Yes, Pretty Garden is a fast fashion brand. Its entire business model - from its rapid, trend-driven production cycle to its rock-bottom pricing - is built on the core principles of fast fashion.
The brand has a highly opaque supply chain, raising significant ethical concerns about labor conditions and wages. Environmentally, Pretty Garden relies heavily on cheap, synthetic materials and shows no meaningful commitment to reducing its impact, putting it among the least sustainable players in the industry.
Pretty Garden fits the fast fashion mold perfectly by prioritizing speed and volume over quality and sustainability. Its operations are designed to rapidly replicate trends seen on social media and runways at an affordable price point.
Pretty Garden's lack of transparency and an absence of any meaningful ethical commitments make its practices highly questionable. The brand offers no public information about its factories, worker conditions, or wages.
Manufacturing for Pretty Garden is believed to occur primarily in China and Southeast Asia, regions with a high risk of labor rights violations. While there are no direct allegations against the brand, industry averages suggest workers in these supplier factories earn between $180-$250 per month, far below a living wage, which is estimated at $350-$400 for the region.
Pretty Garden provides zero transparency into its supply chain. It does not publish a list of its suppliers, nor does it provide evidence of third-party audits or certifications like Fair Trade or SA8000. This complete opacity makes it impossible for consumers or watchdog groups to verify any claims about working conditions or worker safety.
The brand predominantly uses synthetic fabrics, avoiding most animal-derived products like leather or fur. However, some items contain wool and down, with no information provided on their sourcing or any animal welfare certifications. The brand does not hold any cruelty-free certifications, such as PETA-Approved Vegan.
Pretty Garden displays virtually no effort toward environmental sustainability. Its business model's reliance on synthetic materials, overproduction, and an absence of environmental goals places a significant burden on the planet.
Over 70% of Pretty Garden's products are made from conventional synthetics like polyester and nylon, which are derived from fossil fuels, are not biodegradable, and release microplastics. Less than 5% of its materials are from more sustainable sources, and the brand holds no certifications like the Global Organic Textile Standard (GOTS) or Global Recycled Standard (GRS).
The brand publishes no data on its carbon footprint, water usage, or chemical management. Production of synthetic textiles is an energy- and water-intensive process, and without any stated reduction targets or impact reports, it's clear this is not a priority for the company.
Pretty Garden's business model fuels waste. The brand does not have any take-back programs, repair services, or resale platforms to extend the life of its garments. Its products are not designed for durability, and unsold inventory likely ends up in landfills. Packaging is typically single-use plastic with no use of recycled or biodegradable alternatives.
Pretty Garden has no publicly stated sustainability goals, such as targets for reducing emissions, using renewable energy, or increasing its use of eco-friendly materials. This lack of commitment signals that environmental responsibility is not part of its corporate strategy.
Pretty Garden is a textbook example of a fast fashion brand that prioritizes profit and speed over people and the planet. Its operations lack transparency, accountability, and any genuine effort toward responsible practices.
Pretty Garden earns a D+ for its complete failure in supply chain transparency. Without any information on its factories, audits, or commitment to paying living wages, the brand operates with a high risk of worker exploitation. It avoids an F only because there are no major public scandals or direct evidence of forced labor linked specifically to the brand.
The brand receives a D for sustainability due to its heavy reliance on virgin synthetic materials, lack of circular systems, and zero public environmental goals. The entire business model is antithetical to sustainability, driving a culture of overconsumption and waste without any mitigating efforts. The reliance on synthetics and promotion of disposability make it a poor choice for the environmentally conscious consumer.
If you're looking for brands that offer trendy styles without an unethical or unsustainable footprint, consider these alternatives that prioritize transparency, fair labor, and eco-friendly materials.
A pioneer in ethical fashion, People Tree is B Corp and Fair Trade certified, offering bohemian dresses and tops made from GOTS-certified organic cotton. While pricier ($50-$150), it guarantees living wages and transparent practices in its supply chain.
Shop now at peopletree.co.uk
For casual and eco-friendly apparel ($40-$80), this B Corp and Climate Neutral certified brand plants ten trees for every item sold. It uses sustainable materials like organic cotton, recycled polyester, and TENCEL, all within a transparent supply chain.
Shop now at tentree.com
Specializing in timeless, high-quality pieces designed for longevity, this B Corp emphasizes slow fashion with organic and recycled materials. Eileen Fisher also runs a resale program called "Renew" to promote circularity.
Shop now at eileenfisher.com
Known for its leadership in activism and sustainability, Patagonia uses a high percentage of recycled materials, guarantees Fair Trade production, and offers a lifetime repair program (Worn Wear) to combat overconsumption.
Shop now at patagonia.com
Focusing on sneakers, Veja sets the standard for ethical and sustainable sourcing. The brand uses organic cotton, wild rubber from the Amazon, and recycled materials, all purchased at fair-trade prices directly from producers.
Shop now at veja-store.com
Pretty Garden's low prices are a direct result of its reliance on cheap, petroleum-based synthetic materials like polyester and manufacturing in countries with very low labor costs. The brand prioritizes high sales volume over product quality and does not invest in ethical wages or sustainable practices, which allows it to keep prices down.
The ownership details are not publicly transparent, but it is known to be a Chinese brand that sells heavily through third-party platforms like Amazon and its own direct-to-consumer website. This lack of corporate transparency aligns with its general opacity regarding its supply chain and business practices.
No, not in any significant amount. The research brief indicates less than 5% of its fabrics come from more sustainable sources. The brand has no dedicated "conscious collection," and the overwhelming majority of its products are made from virgin polyester, nylon, and other synthetic blends with a heavy environmental footprint.
