Do stunts like Mumumelon do anything for fashion sustainability?
)
If Mumumelon sounds like a knock-off of Lululemon, that’s exactly the point.
Because Mumumelon is a fake brand, blatantly copying Lululemon’s products, except for one key difference - it used 100% renewable energy to make them.
The aim? To use humour and a dose of one-upmanship to push athleisure giant Lululemon to make real sustainability change.
But do stunts like this make a difference?
Photo credit: Karen Yeomans
Fake brand, real products
Mumumelon is the creation of self-titled creative climate studio Serious People, which is known for its use of satire to skewer fossil fuel businesses and their partners, and climate campaigners Action Speaks Louder.
The heart of the campaign was a two-day pop-up store on Marylebone High Street in London, with a perfectly timed launch date - just after April Fool’s Day - and a perfectly chosen location - just up the road from a Lululemon store.
The pop-up had all the trappings of a typical brand activation. Mumumelon hosted an in-store yoga class, invited yoga and fashion influencers, and filmed content (its own mockumentary). But it wasn’t actually selling anything.
In fact, Mumumelon only made 43 pieces for the pop-up, which were given to staff and influencers later. The collection can be seen on its website but not bought.
This is primarily because this would cut into the campaign’s legal defence around infringement. But it’s also because sales weren’t the point. Mumumelon isn’t a dupe brand trying to make money off the back of Lululemon’s brand awareness and market share. It’s trying to prove that it’s possible for Lululemon to be far more sustainable than it is.
Photo credit: Action Speaks Louder
A different kind of dupe
While passersby who visited the pop-up may have been confused at first by the familiar but slightly off branding, no one is being misled by Mumumelon.
It is incredibly upfront about duping Lululemon’s designs and branding at every touchpoint. It states it clearly in multiple places on its website and even titles all of its product categories with ‘dupe’ - dupe t-shirts, dupe yoga sets, dupe hoodies and so on.
The window of its pop-up shop was emblazoned with the slogan “Violating copyright, not the planet.”
The thing that Mumumelon didn’t dupe was the way its products were produced. Instead it partnered with factories in the UK and Pakistan that use renewable electricity to manufacture its small collection, which was produced in just three months and on a ‘shoestring’ budget.
And it’s the question at the bottom of the Mumumelon homepage that fashion retailers should be paying attention to: “If a dupe can do it, why can't lululemon?”
Because the campaign got people asking exactly that.
For consumers, dupe culture is about finding a product that looks/performs the same as a more expensive, branded option.
Meanwhile, brands have always advocated for their original products on the basis of quality. They tell customers that a dupe can’t compete.
And it’s here that sustainability tends to get involved. Because the quality argument gets used a lot when we talk about sustainable purchasing behaviours - invest in quality items and they will last longer which reduces waste and is therefore better environmentally.
In turn, these better quality products typically have a higher price tag because the materials and manufacturing processes and so on all cost more
So sustainability is associated with better quality and higher prices.
What does it mean then when a concept like Mumumelon comes along and positions a dupe as the more sustainable product? It cuts into the perception of the original brand.
Lampooning Lululemon in such a recognisable way is a genius move because it gets people talking. Everyone understands who is being parodied and Mumumelon makes it easy for them to listen to the ‘why’ by using real life, tangible elements like actual products and a bricks and mortar space.
Rather than just saying that fashion companies could be better in a report or sustainability statement buried on a website, Mumumelon made consumers start questioning the gap between what Lululemon sells as a brand and the reality of its business practices.
Photo credit: Action Speaks Louder
Complicated relationship
Mumumelon didn’t come out of nowhere.
Action Speaks Louder says it has engaged with Lululemon in a number of ways over the years, ranging from petitions and open letters to direct dialogue.
But the organisation felt that change wasn’t happening fast. And Lululemon keeps growing - revenue jumped from $2.6 billion in 2018 to $10.6 billion in 2024 - which equals more emissions.
In its 2025 impact report, Lululemon reported a 14% increase in absolute Scope 3 emissions for 2024 and a 3% increase in Scope 3 emissions intensity. This reflects an ongoing pattern which has added up to a 93.5% increase in absolute emissions since 2020.
According to Action Speaks Louder, 99% of Lululemon’s emissions come from the supply chain.
Lululemon also seems behind on a renewable energy target it only introduced in November 2025. The company said it was aiming for 50% of electricity used by core Tier 1 and Tier 2 suppliers to come from renewable sources by 2030. And it wants to phase out on-site coal from Tier 1 and 2 suppliers in the same timeframe.
But the 2025 impact report states that the brand had only reached 15% electricity from renewable sources in 2024, which was just 1% more than 2023, making 50% by 2030 look unlikely. Likewise, only 35% of Lululemon’s Tier 1 and 2 suppliers have stopped burning coal on-site so far.
Photo credit: Action Speaks Louder
Proof of concept not perfection
Of course, there is a difference between a small collection of 43 items and the sort of volume a business like Lululemon produces.
Action Speaks Louder acknowledges that the Mumumelon proof of concept isn’t a perfectly scalable approach for fashion brands. For example, Mumumelon focused on renewable energy for the garment making phase but the overall supply chain is considerably larger than this one piece.
Likewise, Mumumelon compromised on the sustainability of some materials, like using nylon for yoga sets, and used normal logistics, which comes with an environmental cost.
However, these limitations are acknowledged and Mumumelon’s website even outlines a plan of how it could fully electrify its supply chain by 2040.
And even if Mumumelon is failing at sustainability perfection, the campaign still succeeds in making its critical point - if a brand with a tiny budget can credibly use 100% renewable energy at the garment making stage, why can’t big fashion brands? And why can’t they go further?
Photo credit: Karen Yeomans
Embarrassment tactics
Lululemon is now faced with a choice. The brand could really invest in pushing forward its sustainability commitments - which would rob Mumumelon of its satirical power - or it can hope that this is forgotten about, especially if Lululemon doesn’t draw more attention to it by suing.
Mumumelon has even shared pointers on what the likes of Lululemon can do to decarbonise their supply chains, namely helping suppliers build renewable energy infrastructure by investing in things like electric boilers and heat pumps that enable them to move away from fossil fuels.
But this is something that big fashion brands could figure out if they chose to.
Mumumelon’s role is to try to embarrass the fashion industry into action. The organisations behind the campaign are hoping that the fashion industry cares enough about brand perception to make changes because the satire has poked holes in the argument that there isn’t more that can be done to improve sustainability quickly.
If Mumumelon’s concept is the quick and dirty version of sustainable manufacturing, then it’s banking on fashion giants to lead the way on doing it properly.