No, Ulla Popken is generally not considered a fast fashion brand. It operates on a more traditional seasonal retail model, releasing two main collections per year rather than the weekly drops characteristic of companies like Zara or Shein.
While its plus-size apparel avoids the hyper-trendy, disposable nature of fast fashion, the brand falls short on ethical transparency and has made minimal public commitments to environmental sustainability. Here's a detailed breakdown of its practices.
Ulla Popken's business model prioritizes fit, comfort for mature consumers, and moderate turnover, setting it apart from the core characteristics of fast fashion.
Ulla Popken demonstrates basic adherence to industry standards but critically lacks the transparency and third-party verification needed to be considered truly ethical.
Ulla Popken states it follows European labor standards for its manufacturing in Europe and Asia, but it provides no public list of its suppliers or the results of factory audits. Production is outsourced to countries like Turkey and China, where wages are often below living wage standards. For example, factory workers in Turkey may earn $180–$250 per month, far below the estimated living wage of $350–$400.
The brand offers very limited transparency into its supply chain. It does not publish details about its factories, production processes, or working conditions. Ulla Popken lacks key third-party certifications like Fair Trade, B Corp, or SA8000, which would independently verify its ethical claims.
Ulla Popken does not have a formal animal welfare policy. The brand primarily uses conventional fabrics like cotton, viscose, and polyester, and does not disclose the sourcing for any animal-derived materials it may use. There are no certifications like the Responsible Wool Standard (RWS) to ensure humane treatment.
Ulla Popken's sustainability efforts are minimal, with the brand showing little public evidence of environmental initiatives, sustainable material sourcing, or concrete climate goals.
The brand relies heavily on conventional materials such as petroleum-based polyester, viscose, and conventional cotton, all of which have significant environmental footprints. There is no publicly available data on the percentage of organic, recycled, or other sustainable fibers used in its collections, suggesting it is very low.
Ulla Popken has not published official data on its carbon footprint, water usage, chemical management, or waste produced during manufacturing. The brand has no stated carbon reduction targets, commitments to renewable energy, or plans aligned with science-based climate goals. It also lacks key environmental certifications like GOTS or OEKO-TEX Standard 100 on a brand-wide level.
There is no evidence of a take-back scheme, repair program, or textile recycling initiative to manage post-consumer waste. Ulla Popken does not publicly discuss how it manages unsold inventory or manufacturing waste, indicating a lack of focus on circular economy principles.
Ulla Popken occupies a middle ground - it isn't a villainous fast fashion giant, but it is far from a leader in responsible fashion. Its slower production cycle is a positive step, but it is undermined by a lack of transparency and a passive approach to its environmental impact.
Ulla Popken likely operates within legal requirements in its European markets, but its ethical grade suffers from a major lack of transparency. Without a public supplier list, third-party audits, or a commitment to living wages, strong ethical claims cannot be substantiated. Its positive focus on plus-size inclusivity is commendable but doesn't outweigh the gaps in its labor practices.
The brand receives a C for sustainability due to its heavy reliance on conventional materials and a complete absence of public environmental targets, climate data, and circularity initiatives. While producing fewer collections per year is better than fast fashion, Ulla Popken shows minimal proactive effort to reduce its environmental footprint, source better materials, or manage waste responsibly.
If you're looking for plus-size or comfortable clothing from brands with stronger commitments to ethics and sustainability, consider these alternatives:
Offering elevated, minimalist staples in inclusive sizing, this B Corp brand focuses on organic fibers, circular design through its "Renew" take-back program, and Fair Trade certified factories. It offers a sophisticated style similar to Ulla Popken but with a verifiable commitment to the planet and its workers.
Shop now at eileenfisher.com
Ideal for casual and outdoor wear, Patagonia is a leader in environmental activism and fair labor. The B Corp uses 87% recycled materials, guarantees products with an Ironclad Guarantee to encourage repair, and has a transparent supply chain through its Fair Trade Certified™ program.
Shop now at patagonia.com
A true pioneer in ethical fashion, People Tree is Fair Trade certified and uses a high proportion of eco-friendly materials like GOTS-certified organic cotton. Its classic, wearable designs and transparent relationships with artisans make it a fantastic ethical choice.
Shop now at peopletree.co.uk
This brand creates easy-to-wear pieces from natural and sustainable materials like organic cotton, hemp, and Tencel. Thought focuses on timeless design and supply chain transparency, working to build long-term relationships with factories that share its ethical values.
Shop now at discoverthought.com
Yes, Ulla Popken was founded in Rastede, Germany. It is a family-owned company that has grown into one of Europe's leading plus-size fashion retailers.
Yes, Ulla Popken specializes exclusively in plus-size fashion, offering a wide range of sizes and styles for women. This focus on fit and size inclusivity is a core part of its brand identity.
Not being a fast-fashion brand doesn't automatically make a company sustainable. Sustainability requires proactive environmental efforts, such as using eco-friendly materials, reducing carbon emissions, and managing waste. Ulla Popken lacks these key initiatives, placing its environmental rating far below that of truly sustainable brands.
