As the demand for fashion grows, so does the need for brands to be more transparent about their sustainability efforts and ethical practices. Consumers today are increasingly concerned about how the clothes they purchase impact the planet, the people who make them, and the animals involved in their production. In this article, we evaluate five popular fashion brands—Aerie, Princess Polly, Edikted, Fashion Nova, and Charlotte Russe—based on their environmental practices, labor conditions, and animal welfare standards.

Aerie, owned by AEO Corp, has made strides in promoting body positivity and inclusivity. However, its sustainability efforts remain underwhelming. With a **Planet rating of 3/5**, Aerie’s use of low-impact materials is limited, and there’s little evidence that the brand is taking meaningful action to reduce water use or tackle microplastic pollution. Moreover, Aerie’s commitment to biodiversity protection in its supply chain is lacking.

When it comes to **labor practices**, Aerie's score is **2/5**, indicating significant shortcomings. The brand doesn't ensure its workers are paid a living wage, and its supply chain lacks certification for crucial labor standards. Aerie also has not made sufficient progress in addressing human rights concerns, particularly regarding cotton sourced from Xinjiang, China, a region associated with forced labor.

As a brand primarily using non-animal-derived materials, Aerie has been rated **not applicable** in terms of animal welfare. Overall, Aerie’s performance is considered **"Not Good Enough,"** reflecting the brand’s failure to meet expectations in both environmental and labor practices.

Princess Polly, an Australian fashion brand, has been lauded for its efforts to reduce its carbon footprint and improve sustainability in its products. The brand has set ambitious targets, such as reducing Scope 1 and Scope 2 greenhouse gas emissions by 42% by 2030 and Scope 3 emissions by 52% per unit sold by 2030. It also sources 100% renewable electricity, which is a step in the right direction.

For **labor practices**, Princess Polly falls into the **"Not Good Enough"** category, as it has not provided sufficient transparency regarding workers’ rights, including wages and safety. The brand does, however, have an animal welfare policy and is a **Fur-Free Retailer**, ensuring that animal welfare is considered in its product sourcing.

Princess Polly’s commitment to circularity is evident through initiatives like upcycled collections and offering resources for consumers to care for their garments. However, it still has a long way to go to ensure that its environmental footprint is minimized and workers are treated fairly.

Edikted, a fast-fashion brand popular among Gen Z, has earned a **"Very Poor"** rating in both **environmental and labor practices**. The brand’s environmental impact is significant, with limited efforts to address carbon emissions, hazardous chemicals, and textile waste. It heavily relies on unsustainable fast fashion, producing a large volume of trend-driven items that change frequently, further contributing to the negative environmental toll.

On the **labor front**, Edikted also fares poorly. There’s no evidence of a Code of Conduct for workers, no transparency around its supply chain, and no indication that workers are paid living wages. Furthermore, the brand lacks efforts to address forced labor risks in its supply chain. With an overall rating of **"We Avoid"**, Edikted remains one of the more concerning brands in terms of sustainability and ethics.

Fashion Nova is a well-known brand in the fast-fashion world, but its sustainability and ethical practices leave much to be desired. With a **Planet rating of 1/5**, Fashion Nova uses very few eco-friendly materials, and there’s no evidence of meaningful efforts to reduce its carbon emissions or chemical waste. The brand’s business model relies on rapid production cycles and cheap labor, further exacerbating its environmental footprint.

Fashion Nova's **labor practices** are equally troubling, earning it a **1/5** rating. The brand has no certification from labor standards ensuring worker health and safety, and it does not guarantee that workers in its supply chain are paid living wages. With no adequate safeguards for labor conditions and no response to COVID-19-related worker issues, Fashion Nova's ethics are highly questionable.

In terms of **animal welfare**, the brand uses leather and wool but does not provide sufficient information on its efforts to minimize animal suffering. The overall rating of **"We Avoid"** reflects its lack of transparency and its disregard for sustainability and workers’ rights.

Charlotte Russe, owned by YM Inc., also earns a **"We Avoid"** rating for its sustainability and ethical practices. The brand scores poorly across all three categories: **Planet**, **People**, and **Animals**, each earning a **1/5** rating. Charlotte Russe has failed to provide transparency regarding its environmental impact, labor conditions, and animal welfare policies. There is no evidence that it uses eco-friendly materials or reduces waste, and its supply chain does not ensure fair wages or worker safety.

Charlotte Russe has no policies in place to protect animals, and its practices are considered harmful to both people and the planet. The brand’s overall lack of transparency and accountability makes it one of the worst performers in terms of sustainability.

The sustainability and ethics of brands like Aerie, Princess Polly, Edikted, Fashion Nova, and Charlotte Russe highlight the challenges of navigating the fashion industry’s impact on the environment and workers. While some brands are making efforts, such as Princess Polly with its renewable energy use and Aerie’s marketing focus on body positivity, they still have a long way to go in terms of environmental impact and worker rights. Others, like Edikted and Fashion Nova, are deeply entrenched in unsustainable, fast-fashion practices that contribute to environmental degradation and labor exploitation.

Consumers today are more aware of the need for ethical shopping, and these brands will need to address their shortcomings to meet growing demand for more sustainable and socially responsible fashion. Until then, these brands remain far from ideal choices for consumers looking to support environmentally and ethically conscious companies.

- Tati