“The industry has not yet succeeded in creating a marketable, large-scale value proposition for sustainable fashion,” judges The State of Fashion 2025. It is no coincidence that many projects fail and others – partially or otherwise – end up reneging on certain choices. Because, in the end, the accounts end up not adding up
by Massimiliano Viti
The life of a fashion brand that claims to be programmatically sustainable is quite complicated. Many are born, many die because they remain small, unable to generate economies of scale, and face many obstacles both in the production phase and in sales. This difficulty also has repercussions upstream in the supply chain towards those who produce sustainable and/or alternative materials.
What if it is not sustainable?
For green-oriented brands and suppliers, after a promising start, there always comes the difficulty of making ends meet and generating profits at the end of the year. It also happens when major external financing arrives. In other words, product sustainability is often not matched by economic sustainability. Today, life is even more difficult due to inflation, slowing consumption and an increasingly price-conscious customer.
In the 2025 edition of The State of Fashion, the study published by McKinsey & Company and Business of Fashion, it becomes apparent that only 18% of fashion industry executives consider sustainability to be one of the top three growth drivers in 2025. This percentage is down from 29% in 2024 despite the acceleration of green regulations. With sustainability, it is difficult to do business. Not least because, for most consumers, the price of the item is more important than the green label.
A road paved with failures
“This requires brands to actively engage and educate consumers to stimulate demand for sustainable products. With the exception of a few brands, the industry has not yet succeeded in creating a marketable, large-scale value proposition for sustainable fashion,” The State of Fashion judges. Which cites a number of failures, including Renewcell and Bolt Threads (the father of Mylo, an alternative material to leather), despite the support of Stella Mc Cartney and Adidas. TomTex is also seeking partnerships outside fashion to secure larger order volumes.
Recently, even Natural Fiber Welding, the US startup that produces Mirum (another alternative to leather), has been in trouble and has been forced to lay off due to ‘delayed contract closures’. There is the sustainable footwear brand Vivobarefoot, which, despite double-digit sales growth and more than one million shoes sold, reported a loss in the current financial year.
The Mara Hoffman and Kit X cases
In this inflationary context, the future of eco-brands seems compromised because – in this sense – sustainable equals expensive. Because you either get big or stay in the niche. Being profitable while remaining small, with minimal margins, is difficult. As in the case of Mara Hoffman (New York) and the Australian Kit X, both celebrated for their ethics and sustainability (source: Vogue Business), not so much because they weren’t selling, but because their production problems had become insurmountable, rather than easily surmountable, as one might think.
We are talking about the availability and cost of raw materials and minimum production quantities imposed by production laboratories. Also, there is respect for the responsibilities of the entire production chain, from the procurement of materials to the salaries of factory employees or even retailers. Too much. To the point that for both brands, the best thing was no longer to make clothes in a more sustainable way. It was not to put them at all in a situation where profits will come (perhaps) many years from now; even the most convinced green-minded investor is discouraged.
Next
In early September, the 100% recycled brand Hopaal closed its doors 8 years after its launch despite promising beginnings. The same fate befell Zady, a pioneering sustainable fashion brand in the US, which had to pull down the shutters after 4 years (source: NSS Magazine). The Australian brand Arnsdorf closed after 18 years. In December 2023, Dai – a British sustainable womenswear brand – threw in the towel. “The macro environment we and many young brands are facing has made our future path an almost impossible challenge,” the company said in a closing message to customers (source theage.com.au/).
A problem of awareness
The question, getting to the crux of the matter, is: how can we convince the consumer, especially in an inflationary context, to spend even EUR 150 on a white t-shirt? How can we do this, especially when fast fashion sells a very similar t-shirt for EUR 5? By now, it is clear that green awareness can move consciences, but not wallets.
However, there are also success stories. For example, the American eco-responsible brand Reformation. On a smaller scale, the French MaisonCléo, together with the British Damson Madder, Omnes, and Mother of Peal, also or, the Spaniards from Laagam, the Australians from Après Studio, the Italians from Par.Co Denim. Brands that – like some others – still resist and swim against the tide.
Read also:
- The latest traceability short-circuit: the Better Cotton case
- Renewcell’s failure: what happens to the next-gen materials?
- The risk of reducing sustainability to a joke