If you check the labels on your clothes, you will find a very clear pattern: Bangladesh, China, Vietnam, India, Turkey, Cambodia. The textile sector has one of the most opaque and geographically concentrated global supply chains. And when we cross that concentration with the EIU Index map, the result explains a lot about the price of the clothes we buy.
Cheap clothes are not cheap because technology allows it. They are cheap because they are produced in countries where labour costs are minimal, union protection is weak and democratic institutions — which are the ones that regulate working conditions — are absent or fragile.
Bangladesh: the world's second largest garment exporter
Bangladesh accounts for 6-7% of the world's garment exports, being the second country after China. Its textile sector employs more than 4 million workers (predominantly women) and represents 85% of its export earnings. Without garment manufacturing, Bangladesh would have one of the poorest economies in the world.
The collapse of Rana Plaza in 2013 — 1,134 deaths in a garment factory building in Dhaka — exposed the conditions in which garments sold in Europe by Zara, H&M or Primark are made. More than a decade later, conditions have improved in certified factories supplying major brands, but outside that perimeter conditions remain unacceptable.
Bangladesh's EIU score is 3.81, in the authoritarian regime category. The 2024 elections were boycotted by the main opposition and declared fraudulent by international observers. The repression of textile workers on strike — who in 2023 demanded a minimum wage of 23,000 taka (~€190) per month — was documented by Human Rights Watch.
EIU 2025 — Major textile producers: Portugal 7.94 (flawed democracy ✓), Spain 7.94 (flawed democracy ✓), Italy 7.73 (flawed democracy ✓), India 7.18 (flawed democracy ✓), Peru 5.43 (hybrid ✗), Turkey 4.35 (hybrid ✗), Morocco 3.92 (authoritarian ✗), Bangladesh 3.81 (authoritarian ✗), Cambodia 3.52 (authoritarian ✗), Vietnam 2.94 (authoritarian ✗), China 2.12 (authoritarian ✗).
China: the textile giant with EIU 2.12
China produces around 35% of the world's exported garments. It is the largest producer of cotton, the largest producer of silk, the largest producer of synthetic fibres such as polyester. The entire textile supply chain — from fibre to finishing — can be completed on Chinese territory.
Its EIU is 2.12, in the authoritarian regime category. Working conditions in China's textile sector vary enormously: from SA8000-certified factories supplying European luxury brands to workshops in Xinjiang linked to the forced labour of the Uyghur minority, documented by the US and EU governments. The same 'Made in China' label can cover completely different realities.
India: the most complex case
India (EIU 7.18) is a flawed democracy and exceeds the 6.0 threshold. It is the world's second largest cotton producer and has a huge textile sector — from organic cotton in Gujarat to Benares silk or Kashmiri wool fabrics.
The Indian case is the most complex: India has free elections, a judiciary with some independence and an active civil society. But it also has textile sectors — especially in southern states such as Tamil Nadu — with documented very poor working conditions, including child labour and 'sumangali' contracts (debt bondage affecting mainly adolescents).
At Democratic Market, India's EIU score (7.18) allows inclusion, but we require manufacturers to have verifiable labour condition certifications (GOTS, SA8000, Fair Wear Foundation), not just Indian origin as a guarantee.
Portugal: the European origin that changes everything
Portugal (EIU 7.94) is the EU's main textile producer by employment. The Minho and Braga regions concentrate most of the industry. The Portuguese minimum wage (€820/month in 2025), European labour legislation, functioning trade unions and labour inspection make manufacturing conditions in Portugal radically different from those in Bangladesh or Vietnam.
The 'made in Portugal' movement in the fashion sector — Josefinas, Nuno Gama, Alexandra Moura — has built an identity of quality and traceability that fits exactly what Democratic Market is looking for. Clothes made in Portugal may have a higher price, but that price reflects decent working conditions and a verifiable democratic context.
The paradox of 'sustainable' fast fashion
Textile greenwashing is one of the most sophisticated in the consumer market. Zara has a 'Join Life' line with organic cotton. H&M has a 'Conscious' line. Primark has 'Primark Cares'. These labels certify the material content (organic cotton, recycled polyester), but not the country of manufacture or working conditions.
A GOTS organic cotton t-shirt made in Bangladesh is still a t-shirt made in an authoritarian regime with EIU 3.81. The cotton is sustainable; the political context is not. They are two different variables, and confusing them is exactly what greenwashing intends.
Democratic Market will only index clothing and textiles manufactured in countries with EIU ≥ 6.0. In practice: Portugal, Spain, Italy, India (with additional labour certification), and in the natural fibres segment: Peru (if it improves its EIU score). Brands must declare country of manufacture, not just country of design or brand.
The Fairphone of clothing: Patagonia and the frontier of the possible
Patagonia (US company, US EIU 7.85) is the clothing company closest to the standard we seek at Democratic Market. It publishes factory-level supply chain traceability, certifies working conditions with Fair Trade and repairs garments for free for decades. It does not manufacture in Portugal, but most of its manufacturers are in audited countries with verifiable SA8000 certifications.
Patagonia is the proof that transparency is possible in the textile industry. Not perfect — its supply chain is still complex — but radically more transparent than any fast fashion brand. And its composite score under democratic criteria would be significantly better than the sector average.
The EU Digital Product Passport will transform the textile sector more profoundly than any other consumer industry, precisely because textiles have the most geographically fragmented supply chain of any mass consumer product. A t-shirt can contain cotton from India (7.18 EIU), spun in Bangladesh (5.33 EIU, below threshold), woven in Turkey (4.35 EIU, below threshold), dyed in Pakistan (4.43 EIU, below threshold), sewn in Vietnam (2.97 EIU), and labeled as a product of a Netherlands-headquartered brand (9.01 EIU). When DPP becomes mandatory for textiles, the smartphone scanner will reveal that complete chain. Today, without that system, the available consumer proxy is GOTS certification or Fair Wear membership — which doesn't cover the complete chain but covers most of the most problematic steps.
The ESPR implementation timeline for textiles runs through 2025-2027, with larger brands required to comply first. In the interim, the practical democratic guidance for textile purchasing remains: GOTS certification with verified European or high-scoring democratic country production, Fair Wear Foundation member brands with published audit results, and brands like Patagonia (USA, 7.85 EIU), Fjällräven (Sweden, 9.51 EIU), and Arket (Sweden/H&M group) that publish supply chain information with more granularity than most mainstream fashion brands. The transition to DPP transparency is coming — the question is whether to wait for it or to demand it proactively through purchasing choices that reward the brands already providing it voluntarily.
This article was originally published at Democratic Market. Read the full version with additional analysis on our site.
