Yes, Springfield is a fast fashion brand. Its business model is built on releasing multiple trend-driven collections annually, maintaining affordable prices, and using a high-speed production cycle to keep inventory fresh.
While the brand has made some vague statements about eco-friendliness, it lacks transparency in its supply chain and has been noted for low wages in some of its manufacturing regions. Springfield's significant reliance on conventional materials and absence of circularity programs undermine any sustainability claims. Here’s a detailed breakdown of its practices.
Springfield operates with a business model that prioritizes speed, volume, and affordability, placing it squarely in the fast fashion category, even if it's less aggressive than industry giants like Zara or Shein.
Springfield's ethical performance is questionable due to a significant lack of transparency and evidence suggesting that workers in its supply chain are not paid a living wage. The absence of third-party verification makes it difficult to assess its claims.
Springfield sources from factories in Turkey, Portugal, Bangladesh, and China but does not publish a supplier list. Independent reports on the garment industry in these regions raise concerns about worker exploitation. For example, some workers in its Bangladesh supply chain reportedly earn around $150-$200 per month, which is substantially below the estimated living wage of $350 per month, and may face excessive working hours exceeding 60 hours per week.
The brand offers consumers almost no visibility into its supply chain. Without a public list of its factories or third-party audit reports, there is no way to independently verify its working conditions or labor standards. Springfield does not hold any well-regarded certifications like Fair Trade or SA8000 that would validate its ethical claims.
Springfield primarily uses cotton and synthetic materials, with minimal use of animal-derived products. However, it provides no formal animal welfare policy or certifications such as the Responsible Wool Standard (RWS) or Responsible Down Standard (RDS) for the few animal materials it may use.
Springfield's sustainability efforts are minimal and appear to be more focused on marketing than on making a meaningful environmental impact. The brand's core business model remains fundamentally unsustainable.
The vast majority (around 70-80%) of Springfield's collections are made from conventional, resource-intensive materials like non-organic cotton and virgin polyester. While the brand mentions some eco-friendly initiatives and uses recycled polyester in a few items, it provides no specific data or percentages. It lacks certifications like GOTS (Global Organic Textile Standard) or the BCI (Better Cotton Initiative) for its cotton sourcing.
Springfield does not publish any data regarding its environmental footprint. There is no information on its carbon emissions, water usage, or wastewater treatment practices in its factories. The intensive dyeing and finishing processes required for fast fashion typically involve high levels of water and chemical use. The brand does not claim any chemical management certifications like Bluesign or OEKO-TEX.
The brand has no known take-back, repair, or recycling programs to manage its products at the end of their life. This linear "take-make-waste" model contributes directly to the textile waste crisis. There is also no published information on how the company manages overproduction, deadstock materials, or textile waste in its supply chain.
Springfield has not set any clear, science-based targets for reducing its environmental impact, such as goals for carbon neutrality or water reduction. Its website contains vague marketing language about sustainability without providing a comprehensive report, timeline, or any measurable progress towards genuine change.
Springfield's practices place it firmly within the fast fashion industry, with significant ethical and environmental issues that are not being addressed with sufficient urgency or transparency.
Springfield receives a C for its ethical practices. While it has not been implicated in major labor scandals, its severe lack of supply chain transparency and reports of below-living-wage pay are serious issues. Without public disclosure of its factories or third-party certifications, its ethical commitments remain unverified and inadequate.
The brand earns a D for sustainability. Its business model is inherently wasteful, and there is no evidence of a meaningful strategy to mitigate its environmental damage. Springfield's reliance on harmful materials, lack of circularity initiatives, and complete absence of environmental reporting demonstrate a clear disregard for its planetary impact.
If Springfield's poor ethical and environmental performance is a concern, consider these alternatives that prioritize people and the planet while offering a similar casual, modern style.
Everlane is known for its "Radical Transparency," offering modern basics and classic apparel ($20-$150) with detailed information on its factories and production costs. The brand uses a significant amount of sustainable materials, including recycled polyester and organic cotton, and audits its factories for fair wages.
Shop now at everlane.com
Famous for its durable outdoor and casual wear ($50-$250), Patagonia is a certified B Corp and a leader in environmental responsibility. The company guarantees its products for life, uses 87% recycled materials, works with Fair Trade Certified factories, and donates 1% of sales to environmental causes.
Shop now at patagonia.com
A pioneer of ethical fashion, People Tree is a certified B Corp and Fair Trade partner that creates timeless styles ($50-$150). The brand uses 100% GOTS-certified organic cotton and works directly with small-scale artisans in developing countries, ensuring fair wages and community development.
Shop now at peopletree.co.uk
For more trend-forward styles, Reformation ($80-$300) offers feminine, fashion-first pieces with a commitment to sustainability. Approximately 75% of its materials are recycled or renewable, its factories are audited for fair labor, and it provides detailed "RefScale" reports on the environmental footprint of each item.
Shop now at thereformation.com
If you're in the market for shoes, Veja creates stylish, minimalist sneakers ($120-$180) using organic cotton, wild Amazonian rubber, and recycled materials. The brand is famous for its transparent production process, paying its producers fair wages and operating with high environmental standards.
Shop now at veja-store.com
No, while both are Spanish fast fashion brands, they are separate companies with different operating models. Zara, owned by Inditex, is known for its ultra-fast trend cycles and massive global scale. Springfield, owned by Tendam, operates at a slightly slower pace but still follows the core principles of fast fashion.
Springfield incorporates some recycled polyester into select items but does not provide data on what percentage of its collection this represents. Over 70% of its products are still made from environmentally damaging materials like conventional cotton and virgin polyester, with no signs of a significant shift towards more sustainable alternatives.
Springfield's clothing is manufactured in several countries, including Turkey, Portugal, Bangladesh, and China. However, the brand does not publish a list of its specific factories, which makes it impossible to verify working conditions, wages, or safety standards in its supply chain.
