Bangladeshi soldiers stand at the site where a garment-factory building collapsed in 2013 in one of the worst disasters in the history of the global garment industry.

But behind those seemingly shiny shoes, or luxury dress lies a shameful secret — they may well have been made with blood, sweat and tears.

That is the shocking finding of Baptist World Aid which has today released its Ethical Fashion Guide naming and shaming some of our biggest fashion companies.

Its report found not only are some fashion brands failing to make the ethical grade, but moving deeper into the supply chain, only a third were able to trace the majority of their input suppliers like fabric mills.

The Baptist World Aid 2016 Australian Fashion report grades more than 300 major global and domestic fashion brands from A to F on things including the strength of the systems they have in place to mitigate the risk of forced labour, child labour and exploitation in their global supply chains.

The report also reveals some of the most well known apparel brands were some of the worst performers, with Seed Heritage, Victoria’s Secret, Forever 21, Dangerfield and General Pants all scoring a D or F grade.

Up-market brands including Pumpkin Patch and Oroton also scored a D.

Nine companies received an F grade and of 87 companies surveyed, six were given the A grade, including Zara owner Inditex, along with Adidas and Audrey Blue.

Top performing fashion brands include Zara (A), Cotton On Group (B+), Country Road Group (B +) and Pacific Brands (Bonds) which scored a B+.

Victoria’s Secret was awarded a D+ grade in the report. Picture: Jamie McCarthy/Getty Images

Surprisingly, retailer Kmart, renowned for cheap products, also earned a B and was praised for its move towards showing greater transparency in its supply chains.

Baptist World Aid Advocacy manager Gershon Nimbalker told news.com.au that while Australian companies had come a long way since the first report was produced in 2013, this year’s findings showed there was still cause for concern.

He said the grading system showed consumers simply couldn’t be confident that companies knew who was making their clothes and the conditions they were made under.

However, he said many companies had made significant improvements in such areas which showed producing clothes under ethical standards was not impossible.

H & M, Kmart Australia and Pacific Brands, which owns the iconic Bonds brand, have all made commendable steps in ensuring their suppliers are paid enough to live on, the report found.

“These companies show that it is possible to pay higher wages and operate profitably,” Mr Nimbalker said.

“Paying workers a living wage would be relatively painless for consumers and companies, yet it would transform the lives of millions of workers around the world.”

General Pants Co was awarded an F in the Ethical Fashion Guide.Source:Supplied

While he praised Kmart for making major inroads, Mr Nimbalker warned promoting ultra cheap clothes as bargains was not sustainable as it only increased pressures on suppliers and workers which in turn led to consumers constantly expecting cheaper prices.

Mr Nimbalker said it was great to see Australian companies making progress in these areas and for showing greater transparency in ensuring their supply chains were free of labour violations.

However he said there was no reason retailers and companies, both high end and low end, couldn’t support systems which ensured their supply chains were child labour free, and workers were paid a living wage.

He did admit that larger companies such as Zara for example which got an A, were more capable of investing in investigating suppliers, but maintained there was never any excuse for not knowing where your products came from.

“We accept there is a limit to that,” he said.

Ethical fashion ratings. Picture: Baptist World AidSource:Supplied

“And consumers must be prepared to pay more, but in reality it would probably be around 40c a shirt.

“At the end of the day we just want companies to take action and really know who all their suppliers are.”

The report comes almost three years since the 2013 Rana Plaza factory collapse in Bangladesh, which killed more than 1300 people.

The disaster which injured 2500 workers highlighted the shocking conditions workers across the developing world endure including low wages, poor conditions and exploitation.

Baptist World Aid said the anniversary should serve as a reminder that there was plenty more work to be done when it came to creating sustainable working conditions for garment workers in the developing world.

Ethical fashion ratings. Picture: Baptist World AidSource:Supplied

The report also highlighted a massive increase in companies which knew their suppliers at the final manufacturing stage, 77 per cent up from 61 per cent in 2015.

The report also praised Industrie and APG & Co, which own Saba, Sportscraft, JAG and Willow, for showing “significant improvement in tracing deeper, demonstrating that they had traced deeper into their supply chain, back to their fabric mills”.

Mr Nimbalker said the purpose of the report was ultimately to provide consumers and companies with the tools to drive change in how garment workers are treated in developing regions.

The Ethical Fashion Guidegrades almost 87 companies and 308 brands operating across the country.

They are then given an overall grade on labour rights management systems and how they have helped reduce labour rights violations.

Companies are also graded on whether they pay their staff a living wage.

The information is derived from research undertaken by Baptist World Aid Australia’s project, Behind the Barcode.

General Pants Co released a statement on the matter labelling the findings “outrageous”.

“It seems that BTB has not actually done any research or produced any actual findings, nor does it have any publically available information, to support its outrageous claims,” the statement read.

“Instead, it has apparently only emailed a questionnaire to retailers (including General Pants Group) informing them that if they do not complete that questionnaire they will be given a grading of “F” in the published report.

“BTB has stated in writing to General Pants Group that, in the absence of a response, a grading of “F” would automatically apply. General Pants Group elected not to respond to the questionnaire because it doubted the genuineness and integrity of BTB’s processes.

“BTB would also have found that there is absolutely no justification for classifying General Pants Group with an “F” in the grossly misleading and deceptive manner in which the entire survey has been conducted including the threatening nature of its compliance.”

Ethical fashion ratings. Picture: Baptist World AidSource:Supplied