ModCloth Sustainability Profile

ModCloth is a U.S. womenswear brand known for vintage-inspired styles and inclusive sizing. Public sustainability information is limited, and Good On You rates it “We Avoid” because it does not share enough detail about its environmental and labour policies. Independent sources do show some sustainability-related activity, including a resale program with ThredUp and a stated interest in more sustainable fabrics and sourcing. However, there is not enough public evidence to show a strong, well-documented ESG strategy. The overall picture is mixed: there are some circular fashion and sourcing signals, but transparency is still weak.

Positive Sentiment Found
Public sentiment around ModCloth’s sustainability is limited, but there are a few positive signals. ESG News reported that ModCloth joined ThredUp’s branded resale network, which suggests the brand is taking part in circular fashion, a model that keeps clothes in use for longer. The sourcing material also says the company has shown interest in more sustainable fabrics, factory practices, and clearer product information. Good On You gives ModCloth a stronger score for animals than for planet or people, rating its animal welfare at 4/5 while noting it appears not to use leather, down, fur, angora, or exotic skins. That does not make the brand broadly sustainable, but it does show some limited strengths in specific areas.

Common Criticisms:
The strongest public signal is negative. Good On You rates ModCloth “We Avoid” overall and says the brand does not share enough information about its environmental and labour policies. It gives the company 1/5 for planet and 1/5 for people, which points to very weak public disclosure rather than proven misconduct. The same assessment says there is no evidence of meaningful action on hazardous chemicals, microplastic impacts, or climate reduction, and that worker-rights information is also missing. Trustpilot reviews are also poor, with a 1.5/5 score from 287 reviews, and the snippet mentions complaints about quality and sizing. Together, these sources suggest low transparency and weak consumer confidence around the brand’s products and practices.