Share This Article
Everlane clothing gets a new chance to be sustainable after its co-founder announced his new brand after the sale to Shein.
| All products featured on The Wellness Feed are independently selected by our editors for its environmental and ethical impact. However, when you buy something through our retail links, we may earn an affiliate commission. |
Drama. Few words are as entangled in the fashion world as this. This week, drama ensued when headlines left mouths gaping at the news that Everlane, one of the original sustainable clothing brands, was sold to Shein, one of the original ultra-fast-fashion brands, for $100 million. Yet that was only the beginning. Days later, Michael Preysman, Everlane co-founder, announced he was building a new brand without venture capital or private equity.
Tangled in all this drama are advocates lamenting about how this will impact sustainability within the fashion industry. When Everlane first launched in 2011, it was built on a platform of radical transparency, opening up the doors about how clothing was made in ways the industry hadn’t really done before. Copycat brands popped up, offering the same- sharing lists of partner factories and launching collections of eco-friendly materials with new metrics such as monitoring water waste. Not long afterwards, Shein rose to become a fashion behemoth that was different from Everlane in every way, and few would have predicted that the two brands would join forces. Yet, in 2026, that’s just what happened. Everlane and Shein have joined forces. And its co-founder and CEO (until 2022) isn’t happy about it. So, within days, the dramatic news broke about the launch of his new brand- Still Radical. (Little is known about the brand outside of the brand’s website and email signup.)
All this drama offers a keen example of how the fashion industry is changing. Everlane helped set a new standard for transparency in the industry. Yet, as brands like Shein continue to dominate, will we ever be able to escape the fast-fashion status quo?
The Original Promise: Deconstructing Everlane’s Radical Transparency
In its early years, Everlane defined transparency by pulling back the curtain on production costs. They took a novel approach to the Everlane cost breakdown, exposing what they paid for materials and labor. This was a massive change from the closed-door practices of legacy retailers. By highlighting the costs, they built massive trust with a new group of conscious consumers who wanted to feel better about their purchases.
They also made strides in factory mapping. By showing us which Tier 1 factories- the ones doing the final assembly – the brand gave us more information about the people making Everlane clothing. At the time, this was hailed as a major ethical win. The media loved it, and for a while, it seemed like they were the leaders in the ethical fashion movement.
They also started with a commitment to better materials. They pushed organic cotton and Tencel, which at the time, set them apart from the mass-market brands filling shopping malls. This initial focus on materials created a baseline that consumers used to judge them, but as the company scaled, this baseline became harder to maintain.
The Turning Point: Scrutiny and Internal Challenges
The brand hit a wall when its public image clashed with its internal reality. The “Radical Transparency” they sold to customers did not seem to apply to how they treated their own staff. Reports and accounts from former employees described a toxic workplace culture, which made their ethical claims feel hollow.
The controversy was not just about the internal environment. It was about what their version of transparency left out. They were great at showing customers the cost of a sweater, but they were silent on the broader impacts of their supply chain. This led to a key realization for many: revealing a price list is not the same thing as reducing a carbon footprint or ensuring fair treatment for everyone in the factory.
Their sustainability goals often lacked the bite they needed. For instance, their 2020 pledge to remove all virgin plastic from their supply chain sounded good on paper. However, holding them to these goals proved difficult. When you look at their progress reports versus their stated ambitions, the gap between their marketing and their actual environmental performance became clear. Transparency is just the first step, not the goal itself.
The biggest challenge for the brand has been growth. Dealing with fashion brand scalability issues means that what works for a small, niche company often breaks when you start producing millions of items. As they grew, they had to move into larger, more complex factories. This made it harder to maintain a strong level of oversight and traceability they had at the start.
When you look at their material usage today, the story is mixed. They still use some recycled materials, like recycled cashmere or polyester, which is a positive step. However, they still rely heavily on conventional, resource-intensive materials. Compared to brands that only use certified organic or recycled fibers, Everlane often sits in the middle of the pack rather than leading it.
Their approach to carbon emissions also deserves scrutiny. Like many large companies, they often focus on purchasing carbon offsets to claim “carbon neutrality.” While this can help balance the books, it is not the same as actively reducing direct emissions in their manufacturing plants or shipping processes. If you want to support a truly sustainable brand, look for those that focus on reducing their own energy use first, rather than just buying their way out of a carbon problem.
The Final Straw: Becoming An Ultra-Fast Fashion Brand
Flash forward to 2026, and the brand is being sold to one of the worst fast fashion offenders, Shein. The retailer burst onto the scene like a whirlwind. Shoppers love its dirt-cheap clothes that arrive super fast. But that speed comes with an environmental and economic price tag that governments are now beginning to take seriously. In the UK, Shein paid a $67 million fine for skipping value-added tax on low-cost imports from a scheme that let small packages slip past duties. Over in Israel, another penalty- $39 million- stung for similar tax tricks.
Can Still Radical Become A Modern Ethical Fashion Leader?
If you compare Everlane to the brands that have come after them, their competitive advantage has eroded. Other companies have moved beyond simple cost transparency and into deep, third-party-verified sustainability. Many new labels have gone the extra mile to get a B Corp certification, which audits their entire business, from supply chain labor to their own office electricity usage. The days of simply telling customers which country a factory is located is not the same as ensuring that the workers inside are paid a living wage or treated with respect. Today’s leaders in ethical fashion publish full factory audits and pay premiums to ensure fair wages. Everlane’s approach, which focuses more on the cost of the item than the conditions of the worker, now feels dated. So, how will Still Radical be different in a market servicing more knowledgeable, conscious consumers?
Everlane started a conversation that was necessary for the fashion industry. They proved that consumers care about who makes their clothes and how much it costs to produce them. However, they have struggled to keep up with the rising standard of what it means to be truly sustainable. And it’s doubtful that they’ll be able to retain their core customer base after their latest merger with Shein. Still Radical will need to learn from Everlane’s mistakes and understand that transparency is a powerful tool, but it is not a substitute for a comprehensive environmental and social strategy.
To claim a position of true leadership, they would need to do more than just share price breakdowns. They would need to embrace third-party audits, make deeper commitments to carbon reduction, and improve their internal workplace ethics. For you, the consumer, the lesson is clear: don’t let a company’s marketing, no matter how transparent it seems, replace your own research into their actual impact.
