Quince’s meteoric rise in recent years mimics that of another online retail giant, Shein. Do its sustainable claims stack up?
The headlines are everywhere: “I Live in Quince Clothing While Traveling — and These Are My 15 Favorite Pieces, Starting at $30,” writes Travel and Leisure. “These Comfy $50 Quince Jeans Are My Secret to Looking Polished for 8-Hour Travels Days,” reads one from InStyle. The Cut says Quince made the “perfect perfume dupes.”
But is any of it true?
There’s no question Quince is making a name for itself with offerings like high-quality linen, cashmere, silk, and organic cotton pieces priced far below what one would typically pay for comparable items. But beyond the affordability, Quince claims to operate sustainably. Is the label truly upending the rules of sustainable fashion, or merely reshaping perceptions with clever marketing?
Central to Quince’s identity is its “manufacturer-to-consumer” (MTC) model. By eliminating middlemen, the brand delivers timeless items at prices that challenge conventional luxury.
“We’ve tried to look at each part of the supply chain and figure out how we could improve the
outcome for the customer,” Sid Gupta, co-founder of Quince, told WWD. In 2019, Gupta raised $8.5 million from the Founders Fund, 8VC, and Basis Set Ventures, rebranding from “Last Brand” to “Quince.”
“We went directly to the factory. Something that distinguishes us is that we then went a step further. We went to the mills who spin the yarn, and then we went a step further. We went to the people who processed the raw yarn, or the raw fiber from the cashmere goats. We have people in inner Mongolia and other places who literally visit the goat herders and are in touch with each part of the value chain.”
Gupta says this efficiency translates into luxury-grade materials that rival fast-fashion prices. However, some critics raise questions. With sweaters retailing for $50 and silk blouses priced under $60, the inevitable concern emerges: can these price points coexist with ethical labor practices and sustainable materials?
If the MTC model sounds familiar, it is also the hallmark of China’s fast-fashion giant Shein. The e-tailer, with more than $32 billion in revenue last year, says it identifies emerging fashion trends and initiates “small-batch production runs” avoiding excess and minimizing waste. It’s a strategy Shein credits for making it a “sustainable” manufacturer.
But critics say otherwise. Last September, Italy’s antitrust authority, AGCM, launched an investigation, claiming Shein misleads consumers about its sustainability efforts. The probe centers on allegations of greenwashing, where Shein’s environmental claims on its Italian website are seen as vague, confusing, or lacking critical information. The investigation particularly scrutinizes Shein’s “evoluShein” collection, suggesting it may have led customers to mistakenly believe that its products are recyclable.
AGCM also pointed to contradictions between Shein’s stated decarbonization commitments and rising greenhouse gas emissions reported in recent sustainability disclosures. Shein, which has previously faced criticism over its ultra-low prices and encouragement of overconsumption, has pledged cooperation with the investigation and reaffirmed its commitment to regulatory compliance.
Supply chain transparency and factory practices
Quince touts its partnerships with BSCI and WRAP-certified facilities, which adhere to global labor standards, as proof of its commitments. Yet transparency around its production process remains a gray area. It says it works with the same factories as those used by luxury labels, but those also have issues. Last. June, an Italian court placed Manufactures Dior SRL, a subsidiary of LVMH’s Christian Dior, under judicial administration for one year. Investigations revealed that Dior had subcontracted work to Chinese-owned suppliers near Milan, where workers, including undocumented immigrants, were subjected to exploitative conditions. The court determined that Dior failed to conduct adequate due diligence on its suppliers, allowing these abuses to occur.
Similarly, Giorgio Armani faced legal action in April 2024 when a division of the company was placed under judicial administration. Authorities discovered that Armani had outsourced production to subcontractors who, in turn, employed workers in sweatshop-like conditions. These workers, many of whom were Chinese and Pakistani migrants, reportedly lived and worked in the same facilities under poor conditions. The court criticized Armani for failing to monitor its supply chain adequately.
While Quince talks about ethical practices, its visibility into factory conditions and worker wages is almost nonexistent, according to the sustainability rating platform, Good On You. Quince traces parts of its supply chain but does not disclose whether workers receive living wages. Without public reports or certifications beyond self-regulated claims, the legitimacy of its labor practices is hard to assess.
Its on-demand production model — an approach that claims to align manufacturing with real-time demand — aims to minimize inventory surplus. “We’ve never had to throw away unsold items,” Gupta explained. However, there is no independent verification to confirm that zero waste is truly achieved in its operations.
Quince’s product range features a mix of organic textiles, recycled polyester, and animal-based materials like wool, cashmere, and silk. The use of OEKO-TEX certified organic cotton reflects efforts to prioritize eco-conscious options, while recycled polyester offers a partial solution to textile waste.
Yet, the brand’s use of cashmere and silk raises ethical and environmental questions. Cashmere production, even when responsibly managed, contributes to biodiversity loss and land degradation. It’s also been linked to declining snow leopard populations. Similarly, silk is labor-intensive, requiring large-scale farming of mulberry trees and cocoons, making it less sustainable than alternatives. These materials position Quince in a complex space — more sustainable than fast fashion but not without trade-offs.
Good On You rates Quince poorly for its lack of a clear animal welfare policy, stating that it uses wool, silk, and leather without offering detailed guidelines on sourcing practices. The absence of transparency around these materials reflects the broader challenge for brands attempting to blend luxury with sustainability.
Despite mixed reviews from sustainability advocates, Quince continues to win over shoppers with its affordability and aesthetic appeal. “Overall, we’re super impressed with the quality of the items, especially for such affordable prices,” says Jen Campbell of Green Wedding Shoes. “It’s a great place to find timeless pieces, like sweaters, skirts, and everyday jewelry — perfect if you’re building your ultimate capsule wardrobe.”
“What started as a quest for ‘elegant-yet-comfortable basics I can wear on a Zoom call’ closet staples became closet staple-staples,” Gina Vaynshteyn wrote for Well and Good.
Quince’s 365-day return policy and commitment to customer satisfaction add to the brand’s reputation. Buyers appreciate the option to try out products without risk, fostering a sense of trust. The allure of minimalist styles combined with premium materials at low prices has positioned Quince as a brand that feels luxurious without the guilt of overspending.
But even with these positives, skepticism persists. Some critics argue that Quince’s MTC model may limit true transparency and allow greenwashing practices to flourish.
The absence of rigorous reporting and independent certification suggests that Quince still has room for growth. As it stands, Quince straddles the line between sustainability and savvy marketing, leaving an impression that is as complex as the industry it operates within.
Gupta explains, “We don’t really push the sustainability angle as the first message for Quince, mostly because I think all businesses are not sustainable,” he said. “We all have so much work to do. We’ve tried to do it quietly. We’ve tried to do the right things for the customer. We’ve tried to make the right choices for the 21st century. Could we be doing more? 100 percent.
There’s so much more we can keep doing and that’s something we keep working on and
keep pushing on.”
Related on Ethos:
