Lucy&YAk… can any company truly be ethical under capitalism

Lucy & Yak positions itself as a sustainable, ethical fashion brand. Their 2023 Impact Report highlights some positives, including materials graded as “good” for sustainability, transparency about factory locations, and the Re: Yak scheme, which encourages circular fashion. At first glance, it appears to be a company trying to do the right thing. Certified organic cotton, Global Organic Textile Standard (GOTS) certification, and initiatives to repair, upcycle, and resell clothing are all commendable (lucyandyak.com). These are steps most high-street brands have yet to take, and for that, Lucy & Yak deserves acknowledgement.

But the positives quickly plateau. The further you dig, the more gaps and omissions appear. Media reports have repeated claims that some workers earn four times the state minimum wage (Fashion Revolution, 2023), yet there is no third-party verification of this. These numbers are assertions, not facts. The impact report itself does not provide audited wage data. Without independent verification, such claims are effectively marketing statements rather than demonstrable evidence of ethical labour practices. Lucy & Yak states that it “endorses unionisation” (lucyandyak.com), yet there is little concrete evidence of collective bargaining actually taking place in their supply chain. This is an industry-wide problem; many brands claim to support workers’ rights in principle but fail to implement structures that allow employees to exercise them in practice. Without clear evidence, statements about union support remain aspirational, rather than measurable ethical outcomes.

The most concerning gap, however, is the carbon emissions reporting. Lucy & Yak partners with Greenly, a carbon accounting platform, but their reporting lacks the rigour required to evaluate genuine climate impact. Standard greenhouse gas inventories break emissions into three “Scopes”: Scope 1 covers direct emissions from company operations, like fuel for vehicles or gas in offices; Scope 2 covers indirect emissions from purchased energy, such as electricity for stores or warehouses; and Scope 3 captures the majority of emissions for fashion companies, including raw material production, factory energy, transport, and even product use and disposal by consumers. Lucy & Yak’s report does not provide a baseline year, so we cannot see where they started; there are no reduction targets, making it unclear what their goals are; and there is no published progress to show whether any initiatives are actually reducing emissions. Without these details, their climate claims are largely unsubstantiated and lack transparency (lucyandyak.com).

Furthermore, their marketing and product release practices compound these issues. The brand previously ran a birthday lottery refund system, where random purchases were refunded and then advertised as marketing content. Meanwhile, Lucy & Yak have released at least six capsule collections since April 2023, each containing between six and twelve items, and Particl reports that in May 2024 they had 498 active products. Customers have also reported declining quality as the sheer number of items rises. This strategy contributes to overconsumption, one of the primary drivers of climate change, while simultaneously allowing the brand to appear socially conscious. Lucy & Yak’s marketing slogans also reveal performative tendencies. They invite customers to “join the comfort movement,” yet some products, like plant pot covers, have no apparent ethical or social purpose. They frame themselves as a socially conscious brand, yet, for example, they have not supported Palestinian/Sudanese/Congolese rights in any collection. These gaps between marketing narrative and substantive action suggest a brand more concerned with image than impact. This is a clear example of Nick Srnicek’s “murketing” theory, where marketing techniques obscure the realities of consumption while creating the illusion of social or ethical value. (Srnicek in Platform Capitalism)

In conclusion, Lucy & Yak demonstrates better practices than many high-street brands in terms of materials and transparency, and they're Re: Yak scheme is commendable. Yet the absence of verifiable wage data, the lack of evidence for unionisation, incomplete carbon emissions reporting, and marketing practices that promote overconsumption all reveal the limitations of ethical branding under capitalism. Their story illustrates a larger question: can any company be truly ethical in a system that prioritises profit and growth over social and environmental responsibility? Consumers are left to question not just Lucy & Yak’s actions, but the structural pressures that make ethical business so difficult….and perhaps impossible under capitalism.