Fast fashion facts: we need to stop this dangerous system that produces polyester trousers at bargain costs, turning them from design to doorstep in less than two weeks.
The fact that someone, somewhere, bears the real cost of fast fashion is, regrettably, not new. Add to that the environmental damage caused by mass-produced, poisonous plastic clothing.
What are the worst fast-fashion brands to stay away from then?
We have compiled a list of the best fast fashion brands to stay away from, the ones who cause just as much controversy and division as they offer fashionable streetwear at a discount.
The Full List Of Fast Fashion Brands To Avoid
1. Shein
About Shein
Shein is not particularly shiny.
One of the most problematic fashion companies of the current period is ultra-fast fashion, which is infamous for being the top perpetrator of the most unethical and unsustainable fashion practices today.
More than 10,000 new styles are released every day, their rapid production gets clothing from an idea to your door in as little as THREE days, and their plastic pillaging emits as much CO2 as 180 coal-burning power plants.
Shein transformed from an obscure low-cost Chinese wedding and womenswear marketplace in a matter of years to become a fashion powerhouse with a $100 billion dollar net worth and more than 150 million customers, particularly within the Gen Z social media community.
Shein’s Unethical & Unsustainable Practices
Materials:
Not to mention the controversy surrounding their cotton, which is purportedly produced via forced labor by Uyghurs in China, nearly 70% of Shein’s clothing is composed of virgin polyester derived from fossil fuels.
Although Shein pledged in a recent Sustainability Report to use recycled materials, man-made cellulosics, and traceable cotton, the company has not yet disclosed how they plan to accomplish this or will monitor their progress.
Supply Chain & Labor Practices:
Shein is notorious for its alleged slave labor and exploitative labor practices due to its extensive network of unofficial Chinese factories; nevertheless, the brand is purportedly making efforts to clear its past.
They’ve implemented a Supplier Code of Conduct, Responsible Sourcing Program, Chemical and Product Safety Code, and thousands of factory audits—which discovered 80% of their supply chain requires immediate action, with no evidence of subsequent improvement—despite repeated abuses, shady apologies, and no remediation.
Unsustainable Practices:
Over a million fashion styles are launched annually, virgin plastic packaging, quick international shipping, toxic clothing rejected by Canada’s health ministry, zero circularity or textile waste initiatives, and little tracking of their overall carbon and water footprint are all promoted by the incredibly ungreen Shein.
The company acknowledged that its carbon emissions rose by an astounding 52% in 2022, solidifying their ranking as one of the least environmentally friendly fast fashion companies.
Controversies:
Three credible journalistic exposés (here, here, and here) disguising themselves as workers exposed the appalling conditions of Shein manufacturing suppliers between November 2021 and October 2022.
While quick fashion companies are unfortunately not new to the practice of design theft, Shein takes it a step further. They are being accused of organized crime and are facing legal action to demonstrate that they developed an algorithm to steal designs on a regular basis.
2. Zara
About Zara
One of the most infamous fast fashion retailers to stay away from is Zara, as they contributed to the creation of the unattractive characteristics that define the quick fashion industry. The phrase “fast fashion” was originally created to characterize the manner in which this particular firm could sell clothes at reasonable costs after taking them from the design studio to the storefront in less than two weeks.
The parent company of Zara is the sixth largest apparel company globally. In 2022, Zara’s revenues surpassed $35 billion, with a further 23% growth.
Many people view Zara as a global symbol of runway style transformed into reasonably priced luxury, thanks to celebrities like Selena Gomez and Kate Middleton who don their chic attire.
Zara’s Unethical & Unsustainable Practices
Materials:
By 2020, Zara promised to remove all dangerous substances from its apparel. There is no proof that this has been fulfilled.
They introduced their sustainable line, “Join Life,” in 2016 and declared in 2019 that all of their items would be included by 2025. At the moment, only 5% of their entire merchandise is eco-line, and there is no way to track development.
They also utilize exotic animal materials, wool, down, leather, and other materials without tracking their origins.
Supply Chain & Labor Practices:
Zara’s supply lines are located in Brazil, China, and Turkey, and there have been several incidents involving these countries that show the company does not give its garment workers a decent wage or safe working conditions.
It is obvious that Inditex, the parent business, prohibits child or forced labor, pays fairly, and maintains safe working conditions in its Code of Conduct for Manufacturers and Suppliers; yet, Zara’s complete lack of global supplier disclosure and openness leads us to believe that they are “skirting” this code.
Unsustainable Practices:
Zara has set ambitious sustainability targets without a comprehensive action plan or traceable milestones, such as achieving 100% renewable energy by 2022, zero single-use plastic by 2023, 100% sustainable fabrics by 2025, and zero net emissions by 2040. Greetings, greenwashing.
The pre-owned “Closing the Loop” program from Zara is but a drop in the ocean compared to the 450–800 million garments they produce annually in terms of textile waste.
Controversies:
Recently, the hashtag #BoycottZara gained traction amid international demonstrations and conversations on fashion, ethics, activism, and genocide. Zara was accused of making fun of the Palestinian crisis through an upsetting advertising campaign.
Zara participated in the biggest wage theft in history, which happened during the COVID-19 pandemic when companies refused to pay manufacturers for goods that were already manufactured, causing supply chains to stop.
At Zara’s Sao Paulo factory, the Brazilian labor ministry discovered slave-like conditions and juvenile garment workers that it had to “rescue.” Zara then proceeded to operate unethically, and credible fashion advocacy sources claim that Zara still uses Uyghur slave labor.
3. Temu
About Temu
Temu has swiftly become the largest rival for super-fast fashion powerhouses like Shein, thanks to its gamified shopping experience and ridiculously low costs on virgin plastic garments, toys, creative supplies, home décor, electronics, and SO much more.
Temu says it can save expenses by cutting out the middlemen and selling products straight to customers, eliminating the need for a broker, wholesaler, distributor, or retailer. Commissions on visitor traffic are how they make money, and they bill manufacturing suppliers for this profit.
Temu is a privately held corporation, hence no information regarding business ethics OR procedures is made available to the public.
Temu’s Unethical & Unsustainable Practices
Materials:
Temu offers enormous quantities of low-quality electronics, plastic trinkets, and clothing made of synthetic textiles that shed microplastic; each item is individually wrapped in plastic, sometimes more than once. Less than 1% of all of their product offerings are sustainable.
Supply Chain & Labor Practices:
It’s difficult to judge a company’s ethics when it’s as transparent as a stone wall, but because Temu’s parent company was recently accused of pushing workers to put in excessive overtime, which resulted in worker deaths, we can only imagine appalling workplace conditions.
Additionally, US lawmakers alerted customers to the possibility that some products available on the Temu app are made in China using forced labor by Uyghurs.
Unsustainable Practices:
Temu does not provide a portion of its income to sustainability projects; customers pay for their orders at the checkout, despite evidence that they do, in fact, plant a tree for each one.
The ubiquitous plastic brand makes no mention whatsoever of any efforts to reduce carbon emissions, offset costs, use less resources during production, or restrict the use of dangerous components.
Controversies:
De minimis regulations exempt goods valued under $800 from inspection and customs when they are imported into the US. This implies that dangerous components can easily evade inspection in the 600,000 Temu packages that are shipped to the US each day.
Paradoxically, Temu is presently being sued by Shein’s design thieves for intellectual property violations. Since then, Temu has retaliated with a lawsuit, claiming that Shein uses their market dominance to use coercion akin to the mafia to force exclusive deals with clothing manufacturers, in violation of US antitrust laws.
4. Primark
About Primark
Despite having no internet sales and an annual revenue of $9.5 billion, Primark, an Irish company, continues to be a remarkable unicorn in the generally declining brick-and-mortar apparel industry.
Primark, which has more than 400 locations across more than fifteen countries, is one of the most well-liked shopping places in the world because of its enormous inventory, unbelievable deals, frequent sales, and constant turnover—making it the antithesis of fast fashion.
Primark has made bold “commitments” to extend the life of clothing, preserve the environment, and enhance people’s lives. Despite this, the company still runs on a business model that is fundamentally harmful to both people and the environment.
Forget about their environmental think tanks and worker rights coalitions; how about we just stop making virgin plastic and give workers a living wage?
Primark’s Unethical & Unsustainable Practices
Materials:
While 55% of Primark’s clothing is made from recycled or more sustainably sourced fabrics, many of the items only include a pitiful amount of sustainable fibers. By 2030, their Primark Cares sustainable badge is expected to cover 100% of their product line, but we doubt that they have a plan in place to get there.
Despite the fact that they have established repair workshops and recycling bins around the UK and Europe, we have no idea what they do with textile waste or deadstock. They introduced a circular product capsule collection in 2023, which made up a very small portion of their whole product line.
Supply Chain & Labor Practices:
While Primark periodically conducts surprise audits through SA8000 and releases information about all Tier 1 factories, tier 2 and tier 3 suppliers are still unaccounted for.
Primark has a history of labor controversies, while being a supporter of the Cotton Pledge, a signatory to the Bangladesh Accord on Fire and Building Safety, and a member of the Ethical Trading Initiative.
Despite being members of the Leather Working Group, they also utilize wool and leather that are not sourced ethically or that cannot be tracked back to the original producers.
Unsustainable Practices:
To communicate its success and ethical and sustainable (but undated) goals, Primark has released two annual reports. We’re not sure, though, if Primark is actually lessening its environmental effect until they provide receipts proving they’re hitting goals or reducing textile waste (like they did with their recent clothes recycling initiative).
Primark’s scope 3 emissions have climbed by 10% over the previous three years, despite the fact that they assist suppliers in reducing chemical use and investing in cleaner power. They have not yet disclosed their overall GHG emissions or energy demand.
Controversies:
At the time of the Rana Plaza garment factory’s collapse in 2013, Primark was one of the major brands produced there. In addition, they have been nabbed for stealing wages during the pandemic, using underage labor, and hiding SOS notes—along with a human bone—in clothes.
They were most recently sued in the Netherlands for overtly deceptive environmental claims in their promotional materials and for engaging in greenwashing.
5. H&M
About H&M
Another well-known quick fashion retailer to stay away from is the Swedish company H&M.
Even if the company has invested over $100 million in sustainability (marketing?) initiatives, it’s more likely that the brand is chasing this “trend” than making genuine environmental efforts.
With over 4,500 locations, 100,000 employees, and a turnover of $22.6 billion in 2023, the company operates in a staggering 75 different countries. They consistently sell well over 7,000 trendy things for men, women, children, beauty care, and the home on their website.
Despite attempts to pass off its controversial past as greenwashing, H&M is the exact opposite of slow fashion firms that people and the environment respect due to its dubious ethics, scant use of sustainable materials, and microtrend business strategy.
H&M’s Unethical & Unsustainable Practices
Materials:
Although the brand states that by 2030, all of its fibers will be recycled or sourced responsibly, and by the end of 2025, thirty percent of its fibers will be recycled, the majority of its products still contain virgin plastics like polyester, wool, leather, and conventional cotton, rayon, and polyamide.
Supply Chain & Labor Practices:
Throughout the past 10 plus years, H&M has been held accountable for a number of labor disasters, including the Rana Plaza tragedy (where H&M was also being sewn), a factory collapse in Cambodia, workers passing out often at factories, Chinese forced labor, and child labor in Burma.
In an effort to guarantee fair wages by 2030, they have joined the Fair Labour Association (FLA) and are currently working to clean up their supply chains. Which begs the question, why not now, with billions of dollars in annual profits? or the day before? or the previous year? or ten years prior…?
As a matter of fact, they broke their promise to pay 850,000 workers a livable salary by 2018.
Unsustainable Practices:
Even though the H&M Foundation has been around for more than ten years, supporting projects that tackle environmental and social issues in the fashion industry, these are small-scale projects that don’t really affect much.
The company has already faced backlash for engaging in the highly shady practice of “damaging out” merchandise—clothing that could have been destroyed or donated—in order to avoid paying inventory taxes and to cease harming the brand’s reputation.
H&M offers no proof that it will fulfill the science-based aim of reducing full-scope greenhouse gas emissions.
Controversies:
A Cambodian factory collapse, advertising that brazenly sexualize children, racist merchandise, greenwashing busts, harassment of female garment workers, a brand boycott spanning China, and more—H&M has seen its fair share of scandals unworthy of our respect or our hard-earned money.
6. Free People
About Free People
Free People is still among the worst fast fashion brands, despite its exquisitely designed items being offered for high costs.
Under the retail behemoth URBN, it operates as a label and a store in more than 1400 locations worldwide. Notable sibling brands include the likes of Urban Outfitters and Anthropologie.
As seen by its countercultural past and its more recent “sustainable” Care FP line, Free People is anything but humane or environmentally friendly.
Free People’s Unethical & Unsustainable Practices
Materials:
Despite their restricted, untraceable, and uncertified Care FP label, Free People wants us to believe that they care about the environment, even if the majority of their 3000 sold items—especially their Movement yoga line—are still made of virgin nylon and polyester.
Customers can search for “artisanally made,” “responsible materials,” “reusable products,” and “vintage clothing and accessories” on their website, which is a greenwashing tactic given that these categories make up very little of what they sell.
Supply Chain & Labor Practices:
With a complex network of factories spread across 22 nations, Free People withholds audits and factory names from the public.
They also make ludicrous statements, such as promising to prevent ALL US shelter animals from being put to death or suggesting that a garment from their $200-plus Bali Collection isn’t completely exploitative and appropriated.
Unsustainable Practices:
Free People doesn’t offer any proof that they minimize synthetic petroleum production, avoid deforestation, use less dangerous chemicals, use renewable energy, or use less water throughout their extensive worldwide supply chain.
They may use “circularity” often in their online promotion, but they still make THAT much apparel out of virgin plastic, making carbon offsetting pointless.
Controversies:
Ironically, Free People doesn’t appear to promote free people in the face of issues like Rana Plaza, wage theft, sweatshop factories in Los Angeles, and alleged child labor.
Together with a variety of culturally inappropriate and extremely insensitive products like false dreadlocks and Native American headdresses offered for absurdly high rates, they’ve also had a number of racial profiling scandals for which celebrities have even spoken out against the brand.
7. Urban Outfitters
About Urban Outfitters
Urban Outfitters, the sibling brand of Free People, has been a well-known American source of “cool” for over thirty years. It has set trends, broken barriers, and catered to the 16–25 age group with hipster merchandise.
Their stunning number of ethical scandals and environmental no-nos ranks them at the top of the list of clothing brands to avoid, even if their premium costs are comparable to those of ethical fashion labels.
Even though the company has just begun to release annual impact reports, UO is not doing enough to improve their transparency, lower their carbon footprint, guarantee safe and fair working conditions, or cut down on the amount of textile, chemical, and water waste that occurs—especially considering that their 600+ stores generate $5 billion in revenue annually.
Urban Outfitters’ Unethical & Unsustainable Practices
Materials:
UO acknowledges that just 10% of the raw materials they source directly are sourced ethically, although they offer no proof for this claim.
Their new KOTO brand of clothing claims to employ recycled cotton, recycled polyester, and ethically sourced US cotton; however, we are unable to verify the veracity of these claims in the absence of certifications or transparency. Their BDG jeans line is now more loosely “sustainably made.”
With its Urban Renewal range, the firm pioneered push upcycling long before it was fashionable.
Supply Chain & Labor Practices:
They don’t disclose the location of their clothing’s manufacturing, nor does parent firm URBN’s Impact Report, despite a lengthy series of labor issues, even though they both make claims about “improving supply chain transparency” and factory audits.
Unsustainable Practices:
In order to hide the environmental violations connected to the mass manufacture of clothing made primarily of polyester and conventional cotton, the company is guilty of hardline marketing greenwashing.
While UO uses a small amount of renewable energy for direct operations, no significant steps are being taken to reduce or eliminate the use of toxic chemicals, water pollution, or greenhouse gas emissions. They obliquely pledge to set science-based benchmarks (nevermind meeting them!) by 2025 in their 2021–2022 Impact Report.
Controversies:
It may be argued that UO promotes scandals since “no press is bad press.” They are responsible for or connected to the Rana Plaza tragedy, COVID wage theft, child labor allegations, sweatshop labor in California, dangerously poisonous jewelry, destroying unsold goods, and continuous design theft.
8. ASOS
About ASOS
ASOS: more akin to a warning on the perils of rapid fashion.
A continually rotating variety of 85,000 products, including 5,000 newly added shoes, cosmetics, gowns, and more every week, plus relentless online marketing have allowed the British online marketplace to entice a whopping 26 million shoppers annually, most of whom are Gen Zers.
Though it hasn’t yet fulfilled its promises, ASOS, which sells over 850 labels in addition to its own apparel lines, created its Fashion With Integrity approach because it recognizes that business has a duty to both people and the environment.
ASOS’ Unethical & Unsustainable Practices
Materials:
Even their lower-impact choices are questionable at best, as evidenced by the removal of its Responsible Edit collection in 2022 due to greenwashing. There is also no proof that ASOS uses fewer chemicals or lowers textile waste during manufacture.
Although they do offer a circular collection consisting of reclaimed materials, it only makes up 1 percent of their market.
Supply Chain & Labor Practices:
Poor working conditions, including below-living wages, deducted pay for coming late, surveillance monitoring, and unlawful terminations, were discovered during a Buzzfeed investigation. This was followed by an investigation by the BBC on the exploitation of temporary workers AND child labor.
If that wasn’t awful enough, ASOS was accused of operating “satanic mills” in 2019 after 45 different emergency calls to their UK facility near Grimethorpe prompted claims.
In an effort to improve labor standards throughout their worldwide supply networks, they have officially signed the worldwide Framework Agreement. Their goal is to have 100% of the supply chains for all ASOS brand products fully traceable at every level. Please give me a living pay now.
Unsustainable Practices:
Annual impact reports are released by ASOS in an effort to monitor their development and offer some transparency.
By 2030, they must achieve net zero and increase product circularity, but considering the state of the world today, that seems lofty. In addition, they intend to ensure that ASOS brand products are manufactured with recycled and sustainable materials, as well as to cut transportation emissions by 58% and Scope 1 and 2 carbon emissions by 87% (2018 baseline).
Controversies:
Some of their less contentious difficulties include cultural appropriation, fat shaming, quality control problems, and deceptive marketing; their more significant ones involve child labor and “satanic mills.” Oh no.
9. Cider
About Cider
Isn’t it awful when cheap fast fashion businesses produce items that are simultaneously incredibly adorable and endearing?
Let me introduce Cider, a Hong Kong-based company that has become a major player in the online fashion sector by using clever social media marketing and adorable viral clothing to change the way people shop today.
Similar to Shein, Cider is a direct-from-factory online store that lists clothing in tiny weekly batches that are tailored to particular emotions and events. Cider claims to know exactly where demand is because to user data and social media algorithms, which helps them keep costs down and minimize textile waste.
Cider’s Unethical & Unsustainable Practices
Materials:
The majority of Cider’s textiles are hazardous materials like viscose, rayon, nylon, and virgin polyester, all of which are derived from petroleum derived from fossil fuels and add to the microplastics problem.
There are just about forty items out of thousands in their Recycled Cider Collection, and the majority only include 30% recycled polyester. However, they do provide products created with recycled materials certified by the Global Recycled Standard (GRS).
They are a vegan brand except from wool, even if their wool isn’t cruelty-free.
Supply Chain & Labor Practices:
Fortunately, Cider has SMETA memberships and BSCI certifications, although its overly greenwashed “sustainability” page only shows a snapshot of three factories.
Nevertheless, considering that their factories are all situated in the Guangzhou region, which is infamous for having abusive factories, we lack a clear understanding of their value chain and manufacturing process.
Unsustainable Practices:
Cider doesn’t release an annual sustainability report, thus it’s unclear what their production impact and carbon footprint are.
They are also charged with dropshipping, which is the reverse of fashion on demand, and they don’t try to lessen the environmental effect of sending these products all over the world.
Controversies:
Even though the EU recently outlawed Cider’s oxo-biodegradable shipping pouches, the company still promotes them as environmentally friendly. An EU commission member called the marketing of this kind of plastic as eco-friendly “ridiculous.”
