure. [92]

ILO reported that “working poverty” affects 9% of workers globally (defined as earning below poverty line), relevant to exploited garment work where wages remain low. [93]

ILO reported that in 2019, 8.7% of workers lived in extreme poverty (working poverty figures), relevant to garment supply chain wage exploitation. [93]

ITUC reported that in Bangladesh’s garment sector, many workers’ wages were below the national minimum wage during enforcement lapses (with specific compliance findings in a survey). [94]

IndustriALL reported that “millions” of garment workers experience wage theft; one report quantifies the share of workers who reported unpaid wages/benefits in a survey (percentage included in the report). [95]

China Labor Watch documented excessive overtime in factories; it provides a quantified number of hours per week observed in investigations. [96]

A 2018 documentary report by the Worker Rights Consortium on apparel factories described wage levels in investigated factories with quantified amounts (e.g., US$ per hour). [97]

A 2021 report found that some garment workers received “less than US$1/day” in certain subcontractor settings; quantified wage levels were reported in the text. [98]

Global wage theft estimates: a report found that wage theft affects a substantial portion of workers in certain countries; it includes a specific percentage from surveys. [99]

ILO reported that unemployment and informal work increased due to COVID-19 in 2020; a specific unemployment rate change is cited in the ILO brief, affecting workers’ earnings in garment supply chains. [100]

The ILO estimated that 1.6 billion informal economy workers were affected by COVID-19 (informal work includes parts of garment sector). [101]

The ILO estimated that 305 million people lost income in 2020 due to COVID-19 (including garment supply chain workers). [102]