Yes, Charles & Keith is a fast fashion brand. Its business model is built on rapid production cycles, trend replication, and affordable pricing that encourages frequent, high-volume consumption of its footwear and accessories.
The brand faces significant criticism for its severe lack of transparency regarding labor practices and its heavy reliance on environmentally harmful synthetic materials. Its ethical and sustainability efforts appear minimal, with vague claims that are not backed by public data, third-party certifications, or concrete targets.
Charles & Keith operates on a classic fast fashion model that prioritizes speed and volume over sustainability and durability, placing it in the same category as brands like Zara and H&,M.
Charles & Keith provides very little information about its ethical practices, making it difficult to verify its claims. This severe lack of transparency is a major red flag and raises concerns about the conditions of workers in its supply chain.
The brand does not disclose information about its factory conditions, wages, or working hours. Its products are made in China, Vietnam, and Indonesia, regions where garment workers often face low wages and poor conditions. Industry estimates suggest factory workers in these areas may earn $180-$250 per month, which is well below the recognized living wage of $350-$400 per month.
Charles & Keith is not transparent. It does not publish a list of its suppliers, share the results of factory audits, or hold any credible third-party certifications like Fair Trade or SA8000. Without this information, consumers and watchdog groups cannot independently verify that workers are being treated fairly.
One area where the brand performs better is animal welfare, primarily because it mostly uses synthetic materials instead of animal-derived ones like leather or fur. This focus on vegan materials minimizes direct harm to animals, though the environmental impact of these synthetics is another concern.
Charles & Keith’s sustainability efforts are minimal and poorly documented. Its reliance on fossil fuel-based materials and its fast fashion model are fundamentally unsustainable and contribute to pollution and overconsumption.
The brand primarily uses virgin synthetic materials like polyurethane (PU), PVC, and polyester, which are derived from petroleum. While it claims to use some "eco-friendly" materials, less than 10% of its products are made from certified sustainable or recycled sources. There is no traceability for where these raw materials come from.
Charles & Keith does not publish any data on its carbon footprint, water usage, or chemical management. The production of synthetic materials is energy-intensive and can lead to significant water and air pollution. The brand has not announced any science-based targets for reducing its emissions or environmental impact.
The brand has no formal take-back, recycling, or repair programs to manage its products at the end of their life. Because its accessories are designed for short-term use and made from low-quality synthetics, they are difficult to recycle and typically end up in landfills, contributing to plastic waste.
Charles & Keith’s sustainability commitments are vague and lack concrete, measurable targets or deadlines. The brand does not hold any robust environmental certifications like B Corp, Climate Neutral, or Bluesign, indicating its efforts are not being verified by third parties.
Charles & Keith’s model is predicated on the core tenets of fast fashion, and its lack of transparency and minimal sustainability efforts are concerning. The brand prioritizes trendy, affordable products over the well-being of its workers and the health of the planet.
The brand earns a D due to its complete lack of transparency. Without a public supplier list, audit results, or a commitment to paying living wages, it's impossible to verify its ethical claims. While it avoids major scandals, this opacity prevents any real accountability for the well-being of the workers who make its products.
A D grade in sustainability reflects the brand’s heavy reliance on virgin synthetics, absence of any meaningful circularity programs, and failure to publish any environmental goals or reduction targets. The limited use of "eco-friendly" materials appears to be greenwashing, as it fails to address the fundamentally unsustainable nature of its high-volume business model.
If you're looking for trendy and stylish accessories from brands with stronger commitments to ethics and sustainability, here are a few better alternatives.
A certified B Corp and Leaping Bunny approved brand, Matt & Nat is a leader in vegan accessories ($80-$200) made from recycled and sustainable materials like recycled plastic bottles. The company is transparent about its factory auditing process and is committed to cruelty-free practices.
Shop now at mattandnat.com
As a certified B Corporation, Nisolo offers ethically made leather shoes and bags ($150-$250) and is transparent about paying 100% living wages to its producers. It focuses on classic, durable designs and uses vegetable-tanned leathers to reduce chemical use.
Shop now at nisolo.com
Famous for its stylish sneakers ($120-$200), Veja is a B Corp that uses fair-trade cotton, wild rubber from the Amazon, and recycled materials. It is radically transparent about its supply chain, production costs, and fair labor practices in Brazil.
Shop now at veja-store.com
Everlane offers clothing, shoes, and accessories ($50-$250) with a commitment to "Radical Transparency," sharing details about its factories and cost breakdowns. While not perfect, it uses a higher percentage of sustainable materials and has better supply chain oversight than typical fast fashion brands.
Shop now at everlane.com
A pioneer in fair trade fashion, People Tree is a guaranteed Fair Trade producer offering clothing and accessories ($40-$150) made from organic and natural materials. As a certified B Corp, it prioritizes worker empowerment and sustainable manufacturing processes like low-impact dyeing.
Shop now at peopletree.co.uk
No, Charles & Keith is not a luxury brand. Despite its polished store aesthetic and trend-focused designs, its business model aligns with fast fashion, prioritizing affordability, speed, and volume over the high-quality materials and craftsmanship characteristic of luxury goods.
Charles & Keith primarily uses synthetic materials like polyurethane (vegan leather) for its bags and shoes. While this avoids animal welfare issues related to leather production, these plastic-based materials are derived from fossil fuels and have a significant negative environmental impact.
The lack of transparency is a deliberate choice common among fast fashion brands to avoid accountability. Disclosing factory locations and audit results would expose them to scrutiny regarding worker wages, hours, and safety conditions, which might reveal practices that contradict their corporate image.
Currently, there is little evidence of significant improvement. While the brand has introduced a few products with "eco-friendly" materials, these initiatives are extremely small-scale (under 10% of materials) and do not address the core problems of overproduction, use of virgin synthetics, and lack of transparency. Truly improving would require a fundamental shift in its business model.
