Menu Menu
[gtranslate]

Opinion – NikeSKIMS proves price and marketing don’t make fashion sustainable

The highly anticipated fashion collab claims to be ‘disrupting the industry’, but the use of harmful synthetics suggests this ‘disruption’ is more damaging than innovating. 

When Nike and Kim Kardashian announced their joint brand, NikeSKIMS, the press release was polished to perfection. The companies called it ‘an incredible opportunity to disrupt the industry with our shared passion and commitment to innovation.’

But when the first collections dropped this Friday, disruption came in the form of polyester leggings and nylon sports bras. In other words, more fossil fuel fashion for a world already drowning in it.

The collaboration has already sparked backlash from unlikely sources. In an Instagram story, actor and outspoken climate activist Nathalie Kelley shared a post outlining the new collection’s use of harmful synthetics.

‘In practice [NikeSKIMS] seems to translate into producing more fossil fuel-based fashion, with little regard for people and planet’ the post stated. It’s hard to disagree. Nike’s track record of sweatshop conditions and labour rights violations, combined with Skims’ own 2022 allegations of worker exploitation in Myanmar, doesn’t exactly scream empowerment.

‘Both Nike’s and Kim Kardashian’s stocks are down so in a shrewd attempt to stay relevant, they’ve decided to collaborate on NikeSKIMS, ready to sculpt our saggy rumps this spring. It reeks of desperation, and it’s a match made in fossil fuel hell,’ writes Venetia La Manna.

The launch campaign has established itself with the message of women’s strength, power, and innovation – placing prominent sportswomen like Serena Williams front and center. But it’s a message of hypocrisy. Apparently, the strength and power of the women sewing the garments themselves aren’t as high a priority.

What makes NikeSKIMS particularly fascinating is that it highlights a widespread misconception about fast fashion. The term has long been shorthand for ultra-cheap retailers like Shein, Boohoo, or Primark. But fast fashion is less about price and more about pace, scale, and material impact.

Skims may market itself as a ‘premium basics’ line, and Nike may position its products as ‘performance innovation,’ but both are guilty of the same churn – with constant new drops, synthetic-heavy fabrics, opaque supply chains, and enormous marketing machines.

Skims, in fact, scored zero in Remake’s 2024 Fashion Accountability Report—performing worse than even Shein or Boohoo when it comes to transparency. Nike, meanwhile, cut 30% of its sustainability team last year, signalling that climate priorities were expendable when times got tough.

And this isn’t unique. Many supposedly ‘elevated’ or ‘ethical’ brands are, by definition, still fast fashion. COS – often mistaken for a sustainable alternative – is owned by H&M, the very company that pioneered fast fashion at scale.

The former’s ballooning price tags don’t absolve them from environmental destruction. If anything, they make the marketing spin more dangerous, because it convinces consumers they’re making better choices when they’re not.

Social media has only supercharged this cycle, with viral trends accounting for a rise in one-off purchases and rapid trend turnover. Scarcity and hype fuel desirability, but they also encourage overproduction and overconsumption. And it’s not just fashion. Perfumes, once considered personal investment pieces, have become the latest victim of ‘fast fashion’ purchasing patterns with the rise of cult fragrance discourse on TikTok.

‘Today, fragrance popularity rises and falls with cultural hype,’ writes Zeynab Mohamed. ‘With almost six new perfumes launching every day, fragrance is starting to look a lot like fast fashion.’

NikeSKIMS is perfectly engineered for virality. The mashup of Kim Kardashian’s cultural sway and Nike’s global dominance is less about innovation and more about ubiquity. The problem isn’t just the new collections themselves, but the cycle they represent, complete with high-gloss launches and a complete reliance on fossil fuel-derived textiles.

The fashion industry’s annual emissions already rival those of aviation and shipping combined. And yet, giants like Nike and Skims – who reported $51.4 billion and a projected $1 billion in revenue respectively – still refuse to invest meaningfully in sustainable materials or ethical labour practices.

NikeSKIMS may just look like another celebrity x sportswear launch, but it represents the mainstreaming of a dangerous myth: that luxury equates to sustainability.

And perhaps the most disruptive thing consumers can do now is to see past the glossy marketing and ask the simple question of who, exactly, this innovation is for.

Accessibility