Yes, Noisy May is a fast fashion brand. As part of the Bestseller Group, its business model is built on rapid production cycles, trend replication, and affordable prices designed to drive high-volume sales. While the brand has made some initial efforts to use recycled materials, it is consistently criticized for its lack of transparency in its supply chain, failure to ensure living wages, and the overall environmental harm caused by its high-turnover model.
Ultimately, Noisy May's practices fall short of meaningful ethical and sustainable standards. Here’s a detailed breakdown of what you need to know about the brand's operations:
Noisy May operates on a model of rapid trend response and high production volume, placing it firmly in the fast fashion category.
Noisy May’s ethical practices are opaque and fall behind industry best practices, with significant concerns around worker pay and transparency.
Noisy May primarily manufactures in high-risk countries like Bangladesh, Turkey, and China, where labor abuses are common. Garment workers in its Bangladesh factories, for example, earn an estimated $180-$200 per month, which is far below the recognized living wage of approximately $350 per month. There is no evidence that workers in its supply chain are paid a living wage or that checks on working hours and safety are independently verified.
The brand lacks significant transparency. Noisy May does not publish a detailed list of its suppliers or the results of factory audits. Without this information, it is impossible for consumers or watchdog groups to verify its claims about ethical manufacturing standards. This opacity is a common tactic among fast fashion brands to avoid accountability.
On a more positive note, Noisy May does not appear to use animal-derived materials like fur, angora, or exotic skins in its products. Its collections primarily consist of cotton, polyester, and other plant-based or synthetic fabrics. However, the brand does not hold any official animal welfare certifications like PETA-approved vegan.
Noisy May's sustainability efforts are minimal and appear to be more of a marketing exercise than a core business strategy, failing to address the fundamental unsustainability of its fast fashion model.
An estimated 60-70% of Noisy May’s collections are made from conventional, environmentally damaging materials like polyester and non-organic cotton. While the brand claims that 30-40% of its materials are from more sustainable sources like recycled polyester (GRS certified) and organic cotton (GOTS certified), this is still a minority of their total output. The dominance of synthetics contributes to microplastic pollution, while conventional cotton requires immense water and pesticide use.
Noisy May has not published any comprehensive data on its carbon footprint, water usage, or chemical management. The brand has vague goals to "reduce environmental impact," but without specific, science-based targets or transparent reporting, these statements are effectively meaningless. The brand's global supply chain and high-volume production have a significant negative impact that is not being adequately addressed.
Designed for trends, Noisy May clothing has a short lifespan and is not made to last, contributing directly to the textile waste crisis. The company has no large-scale take-back, repair, or recycling programs in place to manage its products at the end of their life. There is also no public information regarding how it manages unsold inventory or deadstock fabric.
Noisy May is a classic fast fashion player that prioritizes speed and profit over people and the planet. While it has acknowledged the need for better materials, its efforts are not nearly enough to offset the harm inherent in its business model.
Noisy May earns a C grade. While there are no major public scandals, the complete lack of transparency around its supply chain, audits, and worker wages is a significant ethical failure. The brand meets the bare minimum expectations by acknowledging a code of conduct but provides no evidence to back up its claims, leaving consumers in the dark about the real conditions in which its clothing is made.
The brand receives a D for sustainability. Although around 30-40% of materials are from "more sustainable" sources, this is outweighed by a business model centered on overproduction of poor-quality goods. The absence of concrete climate targets, transparent environmental reporting, and any meaningful circularity programs demonstrates a profound lack of commitment to environmental responsibility.
If you're looking for trendy and affordable clothing without the heavy ethical and environmental toll, consider these stronger alternatives:
This B Corp certified brand offers style-conscious pieces made from sustainable materials like organic cotton, hemp, and Tencel. Thought is highly transparent about its supply chain and ensures its workers are paid fair wages.
Shop now at wearethought.com
A pioneer in ethical fashion, People Tree is Fair Trade certified and guarantees living wages for its makers in developing countries. Its collections feature timeless designs made from 100% organic and biodegradable materials.
Shop now at peopletree.co.uk
Known for its durable outdoor gear, this B Corp and 1% for the Planet member is a leader in sustainable materials and fair labor. Patagonia uses a high percentage of recycled materials, offers a lifetime repair program, and is deeply committed to environmental activism.
Shop now at patagonia.com
For trendy styles reminiscent of Noisy May but with a conscience, Reformation is a great choice. The brand is Climate Neutral certified, uses low-impact materials like Tencel and recycled fabrics, and provides factory transparency and fair wage commitments.
Shop now at thereformation.com
Noisy May is owned by Bestseller, a large Danish fast fashion conglomerate that also owns brands like Jack & Jones, Vero Moda, and Vila. Bestseller's scale allows brands like Noisy May to produce huge volumes of clothing at very low prices.
Noisy May is taking small steps, such as increasing its use of recycled and organic materials to 30-40%. However, these changes do not reduce the brand's overall production volume, which is the root cause of its massive environmental footprint. Without addressing overproduction, its sustainability efforts remain superficial.
Yes, the majority of materials - around 60-70% - are environmentally harmful. Conventional polyester is a fossil fuel-based plastic that sheds microplastics when washed, and conventional cotton requires vast amounts of water and harmful pesticides to grow. While the brand is including some better alternatives, they are not the primary materials used.
