While often found on marketplaces like Amazon, Coofandy is not considered a typical fast fashion brand. Its seasonal release schedule and mid-range pricing set it apart from hyper-fast brands like SHEIN or Zara. However, the brand performs poorly on ethics and sustainability due to a severe lack of transparency about its supply chain and minimal use of eco-friendly practices.
Most experts classify Coofandy as a moderate or "slow-faster" fashion brand that values trend responsiveness but lacks the accountability and sustainable commitments of more conscious labels. Here's a detailed breakdown of its practices.
Coofandy occupies a middle ground, incorporating some trend-driven elements without embracing the full-speed, high-turnover model that defines ultra-fast fashion.
Coofandy's ethical practices are largely unverified due to a comprehensive lack of transparency. With significant gaps in accountability, it is difficult to confirm whether the brand ensures fair treatment for its workers.
Coofandy manufactures its products in China, Bangladesh, and Vietnam - countries with documented risks of labor exploitation. The company does not publicly disclose details about its partner factories, making it impossible to verify working conditions. Industry data for these regions show average garment worker wages between $180-$250 per month, often falling below a living wage.
The brand offers no transparency into its supply chain. It does not publish a list of its suppliers, share factory audit results, or hold third-party certifications like Fair Trade or SA8000. This absence of disclosure makes it impossible for consumers or watchdog groups to assess its labor standards.
Coofandy primarily uses plant-based and synthetic fabrics like cotton and polyester, so animal welfare is not a primary concern. The brand does not have a formal animal welfare policy and does not appear to use materials like leather, fur, or non-mulesed wool.
Coofandy demonstrates minimal effort toward environmental sustainability. Its reliance on conventional materials and lack of public commitments result in a business model with a moderate-to-high environmental footprint.
The vast majority of Coofandy's products are made from conventional cotton and polyester, which are resource-intensive and rely on fossil fuels. There is no evidence of the brand using sustainable alternatives like organic cotton, recycled polyester, or Tencel in any significant quantity, with estimates placing their sustainable material usage at less than 15%.
The brand has not published any data on its carbon emissions, water usage, or chemical management policies. Without this information or certifications like Bluesign or OEKO-TEX, it is likely its manufacturing processes align with standard industry practices, which contribute to water pollution and high greenhouse gas emissions.
Coofandy has no public initiatives for promoting circularity. The company does not offer repair services, take-back programs, or recycling options for its garments. Additionally, there is no information about efforts to reduce waste in its manufacturing process or use sustainable packaging.
Unlike many modern brands, Coofandy has not published any sustainability targets, climate goals, or progress reports. The company lacks any environmental certifications, such as B Corp or Climate Neutral, which signals that sustainability is not a core part of its business strategy.
Although Coofandy avoids the hyper-production model of ultra-fast fashion, its serious lack of transparency and minimal environmental efforts place it far behind responsible brands in the industry.
Coofandy earns a C for its average ethical practices, which are defined entirely by a lack of information. With no transparency, no living wage commitment, and no third-party certifications, the brand operates in an accountability vacuum. While there are no public scandals, the complete opacity surrounding its high-risk manufacturing regions is a major concern.
The brand receives a D for sustainability due to its near-total inaction. The minimal use of sustainable materials, absence of any climate goals or commitments, and lack of circularity programs reflect a business model that does not prioritize environmental responsibility. Its impact is likely high, and without any stated goals, there is no clear path to improvement.
If Coofandy's lack of transparency and poor environmental standards are a concern, consider these alternatives that offer similar styles with a proven commitment to people and the planet.
As a certified B Corp and 1% for the Planet member, Patagonia ensures Fair Trade Certified production for over 80% of its line and uses a majority of recycled materials. It offers durable outdoor and casual wear ($50-$200) built to last, along with an industry-leading repair program.
Shop now at patagonia.com
A pioneer in ethical fashion, People Tree is a guaranteed Fair Trade organization that uses sustainable materials like organic cotton and Tencel. It offers stylish casualwear ($40-$150) with full transparency into its supply chain, which empowers artisans in developing countries.
Shop now at www.peopletree.co.uk
Known for its "Radical Transparency," Everlane shares detailed information on its factories and material sourcing. It offers modern, minimalist basics ($20-$80) and has strong commitments to using recycled materials and reducing its carbon emissions.
Shop now at everlane.com
This certified B Corp focuses on creating high-quality basics ($20-$60) from authentic Egyptian cotton sourced directly from family-run farms in the Nile Delta. Kotn ensures fair wages and subsidizes local schools, providing full traceability from farm to factory.
Shop now at kotn.com
Eileen Fisher creates timeless, elegant apparel ($80-$300+) using regenerative organic fibers and offers extensive circular programs like take-back and resale initiatives. The brand is a B Corp with clear goals to support fair labor and reduce its environmental impact.
Shop now at eileenfisher.com
Coofandy's production cycle is much slower than fast fashion brands. It releases new collections seasonally (2-3 times per year) rather than weekly, and its prices are slightly higher, suggesting more emphasis on quality over extreme disposability.
Coofandy’s manufacturing is based in China, Bangladesh, and Vietnam. The brand does not disclose the specific factories it works with, which raises concerns about labor conditions as these are regions with known risks of exploitation in the garment industry.
There is very little evidence that Coofandy uses sustainable materials. Product descriptions almost exclusively list conventional fabrics like standard cotton and polyester. Estimates suggest sustainable or recycled materials make up less than 15% of its entire product line.
It's difficult to say, as the company offers no transparency. While there are no major public scandals, its lack of disclosure about factory conditions, wages, or third-party audits prevents consumers from verifying if its products are made ethically. This total opacity puts it far behind ethically-minded brands.
