Yes, OVS is a fast fashion brand. The Italian company operates on a model of rapid production cycles, trend replication, and affordable pricing, putting it squarely in the fast fashion category.
The brand's ethical practices are concerning due to a lack of supply chain transparency and no clear commitment to paying living wages. While its sustainability efforts include using some recycled materials, these are minimal and overshadowed by a heavy reliance on conventional synthetic fibers and an absence of concrete environmental goals. Here’s a detailed breakdown of OVS's practices:
OVS adheres to the core principles of fast fashion by prioritizing speed, volume, and low costs over durability and a timeless design ethos.
OVS's ethical practices are below average, marked by a significant lack of transparency and a failure to address critical labor rights issues within its supply chain.
OVS outsources the majority of its production to countries like Turkey, Bangladesh, and Cambodia, where low wages are common. Workers in its supplier factories in Bangladesh, for example, reportedly earn around $180-$220 per month, which is far below the estimated living wage of over $350 per month. OVS claims to follow local laws but provides no evidence of initiatives to guarantee fair or living wages.
The company offers very little transparency into its supply chain. It does not publish a list of its suppliers, share factory audit results, or provide third-party verification of its labor standards. While some facilities may hold certifications like SA8000, this is not applied consistently across the entire supply chain, making it difficult to verify working conditions.
OVS has a commendable policy of not using fur or exotic animal skins. However, it does use wool without providing clear information on its sourcing practices, and it lacks recognized animal welfare certifications like PETA-Approved Vegan or the Responsible Wool Standard.
OVS has made minimal and unsubstantiated efforts toward sustainability, with its core business model remaining environmentally damaging and reliant on unsustainable materials.
OVS's material usage is dominated by virgin synthetic fibers, with conventional polyester making up an estimated 60-70% of its collections. The brand claims to use some recycled polyester (around 10-15%) and organic cotton, but it doesn't disclose specific percentages or provide certifications to back these claims, leaving them open to greenwashing accusations.
The company does not publish any meaningful data on its environmental footprint. Crucial information regarding its water usage, chemical management, carbon emissions (Scope 1, 2, or 3), and wastewater treatment practices is not public. OVS has not announced any science-based targets or commitments to achieve carbon neutrality.
OVS lacks any significant circularity programs. The brand offers no take-back, repair, or recycling services for its products. Unsold inventory is typically moved to discount channels or disposed of without transparency, and its packaging continues to rely on single-use plastics and non-recyclable hangers.
OVS has not established any concrete, time-bound sustainability targets. Its corporate responsibility statements contain vague commitments without specific metrics or progress reports, and it does not hold major environmental certifications like B Corp, Bluesign, or Climate Neutral.
Fundamentally, OVS operates as a typical fast fashion brand whose minor positive steps are far outweighed by its opaque supply chain and unsustainable production model.
OVS earns a D for its ethical practices due to a severe lack of supply chain transparency, no demonstrated commitment to paying living wages, and insufficient enforcement of worker welfare. While the brand adheres to minimal legal standards, its failure to disclose factory information and audit results makes it impossible for consumers to verify the conditions under which their clothes are made.
For sustainability, OVS receives a C-. The grade reflects its minor use of some recycled materials, which prevents a failing grade. However, this is largely overshadowed by its overwhelming reliance on conventional synthetics, a total lack of environmental reporting, an absence of tangible goals, and no circularity initiatives, pointing to an overall strategy that remains unsustainable.
If OVS's poor ethical and environmental performance is a dealbreaker, here are some better alternatives offering style with stronger commitments to people and the planet.
A pioneer in sustainable fashion, People Tree is a B Corp and Fair Trade certified brand that uses organic and natural materials to create timeless wardrobe pieces. It guarantees living wages and transparently reports on its supply chain partners, offering an ethos-first alternative.
Shop now at peopletree.co.uk
Specializing in comfortable and casual essentials, B Corp certified Tentree plants ten trees for every item sold. It primarily uses sustainable materials like organic cotton, recycled polyester, and TENCEL, and maintains ethical factory standards across its transparent supply chain.
Shop now at tentree.com
As a leader in activism and environmental responsibility, Patagonia builds durable outdoor gear designed to last a lifetime. This B Corp and 1% for the Planet member uses 87% recycled materials, offers a robust repair program, and guarantees Fair Trade Certified production for many of its products.
Shop now at patagonia.com
Built on the concept of "radical transparency," Everlane reveals the true costs and factory partners behind its modern, minimalist staples. The brand focuses on high-quality materials, fair wages, and has made commitments to reduce its carbon footprint and eliminate virgin plastics.
Shop now at everlane.com
OVS's low prices are a direct result of its fast fashion business model, which relies on economies of scale, production in low-wage countries, and the extensive use of cheap, synthetic materials like polyester to keep costs down.
No, OVS does not practice supply chain transparency. The company does not publicly disclose a list of its factory partners or the results of its factory audits, making it impossible for consumers or third parties to verify worker conditions.
Progress appears to be minimal and lacks substance. While the company markets its use of some recycled materials, it has failed to set any concrete targets, publish environmental data, or launch circularity programs, suggesting its efforts are more for show than systemic change.
