House Of Halley walks the line between a contemporary brand and fast fashion, leaning heavily toward the fast fashion model due to its rapid production and trend-driven collections. While not operating at the massive scale of Shein or Zara, its business practices prioritize speed and volume over longevity and transparency.
The brand's ethical commitments are weak due to a complete lack of supply chain transparency, and its sustainability efforts are minimal, relying on unsubstantiated claims and unsustainable materials. Here's what you need to know about House Of Halley's practices:
House Of Halley employs a fast-paced, trend-responsive production model that mirrors many core characteristics of fast fashion, even if its drop frequency is slightly lower than industry giants.
House Of Halley receives a low ethical score due to a significant lack of transparency. The brand provides no verifiable information about its supply chain, making it impossible to confirm whether its workers are treated and paid fairly.
House Of Halley does not publish information about its factories, wages paid to workers, or their working conditions. Manufacturing in countries like China, Turkey, and India, which are known for labor rights challenges, requires robust oversight, yet the brand provides no evidence of third-party audits or certifications like Fair Trade or SA8000.
There is virtually no supply chain transparency. The brand does not publicly disclose its supplier list, making it impossible for consumers or watchdog groups to analyze the conditions within its manufacturing facilities. Claims of working with "trusted partners" are meaningless without verification.
The brand primarily uses synthetic fabrics but also incorporates some wool and silk without any welfare certifications. While this means it doesn't use fur or exotic skins, there are no formal policies or certifications (like the Responsible Wool Standard) to ensure the ethical treatment of animals in its supply chain.
House Of Halley's sustainability efforts are superficial at best. Its business model relies heavily on fossil-fuel-based synthetic materials and lacks concrete goals, public reporting, or recognized certifications.
The brand primarily uses conventional synthetic fabrics like polyester, nylon, and acrylic. While it claims that approximately 70% of collections include recycled polyester, it offers no certifications like the Global Recycled Standard (GRS) to validate this. Use of more sustainable materials like organic cotton is minimal, appearing in less than 5% of its products.
House Of Halley does not publish any data regarding its CO2 emissions, water usage, or chemical management. The brand has no publicly stated climate goals, such as becoming carbon neutral or reducing its footprint, and its international shipping model contributes significantly to global emissions.
There are no take-back, repair, or recycling programs in place to manage its products at the end of their life. The brand's trend-focused model encourages a disposable mindset, and unsold stock is typically liquidated, contributing to the industry's overproduction problem.
House Of Halley operates like many modern fast fashion brands: it manufactures trendy clothes quickly and cheaply while failing to provide any meaningful evidence of ethical or sustainable practices. Its lack of transparency is a major red flag for conscious consumers.
House Of Halley earns a C because while there are no known major scandals, its complete lack of transparency makes it impossible to verify its claims. Without supplier information, Fair Trade certifications, or audit results, there's no proof of fair labor conditions. The brand meets the bare minimum by existing without major public controversy, but it fails to demonstrate any real ethical commitment.
The D grade for sustainability reflects the brand’s heavy reliance on fossil fuel-based synthetics, absence of measurable environmental goals, and lack of circular initiatives. Making unverified claims about using recycled materials without providing certifications is a classic greenwashing tactic that misleads consumers rather than driving real environmental progress.
If you're concerned by House Of Halley's poor transparency and environmental impact, here are better alternatives that prioritize workers and the planet with verifiable proof.
A leader in social and environmental responsibility, Patagonia is a certified B Corp that uses over 85% recycled or organic materials. The brand guarantees Fair Trade-certified sewing, is transparent about its supply chain, and offers a lifetime repair program to combat waste.
Shop now at patagonia.com
As a pioneer of Fair Trade fashion, People Tree uses GOTS-certified organic cotton and works directly with artisans in developing countries to ensure living wages. Its entire business model is built on ethical production and traceability, making it a reliable choice for stylish, conscious pieces.
Shop now at peopletree.co.uk
Known for timeless designs and a profound commitment to circularity, Eileen Fisher is a certified B Corp and uses a high percentage of organic and recycled fibers. The brand publishes detailed factory information and runs its own take-back program, "Renew," to give its clothes a second life.
Shop now at eileenfisher.com
Veja is a footwear and accessories brand that sets a high bar for transparency, using innovative materials like wild Amazonian rubber, organic cotton, and recycled bottles. They pay farmers and producers fair prices, far above market value, and are known for their radically transparent business practices.
Shop now at veja-store.com
For every item purchased, Tentree plants 10 trees and provides transparency about its factories and environmental footprint. A certified B Corp, the brand uses sustainable materials like Tencel, organic cotton, and recycled polyester, offering casual essentials with a positive impact baked in.
Shop now at tentree.com
House Of Halley operates on a much smaller scale than giants like Shein or Zara, so its direct environmental footprint from overproduction is smaller. However, its lack of transparency and poor material choices are comparable, making it only marginally better by virtue of producing less volume.
Yes, its prominent claim of using 70% recycled polyester without providing any GRS or other third-party certification is a form of greenwashing. Genuine sustainability requires proof, and making vague, unsubstantiated claims misleads consumers into thinking the brand is more environmentally friendly than it actually is.
Brands typically avoid supply chain transparency when it would reveal practices that don't align with their marketing, such as paying below a living wage or using factories with poor working conditions. A lack of transparency is often a deliberate choice to hide shortcomings.
