Everlane, the sustainable fashion brand which sought to change the industry with its “radical transparency” approach, has been bought by online fast fashion retailer Shein.
In an emailed statement from Everlane on Friday, CEO Alfred Chang said the two companies reached an agreement for the sale.
Chang said that Everlane will remain an independent brand committed to sustainability and “exceptional quality.”
“This partnership creates incredible new possibilities to accelerate that vision and with greater reach, while staying grounded in our core principles,” Chang said in the statement.
Shein did not respond to multiple requests for comment from CBC News.
Puck News first reported that the sale had been approved by the company’s board last weekend. A representative for Everlane would not say when the deal was finalized, but the New York Times reported that the deal for private equity firm L Catterton to sell its majority stake in Everlane was finalized on Friday.
While Everlane did not disclose the financial terms of the sale, Puck News had reported that the deal valued Everlane at $100 million US. In recent years, the company has struggled with faltering sales and amassed $90 million US in debt.
The initial report spurred a shockwave of online backlash among fans of the brand who saw the sale as a reversal of the brand’s climate consciousness.
“It’s distressing because of the appearance that one of the world’s least sustainable companies [is] buying a company that tried to demonstrate a different path,” said Ken Pucker, former COO of footwear and clothing brand Timberland and a professor at Massachusetts’ Tufts University focused on sustainability.
“The irony is inescapable.”
Everlane built their brand on ethical production and sustainability, partnering with what they say are ethical factories and sourcing quality materials, and sharing those details with consumers in an approach they called “radical transparency.”
Everlane also broke down the cost of the materials that went into a garment, which was incredibly new and influential when the company was first coming up in the 2010s, according to Laura Cristinzo, program manager at the non-profit Fashion Takes Action.
“It was really an intelligent way of … exposing the costs of making a garment. And I think that was really educational for a lot of consumers,” she said.
Shein, on the other hand, churns out thousands of new products daily — with some estimated figures in the ballpark of 10,000 — at incredibly cheap prices, reportedly by labourers working extensive hours each week. A previous CBC Marketplace investigation also found that Shein, among other retailers, were selling products with high levels of toxic chemicals.
A Marketplace investigation found lead, phthalates and ‘forever chemicals’ in purses, jackets and Disney princess dresses.
“Their business model is around speed. And so it is at the sacrifice of doing things mindfully and thoughtfully,” Cristinzo said.
Sustainability not enough to sell clothes
While Everlane is the most recent example, other sustainable retailers have struggled in recent years.
Allbirds, a company that makes shoes with natural materials, like wool and sugarcane, was once valued at $4 billion US before it faltered and was sold for $39 million US last month.
And Canadian fashion company Frank and Oak made clothes that were built to last from natural fibres, before it sought creditor protection and then sold its intellectual property and closed all 14 of its stores last year.
Pucker points out that other sustainable brands like Patagonia and Reformation continue to do well, and he doesn’t believe sustainable fashion as a whole is failing.
But he says it’s hard for sustainable brands to compete against the ultra-cheap products and accelerated trend cycle of the fast-fashion world — especially when cost is a big issue for consumers.
The fast-fashion online retailer Shein is growing rapidly and experts say it could eventually rival Amazon. But as its profit margins grow — so do the environmental concerns.
“If the environment is inflationary and [shoppers] have a hard time paying their utility bills or their gas bills or their health-care costs, it’s easier to pull back on apparel, which is discretionary,” Pucker said.
Despite surveys where consumers say they’re willing to pay more for clothing that’s made sustainably, Pucker says that intention often doesn’t materialize when it comes time to make a purchase.
A shirt on Everlane will set you back at least $100, often much more, where one on Shein’s site is closer to $10 or $15.
Jess Sternberg, owner of sustainable Vancouver-based clothing brand Free Label, agrees that ethics alone aren’t enough to pull customers in.
“You have to have another reason to buy from a brand,” Sternberg said. “Saying something’s good for the earth isn’t really going to cut it.”
Given it takes her a year to get new products — manufactured in Canada using more costly materials— to market, Sternberg says competing with fast and cheap fashion is simply impossible.
That’s left her focusing on the idea that her products will last longer, fit well and come in a more inclusive size-range, rather than marketing their sustainability aspect.
Sternberg agrees the Everlane sale doesn’t mean that sustainability is over, but she says the solution lies in smaller businesses that are driven by ethics, rather than bigger companies that tend to be swayed by profit.
Ex-Timberland COO Pucker says the past decade or two of sustainable brands have shown that desire alone on the part of companies, investors and consumers to do better has not worked to make the fashion industry more sustainable overall.
“What we need to do to make structural change … isn’t create more ‘sustainable fashion,’ [it] is to change the rules of how all fashion companies operate,” Pucker said.
He says policy that makes companies responsible for the waste and emissions they produce are the only way to make the fashion industry more sustainable.
More Stories
Grilling pains: Why your BBQ may cost more this summer
Wealthsimple wants to expand its banking to kids and businesses
Intuit lays off 17% of its global workforce