.jpg)
One year on from its big rebrand, UK-based fast fashion brand PrettyLittleThing is distinctly detached from its pink, playful roots. Flying unicorn motifs, neon bodycon dresses, and pool party content are nowhere to be seen, replaced by a grown-up palette of brown and beige, tailored separates, and stately home settings.
Working under the new strapline “legacy in progress”, the brand claimed last March it was “leaving ‘fast fashion’ as we currently know it behind” as part of a “comprehensive elevation”, reducing its offering to focus on design, quality, and fit. For parent company Debenhams, which also owns fast fashion retailer Boohoo, the rebrand has paid off. Previously contemplating selling off PrettyLittleThing, Debenhams confirmed it would keep the brand in its stable as profits are expected to rise to £50 million for the year ending February 28, up from expectations of £45 million.
But does the quality match the new quiet luxury aesthetic? Reviews are mixed. Some customers picked out singular pieces as feeling premium or fitting well, while others aired complaints about thin and low-quality fabric, or simply no noticeable improvement, despite price uplifts. “If they’re charging a lot more for this stuff, then it should have some sort of elevation in the actual product, not just the way that it looks,” noted one reviewer.
.jpg)
“As part of the rebrand — and in line with what our customers are shopping for — over the last year we’ve broadened a number of ranges, including evening and occasionwear, which are typically more expensive categories,” a spokesperson for PrettlyLittleThing told Vogue Business. “We’ve also continued to invest in the quality and construction of our pieces, which is reflected in the pricing.”
PrettyLittleThing is not alone in trying to shake off fast fashion associations. From Zara to H&M, the old guard of fast fashion have been attempting to distance themselves from ultra-fast fashion newcomers for several years now, invoking quiet luxury aesthetics, embracing “elevation”, and releasing luxury-adjacent collaborations with respected industry figures. But is a new look enough? And how important are commitments throughout the supply chain to reduce production volumes and make higher quality clothing in better social and environmental conditions?
These are the types of considerations that matter if brands are determined to move upmarket. The steps to quitting fast fashion involve not just a move away from trends, but a deeper overhaul of the type of model that fuels overproduction and overconsumption. But, experts say, change is possible.
The new face of fast fashion
It makes sense that fast fashion brands would want to pivot their positioning. The sector is now firmly in the sights of regulators, who have sought to stunt its growth with actions such as blocking IPOs, imposing per-product surcharges, and trialing advertisement bans. In light of this heightened scrutiny — and the potential financial consequences — dissociating from the moniker is a shrewd move. Not to mention that the original fast fashion brands now find themselves undercut by ultra-fast fashion giants such as Shein and Temu, which have driven prices down and accelerated the speed of production even further.
Zara is often considered the original fast fashion brand: it was in a 1989 The New York Times article covering the opening of the company’s first Manhattan store that the term was first popularized, and its reputation for making runway trends immediately accessible thanks to its on-demand production model now spans the globe. Yet it no longer wants to be thought of as such.
“We don’t want to be fast; we want to be agile and flexible. We don’t want to be big; we want to be relevant,” wrote Marta Ortega Pérez, chair of Zara parent company Inditex (and daughter of founder Amancio Ortega) in the group’s 2022 annual report. That was the year Zara stepped into high fashion collaborations, forging associations with former Calvin Klein designer Narciso Rodríguez, coveted South Korean brand Ader Error, Virgil Abloh-mentee and A-Cold-Wall designer Samuel Ross, stylist Karl Templer, photographer Steven Meisel, and stylist Harry Lambert. Prices rose in tandem. Jackets for nearly $1,000 and handbags for $400 can now be purchased at the high street retailer, raising some complaints from consumers who have come to know Zara for its cheaper hits. The message is clear: Zara wants to be seen as accessible luxury, not fast fashion. Consistently strong sales growth suggests its core audience is willing to weather the price increases and follow its new direction.
“Zara is focused on making exceptional design, as well as quality and value, accessible to our customers,” a spokesperson for Zara told Vogue Business. “We maintain rigorous quality standards throughout our product design and supply chain processes, while continuously striving to advance our sustainability commitments and increase the use of preferred materials.”
Instagram content
H&M is also seeking to build luxury credibility. In September 2025, the brand returned to the runway at London Fashion Week (LFW), calling on renowned editor Katie Grand as creative consultant, and stylist Jacob K to create the runway looks. Despite its bid to secure a more premium perception, H&M’s pricing strategy has been more reserved than its competitors, taking what CEO Daniel Ervér called a “prudent” approach, and keeping entry-level prices steady while assessing where customers are willing to pay more.
The brand says that 89% of the materials it used in 2024 were either sustainably sourced or recycled, and is so certain of its positive impact that Ervér stated it can improve the fashion industry as a whole by taking market share. H&M has also stated its intentions to extend product lifecycles through durability and quality, as one pillar of its decarbonization strategy. However, it has consistently shied away from addressing product volumes, relying on the reduction of impacts associated with manufacturing garments, rather than reducing the amount produced in the first place. In January, the company told Vogue Business it was working on “precision” within its sourcing strategy, to reduce overproduction and unsold stock.
While some customers praise pieces sold under H&M’s Premium Selection as being well-constructed, others note manufacturing flaws and majority synthetic fibers. Reviews of Zara’s higher priced items follow a similar pattern. At a time when 51% of global consumers say quality is a key driver in creating a high-end brand perception, these criticisms are not to be ignored. Some reviewers have noted that quality simply isn’t aligning with price. (H&M said it is continuously investing in design, fit and material development, and that offering the best value for money is fundamental to its strategy.)
A roadmap for meaningful change
Beyond surface-level changes, what would it actually take for fast fashion brands to break free from their past? It requires investment in better materials, better wages for workers, and a separation of sales growth from production volume, none of which are easy to pull off – especially twhen high-end and luxury brands increasingly share the same bad practices. “A fast fashion brand creating items with a luxury aesthetic is simply a change in aesthetic, not their business model,” says Audrey Yang, founder of sustainability consultancy Thought Partner Eco. “It is a low-friction option with clear short-term benefits, whereas investing time and resources in tackling sustainability issues requires patience and stronger commitment to gain more holistic long-term benefits.”
Zara and H&M have both invested heavily in recycled materials as part of their sustainability strategies, investments that have been critical to the survival and scale-up of these innovations. H&M inked a founding offtake agreement with recycled polyester company Syre in 2025, while becoming a scaling partner to next-gen materials company Circulose that same year. Meanwhile, Zara has an ongoing partnership with Circ for recycled polycotton fibers. But the reality is, these brands are able to make investments of this scale because of the fast fashion models they doggedly pursued. And the market share of virgin synthetics — which makes up the majority of many fast fashion (and sportwear) brands’ fiber mixes — continues to dwarf that of next-gen or recycled fibers, as production volumes grow at a rate far outstripping the scale-up of more sustainable materials. Investment in next-gen materials alone isn’t enough, it must come as part of a wider package of responsible practices.
At the annual Future Fabrics Expo, material innovation startups shared the challenges keeping them from growth and what gives them hope.
Among those responsible practices should be a focus on quality and performance, both of which suffer when cost-cutting reigns, says Samantha Taylor, a product developer and founder of The Good Factory sustainable fashion consultancy. “On one single garment [backstitching to secure a seam] takes no time at all; but over 3,000 pieces, that time adds up and people don’t want to pay for it,” she says.
For fast fashion brands to truly commit to quality and durability, they would need to accept longer lead times (the time from order placement to delivery of finished products), says Taylor. From ensuring seams are strong and building in repairability, to catching last-minute snags, a thorough product development process is almost always a slower one.
Adele Gingell, head of positive impact at UK-based, B Corp-certified brand Finisterre, also cites quality as playing a major factor in the time it takes to get products on shelves, the speed of which separates fast fashion from its counterparts. “We want to make sure the fits and the performance are right,” she says. But it’s not black and white. Many fast fashion brands hold more sway with suppliers because they place larger orders; scale can bring efficiency, and the data that comes from churning out so many products can improve forecasting. Gingell doesn’t believe quick always means cheap, poor quality. “There are times when we can get [products] quicker when they’ve sold out. Suppliers might have gaps in their production and the right fabric on hand,” she says.
Though its suppliers can act quickly when they have capacity, for Finisterre, normalizing longer lead times means the brand reduces undue pressure on supply chain workers, feeding into its commitment to responsible business practices. A slower pace and higher quality doesn’t inherently guarantee a perfect supply chain, however, as evidenced by the string of luxury brands that have come under scrutiny for allegations of worker exploitation. “It’s how you structure your supply chain and the decisions you make within that structure,” Gingell says, pointing to the growing scrutiny on governance.
A slew of supply chain scandals have called the distinction between fast fashion and luxury into question. It turns out, brands across the board have more in common than they want consumers to believe.
Some of those decisions come down to where a company draws the line on profit margins. “When I started out [over 20 years ago], margins were 50%. Now, they’re 80%, or in some cases 90%,” she says. To increase profit margins, high-end brands would typically increase the ticket price, while fast fashion and ultra-fast fashion brands, which have historically targeted lower price points, would instead lower production costs. Despite recent price hikes, this practice remains embedded in the fast fashion model.
Some manufacturing costs are fixed, such as setting up the production line and the “sewing minutes” allotted to make a garment, explains Taylor. “The cost goes down the more you buy, and that’s basically what people are bargaining with,” she says. In chasing higher margins by ordering more product, brands feed into several of the underpinning flaws of the fast fashion model that critics have drawn attention to: squeezing suppliers to produce more and faster for lower prices, leading to overproduction, followed by heavy discounting, the dumping of unsold stock on overwhelmed charities, and the burning or landfilling of unsold stock.
“Are you producing a lot of different [styles], very quickly, and then pushing people to buy all the time? Is volume turnover the only way you’re making money? Because if that’s the case, that is not the way to go if you want to transition,” says Thought Partner Eco’s Yang.
PrettyLittleThing, despite its new aesthetic, has only narrowly changed how many products it’s putting out: the brand released 134 items on January 26 2026, compared to 163 on the same day in 2022, and 127 on the same day in 2019. Last-chance sales and tops for under £10 are still the norm.
If a fast fashion brand truly wants to step away from that moniker, it needs to go further. A brand looking to take a less wasteful approach, Yang suggests, should explore moving to an on-demand model, or capping the number of styles released. Perhaps, most importantly, brands hoping to transition cannot simply choose one sustainability metric and leave everything else the same: the change has to be holistic. “It would be very brave for [a brand] to say I want to make this change. It would require a lot of patience, a lot of explaining, and having [your audience] get used to how you are showing up differently.”
