The decision came after the French consumer watchdog (DGCCRF) discovered disturbing ads on the Shein marketplace: sex dolls with “child-like” features and even prohibited weapons, such as machetes and large knives.
In response, Shein announced a global ban on the sale of sex dolls on the platform, temporarily suspended the “adult products” category in France, and took action against the responsible sellers.
The investigation is ongoing, and French authorities have also involved the European Commission. Until proven otherwise, access to the site has not yet been completely blocked, but the suspension procedure is active. Shein took immediate measures to limit the reputational damage.

The paradox is clear: on the one hand, France appears to be targeting the ultra-fast fashion model with aggressive policies—such as a proposed law to impose a penalty on low-cost imports, fines for unfair business practices (e.g., Shein was fined €40 million for misleading discounts), and strong political action against Shein.

On the other hand, France is granting Shein prestigious physical access, thanks to a partnership with Société des Grands Magasins (SGM), which operates BHV and other stores in France, allowing for an “offline test” of the brand.

This means “banning online” but “accepting a physical store” at the same time—a contradiction that reflects real tensions between political values, economic interests, and market dynamics.

Why did France give the green light to the physical store?

Here are some hypotheses that help explain why:

Local business strategy: Shein states that France is “a major global fashion market” and that the physical opening serves to “respond to the demand for real-world contact” (Retail Gazette). In other words, from a traditional retail perspective (department stores, foot traffic), the deal makes commercial sense for SGM.

Differentiation between online and offline: The regulations France is implementing often primarily concern e-commerce, imports, low-cost shipping, and deceptive discounting practices. Opening a local physical store may seem like a more “controllable” environment.

Regulatory framework still evolving: Fines, anti-fast fashion rules, and import controls are coming but are not yet fully implemented or may have time limits. France appears to be “making the rules,” but in the meantime, the market continues to shift.

Economic and negotiating pressures: French department stores likely saw the agreement as an opportunity to boost sales (increased footfall, new products). Although politically criticized, there is significant private interest.

Possibility of control and oversight: The fact that the physical store was physically “visible” in Paris, within a regulated space, may have induced the authorities to accept the opening while simultaneously maintaining pressure on online sales.

Timing and lobbying: The fact that the opening caused a stir may also indicate that deals were made before the anti-fast-fashion law was in effect, or that the negotiation took place in a context where the brand was able to enter “before everything was clear.”

Social Reactions and Comments

The store’s opening was accompanied by protests: demonstrators holding signs (“From Colonization to Your Closets”) gathered outside the BHV.
But not everyone was opposed: one customer explained that the appeal for many is simply the price:

“With €200 a month, I can buy 50 T-shirts from Shein, or three made in France..”

(source The Guardian)

This comment underscores how ultra-cheap fast fashion responds to real economic demand, even among those on limited incomes. France’s action has not been confined to the national level: the government has written to the EU, requesting action under the Digital Services Act (DSA) (source: euronews).
The European Commission is involved, and the case could set a precedent for how member states can regulate digital platforms selling potentially illegal or morally controversial items.
Furthermore, according to the Brussels Times, French authorities have threatened permanent bans if certain products return to Shein’s platforms.

In Paris, Deputy Mayor Nicolas Bonnet Oulaldj openly criticized the agreement between Shein and SGM, declaring that allowing an ultra-fast fashion giant to enter the traditional retail landscape is “incompatible” with the city’s environmental and social goals. “Shein cannot be blamed for all the problems affecting French ready-to-wear,” reacted a spokesperson for the Shein platform in France. The Chinese giant plans to open five more discount clothing and accessories stores in the Galeries Lafayette department stores in Dijon, Reims, Grenoble, Angers, and Limoges. “This decision,” stated Anne Hidalgo, Mayor of Paris, “is contrary to the environmental and social ambitions of Paris, which supports responsible and sustainable local retail.” (source: Ansa.it)

BHV owner Frédéric Merlin responded firmly to the criticism, calling the partnership with Shein “the beginning of a new adventure” that combines e-commerce and traditional retail (source: The Guardian). According to him, the products sold in the store are manufactured by Shein itself (“made by Shein in Shein factories”) and are not solely third-party suppliers—a detail that could influence liability assessments.

Things We Don’t Know

There doesn’t appear to be an official French statement stating, “We allowed the physical opening because…” The explanations are drawn primarily from Shein’s statements.
It’s unclear whether the business license for the physical store comes with special conditions or whether there are specific monitoring agreements with local authorities.
It’s not yet clear how future legislation or French government action will impact that physical store (for example, inspections, restrictions, sanctions).
It’s unclear to what extent the physical opening is seen as a “loophole” with respect to online regulations (one possibility); there are no sources that explicitly state this.

Why aren’t Primark and Uniqlo receiving the same pressure as Shein?

Not all major “low-cost” clothing brands are receiving the same public and political pressure that Shein is currently experiencing, as the comparison with Primark and Uniqlo demonstrates. Both brands are present and expanding in France: Primark has announced a €200 million investment in France and Spain to expand its retail network by 2026 and has some of the most profitable stores in the French market; Uniqlo, for its part, continues to strengthen its presence with flagship stores, such as the renovated one in the Paris Opera district, and a large and stable network.

The reason these brands aren’t experiencing the same pressure as Shein?

• Different business models: Primark and Uniqlo operate primarily through established physical stores; they don’t rely on ultra-low-cost imports shipped individually from non-EU countries, as Shein does. This makes them less vulnerable to certain anti-import regulations or micro-parcel taxes.
• Clearer regulation: Many of the measures proposed by France (and other countries)—such as the tax on low-cost parcels—are aimed primarily at cross-border e-commerce, not at brick-and-mortar retailers with established chains.
• Visible and local presence: Having physical stores implies local responsibility, European-wide inventory management, and more direct control, elements that can make their presence more acceptable (politically and socially) compared to an ultra-fast, digital-only player.
• Sustainability and image strategy: Uniqlo, in particular, focuses heavily on “LifeWear” and an image of quality, functionality, and durability, which can mitigate criticism of “disposable” fashion. Primark, despite being “fast fashion,” has a very different model from Shein, with different margins and operating methods. So does greenwashing make a difference?

Primark e Uniqlo non sono però completamente fuori dal radar: l’UE ha richiamato tutti i grandi retailer, compresi questi due marchi, a maggiore trasparenza sulla tracciabilità e sulle performance ambientali attraverso il nuovo quadro normativo del Green Deal, dal Digital Product Passport al divieto di greenwashing e claim ambientali vaghi. La differenza è che, pur essendo criticati per il modello fast fashion, Primark e Uniqlo rientrano in una struttura regolatoria già conosciuta e gestita dall’Europa, mentre Shein rappresenta una sfida nuova: un “gigante digitale” che accelera più velocemente delle norme che cercano di incasellarlo.

Primark and Uniqlo aren’t completely off the radar, however: the EU has called on all major retailers, including these two brands, to increase transparency on traceability and environmental performance through the new Green Deal regulatory framework, from the Digital Product Passport to the ban on greenwashing and vague environmental claims. The difference is that, despite being criticized for their fast fashion model, Primark and Uniqlo fall within a regulatory framework already known and managed by Europe, while Shein represents a new challenge: a “digital giant” that is accelerating faster than the regulations that seek to pigeonhole it.

Reflections

The Shein case is emblematic of the fact that the transition to more sustainable fashion is not linear and full of contradictions. On the one hand, France seems to declare “enough with low-cost fast fashion,” while on the other, it accepts—without apparent resistance—the physical arrival of one of the protagonists of the model it seeks to limit.

What lessons can we learn?
Legislation may lag behind the market. Anti-fast fashion regulations, import taxes, and restrictions on misleading discounts are still being implemented. Meanwhile, fast fashion brands are expanding.
The “online” vs. “offline” model creates arbitrage: a physical store may appear more respectable or at least more visible, and therefore perhaps “less risky” in the eyes of authorities, than an e-commerce site shipping low-cost packages from abroad.
Public policies can clash with local economic interests (department stores, employment, customer traffic). This can lead to compromises or seemingly contradictory choices.
Finally, it’s a reminder: consistency between political statements and concrete actions is difficult. The effort towards sustainable fashion requires not only regulations, but also control tools, transparency, and perhaps alternative sales models that aren’t just “faster, cheaper.”

Does more sustainable cotton automatically indicate a brand’s sustainability? Primark communicates the progress of the Sustainable Cotton Program and there is nothing but talk of sustainability after the launch of the Primark Cares line. The Irish fashion retailer, owned by Associated British Foods (ABF), says it aims for garments to last longer, to reduce the company’s impact on the planet and to improve the lives of the people who make the products.

In the section dedicated to sustainability, between attention to the environment and commitment to people the multitude of virtuous messages strikes the reader. Is this really the case if we take a closer look at the data? Why did the sale of the recycled plastic sweatshirt with the word Earth Day, close to Earth Day, aroused not a few accusations of greenwashing?

First, the information on the site is not easily accessible, clear and transparent. Referring also to the pages of the parent company ABF, we try to find out more.

Environment

Raw materials

Currently one third of the products are made with recycled, organic or materials from the Sustainable Cotton Program, which involves farmers who apply more sustainable practices. While many techniques are used by organic farmers within the cotton program, Primark’s sustainable cotton is by definition not organic. Primark expects to reach 100% products with more sustainable materials by 2030.

A collection was created in collaboration with Recover, an innovator in recycled cotton. There are recovered plastic fabrics. There is no evidence of the sustainability of all other materials used.

Primark is committed to reducing harmful substances subject to production restrictions (Restricted Substances List) along the supply chain, reaching the goal of “zero release” in 2020. However, there is no evidence that this target is achieved.

Design

Primark declares a commitment to reducing the environmental impact in the design phase of products in the coming years, but there are no details on the decrease in production or the raw materials used, nor on the increase in quality and on the extension of the life cycle of the product.

They say they want to increase the durability level. At the moment it concerns in practice only denim. A much more intensive test cycle of 30 washes was introduced for a large sample of men’s, women’s and children’s denim. This level of rigor is recommended by WRAP and the Ellen MacArthur Foundation.

Waste

“96% of all waste generated by Primark’s direct operations was diverted from the landfill”, is reported in the ESG report, without specifying which processes they refer to (it seems to mean those relating to the distribution and sale of fashion items) . Among the published data we read that out of 57,000 tons of textile waste produced in 2021, 54,000 were recycled, with no details on how. The in-store recycling scheme is mentioned, with collection boxes available in all 191 stores in across the UK, recently extended to Germany, Austria and the Netherlands Primark partners with Yellow Octopus, whose goal is that all donations are reused or recycled so that nothing ends up in landfills.

Packaging

In 2021 Primark created 41,000 tons of packaging. It removed 175 million units of plastic. Uses recycled paper bags. The hangers are made of recycled cardboard. It has eliminated 86 million labels and adhesives from products and aims to eliminate single-use plastics by 2027.

Water consumption

In the ESG report, we read about the commitment to reduce the use of water but cotton, which requires large quantities, is an essential raw material for Primark: in 2020 it represented about half of the total mix of fibers used. There are no data on the total use of water for textile production.

Emissions

Also in this case we read the objective: 50% reduction of emissions (GHG) along the Primark value chain by 2030. Last year the company directly produced 119,000 tons of CO2e, to which it add 4,783,000 tons indirectly generated by third party transportation and extended inventory.

Energy

In the reports of the parent company, the total use for the retail part of 461 GWh is indicated, of which 0% is currently renewable. Primark has achieved ISO 50001 certification for retail outlets, offices and distribution centers in some of the established markets.

People

Suppliers are chosen according to a Code of Conduct, defined by the company. This set of guiding principles is based on the internationally recognized labor standards of the International Labor Organization (ILO) and the Basic Code of the Ethical Trading Initiative (ETI)*. Primark audits its suppliers through an annual on-site inspection. “Our Fair Trade and Environmental Sustainability team has more than 130 local experts”, it explains on the website. “Their task is to carry out, at least once a year, in-person checks at all the plants we work with and also to hold training courses for staff and workers”.

The site mentions a number of projects in India, Myanmar, Bangladesh, China, Indonesia, Vietnam and Cambodia. Among these, the collaboration with the ILO in the Better Work program is the one that gives the greatest guarantee of commitment to improving labor standards in countries where workers are less protected.

Primark was among the first retailers to sign the Fire and Building Safety Agreement in Bangladesh, initiated by IndustriALL and UNI Global Union. It was also one of the first to provide factory victims and families affected by the collapse with financial support and food aid after the Rana Plaza disaster. Primark has since been committed to offering financial advice and guidance. In addition, the Irish retailer has launched the “Pashe Achi Project” to ensure that compensation recipients retain access to their financial compensation.

* It is a leading alliance of companies, trade unions and NGOs that promotes respect for workers’ rights around the world.

Is everything okay on the social point of view?

On traceability, Primark shares online the map and the list of Tier 1 suppliers map and list of the Tier 1 suppliers (the partners with whom it interfaces directly, who cut and sew the garments).

However, there is no evidence of an increase in the number of paid workers with a living wage, nor transparency on existing working conditions for workers and the supply chain. There is no evidence that all the raw materials used were produced with respect for the human rights of farmers and their communities.

Someone fears that the company’s private talks with workers, described as an instrument of protection, are not sufficient to protect them, because they are not carried out by reliable external organizations. Often union members are threatened or fired: how does Primark ensure that they are allowed inside the factories and protected so that they can do their job freely?

It appears that the annual inspections are supported by independent audit firms, so that the integrity of the audits is not affected. However, the audit reports are not publicly shared, thus generating many questions about how well Primark is ensuring the protection of its workers’ rights. Similarly, the company has a complaints system in place but does not disclose data relating to complaints submitted.

Clean Clothes Campaign  denounced lower wages and non-payment during months of detention due to the pandemic by multinationals including Primark. Nearly 70% of the workers surveyed endured periods when normal pre-pandemic wages were not paid. All these workers survived on poverty wages even before the pandemic and it has become even more difficult to live in dignity. Additionally, workers report increased production targets, unsafe working conditions, and harassment from management. Primark has made some progress this year by engaging in  #PayUp to raise wages and signing the renewal of the Fire and Building Safety Agreement in Bangladesh.

There is recent news of a Primark manager who sues the company for sex discrimination, after she was told to work late despite having a newborn child (source Independent).

Certifications

There is no information on the certifications most used in the more responsible fashion, except in some garments such as a type of jeans certified CradleToCradle. Only in cosmetics, cruelty free certified by Leaping Bunny. However, they are not vegan, because some products may contain ingredients from animal derivatives.

Responsible consumption and other issues

Low prices

The policy of the retail giant is that of low prices, reaffirmed by the recent statement by George Weston, ABF CEO: “We are committed to maintaining our leadership position in terms of price and accessibility in everyday life, especially in this context of growing economic uncertainty”. However, Primark has recently communicated an increase on the tags of the autumn-winter collections, due to the increase in the prices of raw materials and energy following the invasion of Ukraine by Russia. For this reason alone, the group expects a reduction in the margins of its activities.

“For more than ten years”, explains Luca Ciuffreda, head of Primark for Italy, “we have been able to guarantee low prices because we do not advertise, we have reduced the packaging to a minimum, the hangers are made of recycled cardboard, and we have control, ethical too, on the production chain, which is often the same as that of luxury brands”(Source Laborability).

Sandals at £ 4, summer bags £ 10, perfume and clothes £ 7, sunglasses £ 2. How is it possible to implement especially social sustainability with such low prices?

The quality is also in doubt. This is the case of surf wetsuits, the subject of debate in these days. A Cornish surf magazine recently attacked Primark’s new range of wetsuits, calling them “cheap”, “sad” and “high treason at sea”. Cornwall Live says the garments will be “thrown away in no time”. The cost for Primark wetsuits is £ 38 for the full length and £ 32 for the short version. By comparison, an Xcel wetsuit, considered one of the world’s leading companies in the field, costs between £ 100 and £ 300. Another trade magazine, Real Surfing Magazine, also hit the fashion chain urging readers to think twice first. to purchase the new product line.

Volumes and speed of purchases

There is no trace of the company’s commitment to produce less with the aim of spreading a more responsible consumption and production model. A fundamental aspect to demonstrate awareness of the climate crisis and the limits of our planet’s resources.

Instead, there are clues to strategies for inviting customers to buy more and things they often don’t need. In the Channel 5 documentary Primark: How Do They Do It?, psychologist Dr Amna Khan put tools on the table to induce people to buy extra items and extend their stay in the store. In the documentary she declares:

“A destination store creates an experience for the consumer, almost like going to a theme park where all your senses are activated and you want to stay longer”.

Primark buys large retail spaces and adds extra experiences such as bars and beauty services to tempt customers to hang out and spend more. Because it doesn’t sell online like many of its competitors, shoppers are forced to visit the store in person, where they are exposed and tempted to purchase more goods and services, such as manicures. The £ 1 secret toy is another tool that Primark shoppers are obsessed with, emotionally captured by childhood memories.

The company has included some recommendations on the maintenance of the garments by the customers in order to extend the life.

Other issues

A Primark’s customer claims that a store-bought bra left her skin sore and sore. Rika Smith from Blackwood was left with itchy and sore skin after wearing the garment for the first time.

A woman in size UK 10 was furious after purchasing a pair of size 12 pants from Primark without being able to put them on. Ally Marie told her story on TikTok to send a message: “Primark this is ridiculous, no wonder people are struggling with body image. I normally have a size 8/10 in jeans and I have to take a size 14 from Primark”.

In the speed of releasing new collections and the pressure to design new garments, ultra-fast fashion companies are not new to episodes of plagiarism. The presentation of a coat on Instagram was greeted by an avalanche of “likes” and compliments, but also by the Daily Record‘s observation of the strong resemblance to the oversize coat from the winter collection of Blancha, a Tuscan clothing brand. The original garment is in shearling, made in Italy, and the quality in the design and production phase is reflected in the price.

How sustainable do you think Primark is? Let us know what you think by clicking here