The right to a living wage is a fundamental human right recognised by the United Nations.

Earning a living wage allows workers to provide for themselves and their dependant's basic needs - including food, housing, education and healthcare as well as some discretionary income for unexpected events. It should be earned in a standard workweek of no more than 48 hours and should be earned before bonuses, allowances or overtime, and after taxes.

Trade unions, labour rights groups and academics have developed credible methodologies to calculate a living wage in the countries or regions where our clothes are made.

More than 170 countries (UNGP) have a minimum wage but this rarely ensures that workers can provide for themselves and their dependents.

A minimum wage is remuneration usually agreed upon through negotiations between government, industry and sometimes trade unions. While we support the European Union’s Adequate Minimum Wage Directive, which sets a legal minimum wage for each Member State to afford workers a decent standard of living, we know that the national minimum wage is often not sufficient in many of the countries where our clothes are made.

Living wage benchmarks rely on international standards and local data costs to calculate the cost of basic but decent life.

Research has shown that the key components of a credible living wage benchmark include the four following costs:

• Food using international standards on decent food and local data on food costs

• Housing using international standards on decent housing and local data on housing costs

• Other essential needs such as transportation and healthcare

• Small margin for unforeseen events such as illness or accidents

Find out more

With escalating living costs in housing, food, clothing, education, transport and healthcare, the minimum wage simply is not enough. In addition, not every country where our clothes are made has a legal minimum wage in place. Brands have a clear influence and direct responsibility in the process of wage setting.

Currently, many production country governments and employers’ organisations fear brands will place their orders elsewhere if they raise minimum wages. This is why we need legislation on living wages.

The vast majority of garment and textile workers around the world earn very low wages and many are trapped in in-work poverty.

In some countries, statutory minimum wages do not exist. In countries where they do, these wages do not allow workers to meet their basic needs. Even then, many workers end up earning less than the legal minimum.

Without a living wage workers may be:

• forced to work excessive overtime hours or multiple jobs

• forced to take their children out of school and put them into work

• unable to afford food, health, housing and education

• unable to withstand crises such as ill-health or other unexpected events

• forced to borrow and take loans to purchase basic goods ending up in a cycle of debt

Wage costs make up a tiny fraction of the cost of our clothes. It’s a misconception that if garment workers are paid a living wage, consumers will see the prices of their clothes significantly increase. In fact, a report by Oxfam found that if brands paid garment workers living wages in the supply chain, it would increase the final cost of a piece of clothing by just 1%.

Brands often have billionaire owners and massive profits. It should be the brand's responsibility to absorb the cost increase and pay garment workers a living wage - rather than pass on this cost to consumers. This legislation is part of a vision for a radically different business model for the fashion industry, where brands reduce their environmental impacts, reduce the amount of clothes they make and ensure the people who make our clothes are treated fairly and paid living wages

The European Union is the largest single market in the world yet only one in three companies in the EU identifies and acts upon human rights risks, with even fewer focusing on living wages (European Parliament).

Voluntary mechanisms alone are not enough. Despite the creation of numerous voluntary initiatives on living wages in the last decade where brands can sign up and make commitments, the gap between what workers earn and what they should be earning has grown.

We need legislation that requires due diligence on living wages to ensure accountability and action among all companies, not just those that are reputation-sensitive or values-driven. This would ensure all businesses take action on living wages and level the playing field across the industry. Our proposal not only applies to EU countries but to companies who sell their products in the EU, independently of where their products are made.

If workers across global supply chains earned living wages, this would lift entire families and communities out of poverty and contribute to crucial economic and social development in line with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

The EU is the largest clothes and textiles importer in the world, with over 69 billion euros’ worth of clothes imported by the EU in 2020. As the world’s largest single market, it has the responsibility to ensure that the clothes it sells are made in safe conditions and that the people who make them are paid fairly.

If global garment supply chains cross borders, we need legislation that crosses borders too. We need clear, transnational legislation at the EU level rather than a confusing patchwork in the 28 Member States to ensure more legal certainty, coherence and consistency.

This due diligence requirement would ensure all businesses take action on living wages and level the playing field across the fashion industry. Our proposal does not only apply to EU countries, but to any companies who sell their products in the EU, regardless of where their products are made.

Brands may be able to outsource their production, but they cannot outsource their responsibility to uphold human rights in their supply chains. The people who make our clothes are often trapped in poverty while fashion companies profit thanks to their hard work. It is an unfair and exploitative system, and the people who make our clothes deserve better.

Brands often put the blame on suppliers for workers’ low wages. However, to increase profits, brands have pushed the price of production so low that suppliers cannot afford to pay workers living wages. Brands drive down prices by choosing suppliers that commit to the fastest turnaround and the lowest price, placing pressure on working conditions. Brands should ensure that they pay their suppliers enough to enable them to pay living wages to their workers. In addition, brands should conduct due diligence to ensure that workers are actually paid a living wage.

Brands are producing and selling more clothes than ever before and continue to make huge profits. Even during the pandemic, most brands remained highly profitable while the people who made their clothes remain trapped in in-work poverty. This is why we urgently need legislation to address living wages on a sectoral level and achieve a level playing field among all companies.

Most brands do not own the factories where their clothes are made and outsource their manufacturing to suppliers to reduce costs. The vast majority of the people who make our clothes are directly employed and paid by suppliers; not brands.

This means that workers in one factory are making clothes for multiple brands at the same time. We know the efforts of individual brands are not sufficient to ensure that all workers in a factory are paid a living wage. This is why we need EU-wide legislation that requires all brands to take action on living wages.

The vast majority of garment workers – approximately 80% – are women.

Most women garment workers are responsible for unpaid work in their homes (such as cooking and caregiving) in addition to working long hours in the factory. As a result, they are not only money-poor but also time-poor. Earning a living wage ensures that women in the garment industry can provide for themselves and their dependants without having to work excessive overtime hours in order to meet their basic needs. This gives them more time to engage in social, cultural and political life outside of work.

In the garment industry, pay is a gendered issue. Research has shown that poverty wages are a root cause of gender-based violence. It is women who will benefit most from legislation on living wages.

Women, migrants and homeworkers are among the lowest paid and most vulnerable groups in garment supply chains. This is not by chance, but the result of an exploitative industry that profits from underpaying at-risk groups.

Millions of workers across garment supply chains work informally, sometimes in their own homes. These homeworkers are paid for the number of items they produce, rather than the number of hours they work. These piece rates mean that homeworkers are even less likely than factory workers to earn a living wage and face some of the most exploitative conditions in the garment industry.

Earning a living wage removes the need for workers, specifically women, migrant and home-based workers, to work excessive overtime to meet basic needs. This is why our proposal offers an approach to a living wage which accounts for various at-risk groups.

The current mainstream fashion business model has led to an increase in clothing production of 2.7% per year (Global Fashion Agenda). This has put immense pressure on suppliers and workers alike. They are expected to produce more clothes in shorter time frames for extremely low prices.

This model fundamentally relies upon customers buying too many clothes and treating them as disposable. Every item of clothing has an environmental impact, from growing the fibres to making clothes until the moment they are disposed of. The more clothes we make, the greater our impact on the planet. The planet cannot sustain the current level of clothes production. We need to produce fewer clothes for the wellbeing of the planet and the workers who make our clothes.

Paying workers a living wage is an effective way to slow down clothes production and the negative environmental impacts of the fashion industry on our planet. By paying workers a living wage, clothing companies would be forced to assume the real cost of labour. This would mean that workers would be able to earn enough to sustain themselves and their dependants in a standard working week (maximum 48 hours) and would not need to work excessive overtime just to scrape by - as is often the case.

If brands do not know where their clothes are made, they cannot ensure that workers are paid fairly.

Paying a living wage to garment workers starts with transparency - as clothing brands have to map their supply chain first. It means understanding where your clothes are made, in what conditions and how much your workers are paid. Making this information transparent is essential because it allows for scrutiny and accountability. Closing the gap on living wages cannot be done without greater transparency.

The fashion industry is characterised by low wages, excessive overtime and poor working conditions for the people who make our clothes. The pandemic exacerbated these issues and placed an even greater burden on suppliers and workers.

Millions of workers across garment supply chains did not receive their wages  for work already completed due to order cancellations, non-payment and other exploitative practices during the COVID-19 pandemic. When brands don’t pay their suppliers as agreed, or demand retrospective discounts, it means suppliers cannot pay their workers. As a result, suppliers across the world were forced out of business and millions of workers lost their jobs and faced extreme poverty.

At the same time, global fashion brands  once again turning profits – in some cases unprecedented profits – having already recovered from the initial disruption caused by the pandemic.

Building back better must include legislation on living wages to ensure that the people who make our clothes are fairly compensated for their work. We need to dismantle the very structures that allowed workers to be treated so badly and replace them with mechanisms like collective bargaining and robust safety nets for workers. We cannot allow brands to exploit workers and suppliers as they did during Covid-19 pandemic. Legislation is critical to stopping this from ever happening again.

Collective bargaining is a mechanism for workers to negotiate with their employers about their wages and working conditions. This is done through electing worker representatives or trade unions negotiating with employers on these issues.

Collective bargaining is key to achieving living wages in the garment sector because it ensures that workers inform the negotiations on what living wages ought to be. After all, workers themselves are best placed to advocate for the wages they need to meet their needs.

This ECI strengthens collective bargaining efforts. Due diligence legislation compelling brands to act on living wages would support trade unions in their efforts to negotiate and collectively bargain for fair wages using credible benchmarks. It would strengthen the collective bargaining position of trade unions and help lead to fairer wages for workers.

Historically, collective bargaining by workers has been undermined by brands that have pushed suppliers to produce more with less time and less money. If passed, this ECI will ensure that brands have to consider living wages in price negotiations with suppliers. This will help workers get their demands met.

This ECI is introduced in the aftermath of the pandemic where garment and textile workers experienced having their wages stolen, their wages disrupted and their wages unpaid demonstrating the particular precarity in this sector and highlighting the need for urgent action.

In order to be successful, ECI campaigns need to have a strong evidence base and this sector provides many tangible examples of why a living wage is needed.

Relatedly, when it comes to policy developments, the proposed Corporate Sustainable Due Diligence Directive law at EU level and the vast majority of the due diligence obligations proposed nationally in EU member states don't distinguish between particular sectors. They do, however, acknowledge that fashion is a high-risk sector in need of specific attention. This leaves room for more targeted legislation to be proposed similar to the specific laws that we already have on timber and conflict minerals within the EU.

We are ready to support other actions on living wages for workers outside of this sector and if successful, we hope that this ECI can inspire parallel campaigns.

The ECI is a complementary effort, designed in full alignment with the forthcoming sustainable corporate governance package, including the human rights due diligence legislation. The proposed Corporate Sustainable Due Diligence Directive is EU-wide, cross-sectoral mandatory human rights and environmental due diligence legislation. It has a broad scope across every industry but paves the way for more in-depth directives such as the proposed ECI.

Good policy instruments such as the UN Guiding Principles (UNGPs) and the OECD guidelines, both of which the ECI is designed in full alignment with, provide the basis for action but are limited by being voluntary instruments that only the top tier of companies adhere to. While national-level initiatives are being proposed in a number of EU member states, they are often within a confined scope. The ECI proposes to complement and reinforce several proposed and existing instruments.

A European Citizens' Initiative (ECI) is an important instrument of participatory democracy in the European Union that lets citizens directly call for new laws.

This is not a regular petition, but an official "European Citizens' Initiative" (ECI). This means your signature must be officially verified by national authorities, according to each EU country's specific rules.

This ECI is open to all EU citizens, even if you currently live outside the EU (although there are special rules for Germany). Unfortunately, if you are not an EU national, the EU's official rules say that you cannot sign.

On their FAQs page, the European Commission says that for EU nationals living outside the EU, "choose the country you’re an EU national of. Your signature will be counted in that country." Once you have selected your country of nationality, our form will let you put in a residential address anywhere in the world.

Additionally, you need to be of the age to vote in European Parliament elections in order to be able to sign an ECI. In most countries, this is 18, but in some, it is 16 or 17.

If you are not an EU citizen, you can still support this campaign by sharing our content on social media and telling your family, friends and colleagues. Click here to send a tweet now or download our campaign materials.

For the purpose of this ECI, your signature must be officially verified by national authorities, according to each EU country's specific rules. We cannot control the data that they require, since it is required by Regulation (EU) 2019/788 on the European Citizens’ Initiative for the purpose of confirming your signature.

For all EU nationals, the following is required: nationality; full first name and family name; and, depending on the country:

either

A. full postal address and date of birth

(for nationals of Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Slovakia)

or

B. a personal identification number and the type of number/document

(for nationals of Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czechia, Estonia, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden).

More information is available via the European Commission's official data requirements page here.

If we reach our goal of 1 million signatures, then the European Commission must meet with us, respond to our successful ECI with an official communication, and may ask for a debate in the European Parliament.

Delivering a successful ECI does not bind the European Commission to follow up with a legislative act. However, some ECIs gather momentum and achieve success over time. We are encouraged by the cases where even a successful signature campaign has not resulted in legislation, there have been significant follow-up actions by the European Commission.

For example, in the instance of the Right2Water ECI, the very first successful ECI in 2013, the Commission did commit to embedding the human rights dimension of access to safe drinking water and sanitation at the heart of its policies and proposed and implemented a set of operational actions in relation to water quality regulation, while not at the level that the campaign had hoped this ultimately resulted in the revision of the EU’s Drinking Water Directive.

This suggests that even if the ECI is not initially successful in its primary aim, its potential to firmly shift public and EU attention to brands’ commercial practices and to focus attention on regulatory change, rather than simply voluntary commitments, is significant and will likely have a lasting impact. Indeed, the ability of the ECI to raise awareness and stimulate debate and discussion at the EU level simply cannot be overstated.

In addition to building upon the success and strategies of ECIs themselves, this initiative builds significantly on the lessons learnt by ASN Bank (and multiple other voluntary initiatives) in trying to support voluntary shifts towards support for a living wage in the garment supply chain and the significant difficulties they have had in bringing about change thus far. This initiative is designed to go beyond what has been tried before by mobilising public support for regulatory change rather than voluntary commitments.