$6.95 Flat Rate / Free U.S. Shipping Over $100

Fast Fashion’s Dirty Secret: 23 Brands Destroying Our Planet

The fashion industry’s environmental impact has reached catastrophic levels. Behind the glossy marketing and trendy designs lies a devastating truth about fast fashion’s role in climate change, water pollution, and environmental degradation.

These household names, which collectively produce over 20 billion garments annually, continue to prioritize profit over planetary health. From toxic dyes polluting waterways to synthetic materials shedding microplastics, the environmental cost of cheap clothing extends far beyond the price tag. While some brands are implementing changes, most are failing to meet their goals.

Other brands have offered no plans to improve. 

If you care about our world – these are the clothing brands you should stay away from – at least for now. 

Shein

shein logo
Dick Thomas Johnson – Flickr

Shein, considered the biggest polluter in fast fashion, nearly doubled its carbon emissions between 2022 and 2023. Their emissions rose twice as fast as revenue. Their heavy reliance on air shipping and synthetic materials is particularly damaging, with 76% of their fabrics being polyester and only 6% recycled.

They have set a goal to reduce their emissions by 25% by 2030. By 2050, they would like to achieve a net-zero emissions. 

H&M

h&m logo
Wikimedia

H&M produced 3 billion garments in 2019 alone, making it another major polluter in fashion. Despite claiming 84% of products use sustainable materials, only 23% of their materials are actually recycled, and their sustainability claims have been called misleading.

Their net emissions of greenhouse gases increased by 18% in 2020, even during reduced COVID-19 production.

Zara

zara logo
Wikimedia

Zara operates one of the largest fast fashion operations globally, producing approximately 450 million garments annually and releasing 500 new designs weekly, contributing massively to textile waste and environmental degradation. Despite sustainability promises, they failed to meet their 2020 commitment to remove hazardous chemicals from their supply chain, and there’s no evidence they’re on track to meet greenhouse gas reduction targets.

While they claim to be moving toward sustainability with their “Join Life” program, this represents only a portion of their production, and their business model remains fundamentally unsustainable with rapid turnover rates that promote excessive consumption[3]. Their labor conditions receive “Not Good Enough” ratings, with little progress on ensuring living wages across their supply chain despite massive profit margins.

Forever 21

forever 21 logo on storefront
Wikimedia

Forever 21’s fast fashion model produces massive textile waste, with evidence showing they overproduce clothing by 30-40% that often ends up in landfills. The brand receives “Very Poor” environmental ratings, using minimal eco-friendly materials with no meaningful policies on climate impact, biodiversity protection, or chemical reduction in their supply chain.

Labor investigations revealed they paid workers illegally low wages in Los Angeles factories, with one dress priced at $24.90 requiring at least $30.43 to ensure minimum wage compliance, while the brand continues to ignore living wage requirements and has failed to sign the Bangladesh Accord on worker safety.

Uniqlo

logo uniqlo
Wikimedia

Uniqlo’s environmental impact remains concerning as they continue to operate on a fast fashion model promoting disposable clothing, with minimal use of eco-friendly materials and no clear progress toward their emission reduction targets. The brand owes Indonesian garment workers $5.5 million in unpaid severance pay and shows no evidence of ensuring living wages across their supply chain, while U.S. authorities blocked their shipments due to suspicions of forced labor in the Xinjiang region.

Despite implementing some initiatives like clothing recycling and repair programs, their overall sustainability score is just 36/100, with heavy reliance on cheap synthetic materials and insufficient evidence of meaningful environmental progress across their global operations.

Boohoo

boohoo brand logo
Boohoo

Boohoo reported significant emission increases in both purchased goods and upstream transportation between 2019 and 2021. Their emissions reduction target of 42% by 2030 falls short of what’s needed to keep global warming below 1.5°C.

The company lacks clear plans for renewable energy transition and continues to rely heavily on environmentally harmful transportation methods. A 2023 BBC investigation found the brand forced suppliers to cut prices after deals were made and forced workers to work excessive overtime hours. 

Victoria’s Secret

victorias secret storefront
Wikimedia

Victoria’s Secret has faced major ethical and environmental concerns, with consistently poor ratings on annual Ethical Fashion Reports and no evidence of meaningful greenhouse gas reduction targets or eco-friendly materials in their collections.

The brand was involved in a major labor scandal where 1,388 workers were denied $8.5 million in legally owed compensation after a factory closure in Thailand. Despite making commitments to sustainable forestry practices, their environmental initiatives appear largely defensive and reactive to activist pressure, while their supply chain continues to lack transparency about worker conditions and environmental impact.

ASOS

asos logo
ASOS – Facebook

ASOS produces over 7,000 new styles weekly, contributing to excessive textile waste. Their fast fashion model relies heavily on synthetic materials, with over 80% of their products containing non-biodegradable materials.

The company’s carbon emissions increased by 13% between 2020-2022 despite promises of reduction. They have also faced greenwashing investigations and they have also failed to ensure employees are paid fair wages.

Fashion Nova

fashion nova
Fashion Nova – Facebook

Fashion Nova operates on an ultra-fast fashion model, releasing over 1,000 new products weekly while paying workers illegally low wages – as little as $2.77 per hour in Los Angeles factories. The brand is using minimal eco-friendly materials and showing no evidence of reducing carbon emissions or hazardous chemicals in their supply chain.

Federal investigations uncovered $3.8 million in wage theft from hundreds of workers, with 94% of back wages still unpaid, while the company continues to deny responsibility for labor exploitation in their manufacturing facilities.

Primark

primark store front
Wikipedia

Primark operates on a fast fashion model that relies on overproducing mass quantities of cheap garments, contributing significantly to textile waste and environmental degradation worldwide. Despite commitments to sustainability, they’ve failed to meet targets for eliminating hazardous chemicals, and while they use some recycled materials, their business model inherently contradicts responsible fashion practices.

The brand is not doing well for environmental impact, labor conditions, or animal welfare categories. While they are making changes, there is still inadequate evidence they’re on track to meet their greenhouse gas reduction targets. Though they claim 66% of clothes are made from recycled or sustainable materials, their rapid expansion and continued focus on disposable fashion undermines any meaningful environmental progress.

Nasty Gal

nasty gal
Nasty Gal – Facebook

Nasty Gal operates on an unsustainable fast fashion model, with only a tiny fraction of materials being eco-friendly and no meaningful action to reduce hazardous chemicals or implement water reduction initiatives. The brand reportedly pays workers well below a livable wage per hour in some facilities, and lacks transparency about its supply chain practices.

Despite claims of sustainability through small initiatives like their “All Things Considered” collection, the vast majority of their production uses environmentally harmful materials, while their parent company Boohoo faces ongoing investigations for modern slavery and worker exploitation.

Cider

cider clothing
Cider

Cider operates on an unsustainable fast fashion model, receiving a “Very Poor” environmental rating with most products made from harmful synthetic materials like virgin polyester and spandex. Despite claims of “smart fashion,” they continue weekly product drops and trend-based marketing that promotes overconsumption, while their recycled collection represents only a tiny fraction of production and still contains harmful synthetic blends.

The brand lacks transparency about hazardous chemicals, has no meaningful waste management policies, and their claims about biodegradable packaging have been disputed by EU reports.

Revolve

revolve clothing
Revolve – Youtube

Despite launching sustainability initiatives like Tularosa Green, Revolve receives “Very Poor” ratings for environmental impact with minimal use of eco-friendly materials and no evidence of meaningful action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in their supply chain. The brand fails to ensure living wages for workers, and none of their supply chain is certified by crucial labor standards that protect worker safety and rights.

While they claim to promote sustainability through initiatives like their “Sustainable Store” their business model continues to promote overconsumption through influencer marketing and events, while using harmful animal products without proper welfare policies or traceability. The also have an estimated 50-60% return rate on their items, adding to additional emissions issues. 

American Eagle

american eagle
Wikimedia

Despite setting environmental targets, American Eagle takes minimal meaningful action to reduce water use or protect biodiversity in their supply chain. The brand receives “Not Good Enough” ratings across environmental impact categories, with no evidence they’re on track to meet their greenhouse gas reduction targets.

Though they use some recycled materials and have implemented recycling programs, their fast fashion business model remains inherently unsustainable, while their labor practices have been linked to poor factory conditions and their animal welfare policies lack proper verification.

Missguided

missguided
Missguided – Facebook

Missguided operates as an ultra-fast fashion brand, releasing up to 1,000 new products weekly, contributing significantly to textile waste and overconsumption. The company receives “Very Poor” environmental ratings, with minimal use of eco-friendly materials and no transparency about their environmental policies or emissions targets.

Their unethical practices extend to labor issues, with reports of sourcing from factories paying illegal wages, and they’ve even been caught selling real cat fur marketed as faux fur. The brand scored zero out of 150 points in the 2024 Fashion Accountability Report for factors including transparency and environmental justice.

Urban Outfitters

urban outfitters
Wikipedia

Urban Outfitters receives “Not Good Enough” ratings across environmental impact, labor conditions, and animal welfare, with only 10% of their raw materials being responsibly sourced despite promises of improvement. Their fast fashion model promotes excessive consumption and waste, contributing significantly to textile pollution with minimal action to reduce hazardous chemicals or carbon emissions in their supply chain.

Though they’ve implemented some sustainability initiatives like Urban Renewal and recycling programs, these represent a tiny fraction of their overall environmental impact, while their core business model continues to promote disposable fashion and unsustainable practices.

Pretty Little Thing

pretty-little-thing
Pretty Little Thing – Pinterest

Pretty Little Thing operates on an unsustainable fast fashion model with minimal eco-friendly materials and no meaningful environmental initiatives. Their “Ready For The Future” collection is merely greenwashing, as they continue to add thousands of new items weekly using harmful materials.

The brand receives “Not Good Enough” environmental ratings and lacks transparency about factory conditions while failing to ensure living wages in their supply chain.

Stradivarius

stradivarius
Wikipedia

Despite claims of sustainability initiatives, Stradivarius receives negative ratings across environmental impact, labor conditions, and animal welfare categories. The brand uses minimal eco-friendly materials and shows no evidence of reducing textile waste in manufacturing, while failing to meet its greenhouse gas emission reduction targets.

Though owned by Inditex, which promises 100% lower-impact fibers by 2030, Stradivarius continues to operate on a fast fashion model that produces excessive waste and environmental damage. The company also fails to ensure living wages for workers in its supply chain and offers limited size inclusivity, while using animal products without adequate sourcing transparency.

Zaful

zaful
Zaful – Facebook

Zaful operates as an ultra-fast fashion brand with virtually no transparency about their environmental practices or supply chain impacts. The company has failed to provide any substantial evidence of sustainable practices beyond vague claims and a minimal “eco-friendly” line consisting of just three swimsuits.

Their business model promotes excessive consumption with extremely low prices ($1-5 items) and rapid production cycles, contributing significantly to textile waste and pollution. Despite hosting sustainability-themed events, Zaful has received the lowest possible environmental ratings from independent assessors and has implemented no meaningful initiatives to reduce their carbon footprint, water usage, or toxic chemical use.

Guess

guess storefront
Wikimedia

Despite their sustainability claims, GUESS still has significant environmental concerns. While they’ve reduced direct emissions by 50%, their more impactful Scope 3 emissions (supply chain) are only targeted for a 30% reduction by 2030.

Though they’ve launched eco-friendly initiatives like their GUESS ECO line, these represent just a fraction of their total production, with a goal of only 75% of denim being eco-friendly by 2030. Their current packaging and production methods remain largely unsustainable, with plans for fully recycled and recyclable packaging not set to be implemented until 2030.

Rip Curl

rip curl storefront
Wikimedia

Rip Curl lacks meaningful action on hazardous chemicals and water reduction initiatives, with poor environmental ratings overall. While they use some eco-friendly materials, only 66% of their apparel contains preferred fibers, and their wetsuit production remains largely unsustainable with just 25% using responsibly sourced materials. Despite becoming B Corp certified, their environmental initiatives and animal welfare practices remain inadequate for meaningful ecological impact.

Mango

mango clothing
Mango – Facebook

Mango has failed to implement meaningful initiatives to reduce carbon emissions, water usage, or hazardous chemicals in their supply chain. The brand contributes significantly to textile waste, with their clothing often ending up in landfills, and they continue to use environmentally harmful materials like polyurethane in their products. Despite claims of sustainability, Mango lacks transparency about their environmental practices, receiving poor ratings from independent ethical assessment organizations.

Their production processes rely heavily on fossil fuels and their supply chain contributes to deforestation and environmental degradation in countries like Cambodia. While they use some eco-friendly materials like organic cotton, this represents only a small portion of their overall environmental impact, which remains significantly negative.

Athleta

athleta
Athleta

Athleta, a GAP owned brand, synthetic material usage contributes to microplastic pollution. Their production methods consume excessive water resources. The company has made limited progress in reducing their environmental impact. They also tested positive for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) which is a harmful chemical. 

Is Vegan Leather Better Than Real Leather? 

bags made with mushroom leather
Depositphotos

If you are on a journey to more ethical shopping, leather may be one of the first changes you make. Learn more about whether real leather or vegan leather is better for the environment. The answer is not so simple! 

Avoiding Microplastics That Can Negatively Affect Your Body

microplastics in sand on the beach
Depositphotos

Microplastics seem to be everywhere these days! From our fast fashion to plastic food containers and packaging, the chance of microplastics getting into your body is high. Learn more about how to avoid microplastics and ways to reduce them from your body.

Leave a Comment

0
    0
    Your Cart
    Your cart is emptyReturn to Shop