Budapest-based Nanushka has positioned itself as a sustainability pioneer since Sandra Sandor founded the label in 2005. But does their “ardent approach to sustainability” actually prove valid?
The Hungarian fashion house built its reputation around three core pillars: Earth, Community, and Circularity. Their promises are ambitious – achieving “100% preferred fibres and materials by 2025” and slashing greenhouse gas emissions by 30% before 2030. Bold targets for any luxury brand, particularly one still developing its environmental approach.
At the heart of these claims sits OKOBOR™, Nanushka’s proprietary leather alternative. Marketing materials promote it as a “planet-friendly alternative to leather, made with 56% recycled polyester”. The circularity narrative goes further – executives claim they are “dedicated to circularity as a means to maximise the value of everything we produce”. They have even reframed waste as a “design opportunity” for creating “beautiful pieces from waste”.
These are not modest sustainability tweaks. They are comprehensive transformation claims that demand independent verification, particularly given fashion’s track record of green promises that fail under expert analysis.
What independent analysis revealed
Independent assessments show a more complex picture than Nanushka’s marketing suggests. Good On You, which examines environmental, social, and animal welfare practices, gives the brand an overall “It’s a Start” rating – three out of five. That places them in average territory for a self-proclaimed sustainability leader. Panaprium’s analysts are even more critical, delivering just five out of 10.
Examine OKOBOR™ more closely and the reasons become clear. The material contains 56% recycled polyester from post-consumer PET bottles with GRS (Global Recycled Standard) certification – genuine progress. But the marketing overlooks a key detail: the remaining 44% is polyurethane. Oil-based plastic.
Fashion designer Justine Leconte is direct about PU: “It is oil based so it is purely plastic it does not biodegrade it is super not environmentally friendly”. Nearly half of Nanushka’s celebrated leather alternative relies on fossil fuel-derived materials that will persist for centuries.
The circularity claims face similar challenges. Similarly, in 2022, roughly 19% of Nanushka’s materials qualified as “circular” – recycled content or repurposed stock. This shows progress. But it falls far short of their 100% preferred materials target for 2025. Meanwhile, Panaprium notes the brand continues using “highly polluting synthetic petroleum-based fibres, such as polyester, spandex, polyethylene, and acrylic”.
More concerning are the gaps in labour practices. Good On You states it is “unclear whether [Nanushka] ensures workers are paid living wages”. Panaprium goes further, noting that Nanushka “discloses very little about decent living wages, health, safety, and other crucial rights for workers” and “does not present any certification that would ensure social and labour standards”. This conflicts with their stated commitment to ensuring “rights of everyone who works with them…are respected”.
Customer experiences raise additional concerns. Premium pricing – items like £445 (approximately $590) OKOBOR™ skirts and £1,225 (approximately $1,625) tote bags – creates tension with sustainability principles. One Trustpilot reviewer stated “EVERYTHING is so overpriced”, while another reported an £800 (approximately $1,060) dress strap breaking after just two hours. When durability fails at luxury prices, the sustainability argument weakens.
Notably, even Nanushka’s leadership acknowledges they are early in the process. Chief Executive Peter Balat admits that after four years of sustainability investment, they remain “in the very beginning of our sustainability Journey”. This honesty is welcome – but it shows the gap between current marketing claims and operational reality.
Fashion sustainability expert James Hillman offers a useful benchmark: “Sustainable fashion brands will have no qualms about being upfront and transparent about exactly what makes their garments sustainable”. By this standard, Nanushka’s transparency record requires improvement, particularly around material composition disclosure and labour verification.
What this means for conscious shoppers
These findings place Nanushka within a familiar pattern – established luxury brands retrofitting sustainability initiatives rather than building them into their DNA. It is a challenging transition that industry critic Natasha Franck captured perfectly: “Sustainable fashion is an oxymoron unless the business model changes”.
What emerges is not a simple pass-or-fail assessment. It is evidence of genuine investment in sustainability infrastructure – dedicated teams, supplier partnerships, material innovation – whilst remaining constrained by luxury fashion’s traditional high-margin, exclusivity model. Expert consensus suggests this transitional space is where many brands currently operate: genuine effort coexisting with fundamental systemic limitations.
The investigation confirms that even brands actively working towards stated goals can struggle with the transformative change required for authentic sustainability leadership. Independent evaluation reveals both genuine progress and persistent gaps, allowing consumers to understand the complexity behind sustainability claims rather than accepting them at face value.
