Staff shortages at small brands are weakening quality control
Multiple production stages likely caused the quality issues
Experts urge stronger step-by-step quality systems and mandatory random testing of retail items
First, shoppers learned that several puffer jackets from some fashion brands had false filling information listed, and then it came to light that big-box retailers were selling knockoffs of well-known labels. Predictably, trust among consumers has taken a hit. Industry experts say these lapses in quality control are most apparent at smaller fashion companies that lack robust systems and adequate staff. They recommend tightening oversight at each production stage and making random product testing mandatory to prevent repeats.
On the 23rd, the fashion industry reported that the platform Musinsa had penalized eight brands for violating its safe-trading policies. Two brands—Lapeoji Store and Oro—were flagged for false advertising and failing to meet product information disclosure requirements and are scheduled to be removed from Musinsa in April. Musinsa launched a broad quality review after reports surfaced that some puffer jackets sold on its platform listed incorrect filling ratios.
Experts and industry insiders note that deliberate fraud seems unlikely—retailers can sever contracts when brands are tied to false claims—yet they say brands bear responsibility for lapses in quality control across complex, multi-step production chains.
Kim Seong-chan, vice president of the Korea Fashion Industry Association, said investigators still need to determine whether the misreporting was intentional. “Most fashion companies operate under careful quality-control systems,” he said, “but smaller companies, by comparison, often struggle to maintain the same standards.”
Clothing goes through many stages before it ships, and when different steps are outsourced to separate vendors, small brands face structural challenges in keeping quality consistent. “From stitching to final shipment, garments pass through a host of processes, and many brands rely on partners for parts of that chain,” Kim explained. “Those handoffs are where problems often arise.”
A representative from a textile testing institute echoed that view, saying smaller brands typically don’t have the staff to oversee the entire production line the way larger firms do. Oversight is even harder when production partners are overseas, he added.
The official also pointed to the recent spike in Chinese duck and goose down prices after a drop in production, suggesting some manufacturers might have altered filling ratios to protect margins. “When down prices soar, subcontractors and suppliers under pressure to meet pricing targets may resort to adjusting blends,” he said. He also noted that the winter rush to secure inventory could have led some companies to deprioritize thorough quality checks.
To prevent future cases of false filling claims and similar controversies, experts recommend overhauling quality-control systems for each production step and strengthening random verification by both brands and retailers.
Kim stressed that brands ultimately carry final responsibility for what happens in production. He urged companies to rebuild mid-process quality-management systems and to thoroughly inspect not only initial samples but also reorders.
Choi Cheol, a professor of consumer economics at Sookmyung Women's University, advised that ramping up random checks beyond the samples submitted to retail channels would help reduce disputes over quality. The textile testing institute official added that requiring firms to randomly select retail products for independent testing—and allowing only passing items to be shipped—could help head off problems before they reach consumers.
