Boohoo has reignited controversy by renewing relations with a previously discarded supplier, GN Euro, after allegations of poor working conditions.
- GN Euro, now operating under the name Euro Touch, is back in business with Boohoo after setting up a new facility in Tangier, Morocco.
- The fast fashion giant had previously severed ties with over 400 suppliers due to modern slavery concerns related to low pay and poor conditions.
- Reports indicate that between 2017-2020, third-party audits found some Boohoo suppliers paying below minimum wage, as low as £3-£4 per hour.
- Boohoo has confirmed that all products from GN Euro are currently sourced exclusively from the Tangier facility.
Boohoo has recently come under fire after it was revealed that they have renewed partnerships with GN Euro, a supplier previously cut off due to modern slavery allegations. The rekindling of this business relationship has stirred controversy, particularly because GN Euro has rebranded and relocated to Tangier, Morocco, where it is now known as Euro Touch.
When Boohoo initially ceased partnerships with over 400 suppliers, it was amid serious allegations concerning inadequate working conditions and wages. Such concerns were brought to light through an investigation that highlighted certain suppliers associated with Boohoo paid wages as low as £3-£4 per hour. This investigation spanned from 2017 to 2020 and painted a troubling picture of the fast fashion supply chain.
The Telegraph’s report on Boohoo’s renewed ties with GN Euro raises critical questions about the company’s governance and commitment to ethical sourcing. Boohoo confirmed that its current dealings with GN Euro, now operating in a different capacity under the new name Euro Touch in Tangier, are compliant with their standards.
Boohoo reiterated that the products procured from GN Euro come solely from their new Moroccan facility, aiming to distance itself from past issues and demonstrate a commitment to improving its supply chain practices.
Boohoo’s decision to re-engage with a previously controversial supplier continues to attract significant scrutiny and raises questions about its governance.
