Fast Retailing pays $16.95/kg for T-shirts, LPP just $10.11—why it matters
Key Takeaways
- New data shows huge gaps in what major apparel brands pay for cotton T-shirts from Bangladesh, with real prices falling 50% since 2001.
- For retailers, this report highlights the ethical and reputational risks of rock-bottom sourcing costs, as consumer awareness grows.
Mentioned
Key Intelligence
Key Facts
- 1From 2001 to 2024, EU import prices for cotton T-shirts rose nominally from $2.15 to $2.67, but in real terms they declined by 3.1% per year—equating to a roughly 50% price collapse.
- 2In 2024, Bangladesh-sourced cotton T-shirts were imported at an average of $2.06, and in 2025 the per-kg price for Bangladeshi imports was $13, well below the EU-wide average of $16/kg.
- 3Six brands—Bestseller, Primark, H&M Group, Inditex (Zara), LPP, and Fast Retailing (UNIQLO)—account for approximately one-fifth of Bangladesh's cotton T-shirt exports.
- 4Among these buyers, Fast Retailing pays $16.95 per kilogram, the highest, while LPP pays the lowest at $10.11/kg; all brands saw real price decreases from 2021 to 2025.
- 5Bangladesh supplies 61% of the EU's cotton T-shirt imports, making the country's labor conditions intrinsically linked to European retail pricing strategies.
- 6The report asserts that the persistent real price decline directly contradicts brands' public commitments to living wages and safe workplaces.
EU cotton T-shirt import prices roughly halved in real terms
Analysis
- Consumers enjoy affordable basic apparel
- Retailers maintain high volume sales and margins
- Garment workers earn poverty wages far below living standards
- Safety shortcuts lead to factory disasters
- Brands face reputational risk and regulatory action
Analysis
For retail executives and category managers, the price tag on a simple cotton T-shirt hides a deeply troubling story. A Clean Clothes Campaign and Public Eye report finds that real import prices have plummeted, with some brands paying as little as $10.11/kg—barely enough to support living wages in Bangladesh. As conscious consumerism rises, the gap between brand sustainability claims and actual procurement practices could become a major liability.
A new investigation by Swiss watchdog Public Eye and the global nonprofit Clean Clothes Campaign exposes how the relentless downward pressure on cotton T-shirt import prices directly undermines labor conditions in supplier countries, particularly Bangladesh. Tracing European Union import data from 2001 to 2024, the report finds that while the nominal price of a cotton T-shirt edged up from $2.15 to $2.67, this masks a 3.1% annual real decline when adjusted for EU and global inflation. In real terms, the price has roughly halved over 23 years, prompting the question: where do these savings come from? The answer, according to the report, lies in suppressed wages, squeezed factory margins, and compromised safety standards—all at odds with the high-profile labor rights commitments made by major apparel brands in recent years.
Fast Retailing pays the most, at $16.95/kg, while LPP pays the least, at only $10.11/kg, compared to an EU-wide average of $16/kg and a Bangladesh-specific average of $13/kg.
The EU is the world’s largest import market for cotton T-shirts, and Bangladesh dominates as the primary supplier, accounting for 61% of these imports. In 2024, a T-shirt sourced from Bangladesh averaged just $2.06, even cheaper than the overall EU import average. The report drills into trade data for 2025, identifying the six brands that collectively buy roughly one-fifth of Bangladesh’s cotton T-shirt exports: Bestseller, Primark, H&M Group, Inditex (Zara), LPP, and Fast Retailing (UNIQLO). To enable fairer comparisons given weight differences across styles, the analysis uses price per kilogram. Fast Retailing pays the most, at $16.95/kg, while LPP pays the least, at only $10.11/kg, compared to an EU-wide average of $16/kg and a Bangladesh-specific average of $13/kg. Crucially, every one of these brands registered a real price decrease from 2021 to 2025, demonstrating that even the largest purchasers are not immune to the overarching deflationary trend.
The implications for supply chains are stark. When import prices stagnate or fall in real terms, the cost-cutting must occur somewhere. In the Bangladesh garment industry, that typically translates into wages that fall far below a living wage, excessive overtime, and factory conditions that contributed to tragedies like the 2013 Rana Plaza collapse. Despite the proliferation of brand pledges and industry initiatives—such as the Accord on Fire and Building Safety and various living-wage commitments—the data suggests that procurement strategies remain fundamentally misaligned with these promises. The EU’s forthcoming mandatory human rights due diligence legislation adds urgency: brands that cannot demonstrate they are paying prices sufficient to support decent work face legal and reputational exposure.
What to Watch
From a market perspective, the report highlights a race to the bottom in which even brands that pay relatively more, like Fast Retailing, are still operating within a system that has seen real prices halve over two decades. The fact that the average Bangladesh-sourced price per kg is $13, well below the EU average, indicates systemic underpayment. This dynamic not only threatens workers’ rights but also creates long-term supply chain instability. As inflationary pressures mount in other areas of business, the ability of suppliers to invest in productivity, safety, and environmental compliance erodes, potentially leading to disruptions, quality issues, and a backlash from increasingly conscious consumers and investors.
Looking ahead, the report serves as a data-driven wake-up call. It quantifies what labor advocates have long argued: that the commercial terms imposed by powerful buyers leave little room for the realization of labor standards. With the EU considering stronger enforcement of living-wage benchmarks and more stringent disclosure requirements, brands may soon find that the true cost of cheap T-shirts is far higher than their import ledger suggests. The next frontier will be whether procurement departments reverse the two-decade decline in real pricing and, in doing so, transform the economics of one of the world’s largest manufacturing industries.
How we covered this story
Every story in our retail coverage is assembled from multiple primary sources, cross-referenced for factual consistency, and scored along three independent dimensions: sentiment, operational impact, and source-cluster confidence. Single-source rumors and unverifiable claims do not pass our editorial gate. When a story shows "Verified by N sources" with N≥2, the development is independently corroborated; when N=1, we mark it explicitly so readers can weigh the signal accordingly.
Impact scoring uses a 1-10 scale weighted toward regulatory, financial, and operational consequence rather than coverage volume. A topic that runs in every outlet but moves no real decisions ranks lower than a niche regulatory filing that reshapes how operators in the retail space have to behave. Read our full methodology for the scoring rubric, our glossary for term definitions, and our trends index for the longitudinal view across the beat.
| Signal on this page | What it tells you |
|---|---|
| Verified by N sources | Independent corroboration count. N≥2 is our confidence floor; N=1 is marked explicitly. |
| Impact score (1-10) | Regulatory + financial + operational weight. 8+ signals an experienced-operator action item. |
| Sentiment | Five-tier classification trained on labeled retail-specific corpora. |
| Timeline | Where applicable, the related-events sequence that contextualizes today's development. |