(Photo by Ajay Suresh via Wikimedia Commons/CC BY 2.0 DEED)
If you watched any of the Milano Cortina 2026 Olympic and Paralympic Games, you could not miss the sight of Canadian athletes wearing Lululemon. This Vancouver-based athleisure brand, now the official outfitter of Team Canada through 2028, has emerged as one of Canada’s most visible global brands.
Lululemon built its reputation by creating high-end athleisure apparel that blended athletic wear with lifestyle branding, appealing to consumers who wanted both style and performance in their workout and everyday wear. By purchasing its products, Lululemon promises an invitation to join a “global community” of like-minded individuals who see wellness as essential to their daily lives.
Athleisure companies like Lululemon are major beneficiaries of the multibillion-dollar wellness industry. The industry repackages health, mindfulness, and self-care into consumable goods. They capitalize on desires for health and wellness while also participating in systems that cause material harm.
There are good reasons to be skeptical of wellness brands that sell products under the guise of helping people while actively harming communities. Although Lululemon enjoys huge popularity and has become a point of national pride for many Canadians, we can not look away from the harm that came with the brand’s rise. The impact is hard to ignore when you see rental prices in Canada soar, while the founder of Lululemon enjoys his real estate empire and funds groups that worsen the housing crisis in Canada. We can no longer afford to overlook these realities playing out across the country.
Now, as Lululemon searches for a new chief executive following the announced departure of CEO Calvin McDonald in December 2025, the company stands at a moment of transition, one that calls for reflection on its impact.
Building a Brand Around Wellness
Founded in Vancouver, British Columbia, in 1998 by Chip Wilson, the company grew from a niche yoga retailer into a popular global brand selling activewear as part of a lifestyle centred on improving well-being. The company launched to fill a gap in the market for comfortable and stylish yoga apparel geared toward young women, pioneering the “athleisure” trend. As the name suggests, athleisure combines athletic and leisurewear, creating clothing that is functional for exercise yet stylish for everyday activities.
On its website, Lululemon describes its purpose as: “helping our collective be well in every aspect of their lives–physically, mentally, and socially.” They also claim that their “meaningful social impact” distinguishes them from their competitors.
Lululemon has experienced success and growth over the years, expanding from its Vancouver roots to becoming one of the most popular clothing brands in the world. It is now in its “early stages of global growth” with 784 stores and 39,000 employees around the world.
However, when a corporation centres its identity on holistic well-being, what responsibilities does it bear toward the community it supposedly serves? To better understand this question, we must return to the figure who shaped its early values.
Lululemon’s Controversial Founder
Lululemon’s founder, Chip Wilson, is inseparable from the brand’s story and ongoing controversy. Wilson has openly acknowledged that he chose the name “Lululemon” in part to mock Japanese pronunciation, saying it was “funny to watch them try and say it.”
Wilson has also defended child labour. According to attendees of the BALLE BC (Business Alliance for Local Living Economies, British Columbia Chapter) conference in 2008, Wilson told the audience that “third world children should be allowed to work in factories because it provides them with much-needed wages.”
He has also insisted that making Lululemon products more accessible would hurt the brand. In an interview with Forbes, Wilson claimed that the “definition” of Lululemon’s brand “is that you’re not everything to everybody (…) you’ve got to be clear that you don’t want certain customers coming in.” He has described Lululemon’s ideal customer in ways that critics argue centre mostly on “white, thin, upper-middle class women.”
Although he stepped down as CEO in 2016 and resigned from the board two years later, he is still the company’s largest individual shareholder. The company’s profits over the years have helped him to amass a real estate empire in Canada through his holding company Hold it All. For a brand that promotes social and mental well-being, it has enriched a founder who invests heavily in worsening a housing crisis in Canada. Nowhere is this clearer than in his close relationship with Vancouver mayor Ken Sim.
Power and Influence in Vancouver’s Housing Crisis
Wilson has maintained a long-standing friendship with the current Vancouver mayor, Ken Sim. He financially supported Sim’s 2022 mayoral campaign by funnelling large donations through Pacific Prosperity Network, an organization that aims to support right-wing candidates for local government.
Under Mayor Sim’s leadership, Vancouver has increased funding for the Vancouver Police Department and pursued policies that have intensified policing in the Downtown Eastside. Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside is the only area in the city where rent is affordable for low-income residents. The area is also home to many unhoused people. However, the heightened police presence has resulted in more forcible removal of encampments, displacing the city’s most vulnerable residents.
Vancouver is approaching another mayoral election this year, with Sim seeking re-election. The political alliances and financial influence of prominent business figures like Wilson matter. Wellness, after all, cannot be reduced to activewear while ignoring the material conditions that shape people’s lives.
Thus, Lululemon must be more transparent about its connections to founder Chip Wilson. One thing is for certain: Wilson remains a powerful shareholder and public figure who continues to assert influence. Formal separation does not erase structural ties. In late 2025, he launched a proxy fight, nominating three directors to Lululemon’s board in an effort to influence leadership and strategy following the announcement that CEO Calvin McDonald would step down. His attempt to reshape the company’s direction makes clear that he is far from a passive shareholder.
Wellness for Whom?
Although Lululemon has tried to distance itself from Wilson, its founder continues to actively harm marginalized communities. Then, what does this say about the brand’s promise of collective well-being?
Lululemon believes it has a role to play in “advancing the well-being of people and our planet.” But it has also commercialized what wellness means.
Wellness brands often suggest that buying their products will lead to better well-being, while ignoring their own role in causing harm. This approach shifts responsibility from corporations to individuals, making complex social issues seem like personal failings. The wellness industry promotes the idea that health is simply a personal choice, placing all the burden on individuals—even for things outside their control. People are expected to look after their own health and find the resources to purchase the products marketed as essential for achieving wellness.
This model of wellness mainly focuses on self-improvement and narrow aesthetic ideals that elevate capitalism. In doing so, it continually overlooks the broad mental, physical, and emotional needs of people from all backgrounds.
Then, who benefits from this model of wellness? The price tags of Lululemon’s products reinforce that this version of well-being is a luxury good. Leggings often retail for well over $100–evidently, ‘wellness’ comes with a hefty price tag. This subtly communicates that health and wellness are accessible primarily to those who can afford them. Meanwhile, the labour costs underpinning that luxury are borne elsewhere.
Worker Well-Being in Lululemon’s Factories
Like most multinational apparel brands, Lululemon operates within a global supply chain model that prioritizes cost efficiency and rapid production cycles. The company does not own or operate the manufacturing or raw materials facilities used to make its apparel. Instead, it contracts suppliers across multiple countries, primarily located in Asia.
This structure allows Lululemon to distance itself from direct liability while benefiting from lower labour costs. Thus, worker well-being becomes secondary to profit margins.
Over the years, investigations have raised concerns about working conditions at supplier factories. Two reports found that workers at a Lululemon supplier factory in the Philippines from 2018 to 2019 were required to work multiple consecutive nights without being allowed to go home or take necessary breaks.
Although a 2022 follow-up investigation indicated that Lululemon and the supplier had taken steps to address the most severe violations, some workers reported they still felt unable to refuse overtime requests, and power imbalances remained. In 2019, Lululemon also launched an investigation following allegations that garment workers in Bangladesh faced physical violence from their managers.
If collective well-being includes mental and social factors, as the brand states in its impact, it must extend to the workers who sew Lululemon garments.
A New Vision for Lululemon
Despite the controversies, Lululemon still manages to build a very loyal following of consumers. The company has tried to shake off its elitist image by creating diversity and inclusion initiatives. Since 2016, they have created the Here to Be program designed to unite and amplify the yoga service community, create equal access to yoga, and reach local communities to support resilience and healing. It also introduced the Lululemon Gives initiative in 2025 to promote more equitable access to wellness.
In 2025, Lululemon also launched Impact Agenda 2030, a renewed strategy building on its original 2020 commitments. The agenda includes goals to support supply chain worker rights and community well-being, elevate employee well-being through a culture of “high performance and high care,” and reduce emissions across operations. These initiatives signal an awareness that brand credibility increasingly depends on social responsibility.
As the company seeks new leadership, it faces a defining choice. Will it continue to refine the aesthetics of wellness while leaving deeper inequities intact? Or will it align its operations, leadership, and associations with the holistic well-being it proclaims?
Edited by Lubaba Mahmud
