0 comments
Pretty Little Thing is the latest fast fashion retailer to start charging customers who make returns. But is the decision down to concern for the planet, or profit?
UK customers have been left disgruntled after popular online fashion retailer Pretty Little Thing (PLT) announced it was scrapping free returns. Consumers will now be charged £1.99 to return clothes, an amount that will be deducted from their refund.
For a generation accustomed to easily accessible clothing and free returns, this isn’t the first ‘betrayal’ by a major fast fashion brand. High street giants Zara, Next and Uniqlo all started charging for returns last year, in a bid to reduce company losses and excess refunds.
PLT customers have expressed frustration and disappointment over the decision, taking to social media to vent about the new returns fee.
One TikTok user posted screenshots of the PLT app being deleted from her phone, saying she ‘wasted [too] much money on this app anyway’.
The post has already garnered thousands of likes, and most of the comments insist the high number of PLT returns was caused by inconsistent sizing.
‘Why do I have to order the same outfit in three different sizes just to hope one fits?’ said one comment.
For many, the allure of fast fashion lies not just in its affordability but also in the convenience. The ability to buy multiple items, try them on at home, and return what doesn’t work without extra cost has been a key selling point.
But beyond the consumer outrage lies a pressing issue: the environmental impact of returns in the fast fashion industry. Each return generates a significant carbon footprint. Items are often shipped back and forth across vast distances, adding to greenhouse gas emissions.
In many cases, returned items aren’t even resold but are instead sent to landfills, further contributing to waste.
In the context of ultra-fast fashion brands like Temu and Shein, which churn out new styles at a breakneck pace, the environmental cost is staggering. These companies produce massive quantities of clothing, much of which is designed to be worn only a few times before being discarded.
The return process exacerbates this issue, as it often involves additional packaging, transportation, and ultimately, more waste.
On the surface, PLT’s decision to eliminate free returns could be seen as a positive step towards reducing this environmental impact.
By discouraging high rates of returns, the brand may help to cut down on unnecessary shipments and waste. But it’s important to question their motivations. Is PLT genuinely concerned about the planet, or is this simply a strategy to boost their bottom line?
