Kylie Jenner has been slammed by environmental groups over her new fashion label’s collection which is made purely out of plastic.
The reality star is accused of ‘perpetuating the fast fashion industry’ with her line of dresses, tops, skirts, and pants from her brand Khy that are created from fossil fuels rather than sustainable materials.
Of the 38 products from her latest collection of ‘slinky and soft’ mesh items, which was released on February 28, all are made of synthetics – such as spandex, nylon, polyester, or a combination.
Khy also features a wide selection of faux leather products from the brand’s first drop made out of Polyurethane (PU) leather – a plastic material derived from a synthetic polymer.
Kylie Jenner’s faux leather collection from her new clothing line Khy has been slammed over its use of synthetic and non-sustainable materials
The 26-year-old dropped Khy’s first collection in November, ‘Faux leather + base layers’ consisting products made of plastic
While the line of dresses, jackets, tops, and pants, is relatively more affordable because it is made of PU leather, the use of the material has been condemned by environmental and ethical fashion advocates
The market for faux leather – or what has been rebranded as ‘vegan leather’ – was valued at an eye-popping $35.4billion last year, and is now fueling a substantial rise in the use of PU leather in clothing products as a cheap alternative.
The material, however, is not meant to last, is prone to cracking, and wears down more easily.
Kylie, 26, was awarded Best Vegan Fashion Moment at the PETA Fashion Awards in December for Khy’s use of cruelty-free, faux leather, despite the material’s not-so-eco-friendly plastic element.
Collective Fashion Justice founder Emma Hakansson – which campaigns against the ‘fashion injustices in supply chains that harm the planet, people and animals’ – told DailyMail.com: ‘Kylie’s brand sits in the fast fashion industry perpetuating our over-production and consumption crisis.
‘These garments are not designed to last, they’re built around short-lived trends with no respect for the people who made them, the planet, or life on it harmed in the process.
‘The making of fashion that harms people, animals, and the planet is ugly to look at, and we deserve garments that are beautifully made, not just nice to wear.,’ added Hakansson
‘While animal-derived leather is one of the most climate impactful, cruel, and destructive materials in fashion, referring to these garments as made from ‘vegan leather’ is disingenuous – these clothes are not made with any commitment to animal protection or sustainability, only profit.
The reality star posed up in her top selling faux leather trench coast last month on Instagram to reveal the item was back in stock on the brand’s website Khy.com
The product’s specifications online confirm the trench coat is made of 100% PU leather, or Polyurethane
In a series of ads promoting the new line, Kylie herself was seen sporting a black bodycon strapless PU leather dress
The figure-hugging dress retails for $148
‘Nearly 69% of clothing today is made from fossil fuels. We cannot curb the climate crisis while wearing plastic rather than plant-based, recycled and bio-based materials,’ Hakansson saaid.
While Kylie’s Cosmetics has shifted to cruelty-free and vegan products, the Khy brand, which released its first drop in November last year, doesn’t have any information on its website regarding ethical or environmental standards – which has become a norm within the designer industry.
Instead, the website just states: ‘Khy aims to redefine the modern wardrobe by offering edited collections that seamlessly blend luxury with everyday style, spanning a diverse range of categories and styles.
‘By collaborating with iconic brands and global designers, we hope that Khy will be a platform that delivers access to incredible fashion for everyone.’
It’s a similar story for her sister Kim’s SKIMS brand, which has been given a one out of five ethical fashion rating by environmental group Good On You stating it’s a brand you should ‘avoid’.
‘This brand provides insufficient relevant information about how it reduces its impact on people, the planet and animals. You have a right to know how the products you buy affect the issues you care about,’ the group’s website states.
‘SKIMS is rated “We avoid” overall,’ it adds.
Of the 38 products from her latest collection of ‘slinky and soft’ mesh items (pictured) which was released on February 28, all are made of synthetics – such as spandex, nylon, polyester, or a combination
Jenner posed in the popular leather trench coat last November in an Instagram post teasing the release of the collection
Khy does not have a statement on its website informing customers of its ethical or environmental supply chain standards – which has become a norm within the designer industry – only the brand’s mission statement to ‘redefine the modern wardrobe’
Its CEO Gordon Renouf told the DailyMail.com: ‘When considering the sustainability of a brand it’s important to look at the full range of impacts particularly on the environment and the workers who produce the clothing.
‘Brands have an obligation to their customers to be fully transparent about not just the materials used and the place of manufacture but their full supply chain and how it impacts on key issues including, resource use, greenhouse gas emissions, water use and air and chemical pollution, working conditions and living wages.’
Speaking to DailyMail.com, Hakansson added: ‘The Kardashians have a track record of prioritizing profit over the lives of those making their clothes, and the planet we share.
‘Skims received an appalling rating for their supply chain transparency.
‘Brands doing the right thing will normally be proud of their supply chain and tell you about it – those with no information should not be trusted.
‘With all of the money the Kardashians have, they have a duty to ensure that if they produce fashion, they do so in a way that moves the industry towards genuinely protecting people, animals, and the planet. Right now, they are choosing greed instead.’
