The Vogue Business Spring/Summer 2027 Size Inclusivity Report

This season, only a handful of household names featured mid or plus-size models in their shows, including McQueen, Ferragamo, and Miu Miu. These bright spots in an otherwise barren season for curve representation weren’t necessarily novel. Big designers have done this on several occasions in recent years, although it’s never extended beyond the occasional deployment of larger models.

The Spring/Summer 2027 schedule was an urgent confirmation of how badly the industry has regressed since FW23, when Vogue Business began tracking size inclusivity on the runway. Following some seasons of incremental growth between FW23 and SS25, total curve representation has regressed or plateaued season after season, between 2-3%.

Contextually, it’s a fraught time. Discourse around GLP-1s (now widely available in tablet and injectable formats) has accelerated, and in turn, segments of editorial and runway fashion have slipped back into the negative tropes associated with ’90s and ’00s fashion, including incredibly slim fits and “heroin chic” aesthetics. At the same time, the currents of self-optimization and growing conservatism are warping the status quo toward a curve-free catwalk. Plus, in the few places larger bodies are being celebrated culturally, it’s occurring in equally murky scenarios, such as the ongoing protein craze and the clavicle-smashing underworld of looksmaxxing.

The results for SS27 reflect this. The season brought an incremental (0.2%) improvement in curve (mid and plus-size) representation versus last season. But that’s a glimmer of progress in an overall bleak data set.

Of 9,283 looks presented across 219 shows and presentations, 97.5% were straight-size (US 0-4), 2% were mid-size (US 6-12), and 0.5% were plus-size (US 14+). The results mark a negligible improvement on FW26, when straight-size looks represented 97.6% of the total, mid-size looks made up 2.1% — this figure has remained roughly flat for the past four seasons — and plus-size looks made up 0.3%. In two years, total curve representation (2.5% for SS27) has almost halved, down from 5.1% for FW25.

As in previous seasons, Vogue Business analyzed each runway show and presentation that featured on both Vogue Runway and the official New York, London, Milan, and Paris schedules, calculating the proportion of total looks that are straight, mid, and plus-size. All brands included in our reporting were contacted to verify the data and informed that if they did not respond, our initial findings would be used. Vogue Business determined sizing ranges based on typical sample sizes for straight sizing and established definitions of mid and plus-size.

In New York, just 0.9% of the total looks were plus-size (up from 0.4% last season), 2.6% were mid-size (up from 1.9% last season), and 96.5% were straight-size (down from 97.7%). Of the top 10 most size-inclusive shows in New York, seven featured plus-size representation, up from two last season.

Bloomingdale’s fashion director David Thielebeule was encouraged by greater age diversity on the runway this season, but dismayed by the narrow range of body shapes. “In a season when designers across all four fashion capitals made such a convincing case for real clothes over pure fantasy, it seems rather extraordinary that we’re still presenting such a limited idea of the women who might wear them,” he says. “After all, what’s the point of making clothes women want to buy if so many women can’t see themselves in them?”

Some designers have been upfront regarding the lack of curve, including Zoe Gustavia Anna Whalen, whose show in New York ranked fourth in the city for size inclusivity. “The rise in popularity of ultra-thinness is dangerous and disappointing,” the designer says. “It also points to a rise in global conservatism, and how those trends affect fashion and beauty standards.”

London was the most size-inclusive city: 0.5% of looks were plus-size (down from 0.8% last season), 3.6% were mid-size (down from 6.5% last season), and 95.9% were straight-size (up from 92.7% last season). The absence of Karoline Vitto — who bolstered the curve representation last season in London — was palpably felt. (Sinéad O’Dwyer, also a longstanding advocate for runway representation, hasn’t shown in London since FW25.)

Nonetheless, Chopova Lowena’s show boosted the city. The brand topped our leaderboard for curve inclusion across the entire season: 37.8% of show looks were mid-size. The casting was based around the character of the person, as well as their alignment with Chopova Lowena’s rebellious and eccentric USP, says casting director Saffron McLeod, who cast the show alongside Lana Randolfi. Two identical 64-year-old twins, both mid-sized, appeared alongside a zany mix of punky, straight and mid-size girls.

For McLeod, this season was a high point for other intersections of identity such as age, but not for size inclusivity. “It felt like a continuation of a wider pattern within fashion, where moments of genuine progress are often followed by periods of stagnation,” she says. “The industry can position itself as progressive and countercultural, challenging gender norms, embracing unconventional beauty, and casting people from marginalized communities while still overwhelmingly relying on very thin models. There’s a contradiction there.”

Last season, Paris was the lowest-ranking city in terms of mid- and plus-size representation. This time, it was Milan. Just 0.1% of looks on the Milan runway were plus-size (down from 0.2% last season), 0.4% were mid-size (down from 2.6% last season), and 99.5% were straight-size (up from 97.37% last season). For context, Marco Rambaldi was the only Milan show to feature a plus-size look; only three collections included mid-size looks — Marco Rambaldi, Philipp Plein, and Ferragamo.

Meanwhile, Paris showed incremental improvement on last season. Across all runway shows in the city, 0.5% of looks were plus-size (up from 0.1% last season), 2% were mid-size (up from 0.4% last season), and 97.5% were straight-size (down from 99.5% last season). Ester Manas — whose return to the runway shifted the average for curve representation — and Xuly Bët did the heavy lifting.

For Ester Manas, whose latest collection was made up of 42.4% mid-size looks and 36.4% plus-size looks, the approach to casting is clear: could the eponymous designer and co-founder of the brand — who is a size US 12-14 — wear it herself? “We design for and celebrate women of all sizes,” she says. “And it just so happens that the women who have been so consistently overlooked — if not outright rejected — by luxury fashion are also part of our customers and community.” In fact, highlighting the financial value of catering to curvier shapes, the business’s larger sizes are its bestsellers.

Jane Wade, who showed in New York — finishing second for size inclusivity in the city — shares a similar sentiment, arguing that if she cannot wear her own clothes as a mid-size woman, it’s unclear who she’s designing for. Sizes US 4, 6, and 8 are her most frequently purchased across e-commerce and wholesale. “These women exist, and they deserve to see themselves represented,” says Wade.

Notably, shows that rarely feature curve looks — such as Balenciaga and Junya Watanabe — did. Watanabe’s show, in fact, appeared to celebrate curves, exaggerating bottoms and shoulders with decorative adornments and armor, while Balenciaga, which featured one mid-size model, created fake hips or widened legs through silhouette choices.

Of course, what’s presented on the runway trickles down to consumer sentiment. In an exclusive Vogue Business survey published in 2025, our data revealed that 67% of consumers are more likely to buy from fashion brands that show a variety of body sizes in their marketing. Simultaneously, it revealed that only 17% of consumers feel fashion brands represent a variety of shapes and sizes in campaigns, marketing, and on runways. That disparity leaves a significant gap in the market for brands.

More practically, the data shows that half of the consumers surveyed felt less likely to find their sizes at luxury brands, while 27% of plus-size respondents “can never” or “usually can’t” find their sizes among luxury offerings, versus 16% of mid-size and 12% of straight-size respondents.

The size run

Alongside the typical size inclusivity runway data, Vogue Business has more recently analyzed the sizing range each brand offers on their e-commerce site, to note the largest size on offer and build a picture of how runway and real-life sizing connect. Brands were given the opportunity to confirm or query the biggest size found; otherwise, the initial findings were used. Where brands used letter-based systems such as XS-XL, these were converted to US numerical equivalents using standard womenswear conversion charts.

For the New York brands analyzed in this season’s report, US size 14 — the entry point to plus-size — was the largest size offered by 24.6% of brands. In other words, roughly a quarter of brands in New York do not cater to the average woman in the country, widely reported as a US 16-18. Out of the city’s brands, 47.8% have US 16 as their biggest size; US 18 is the biggest size offered by just 4.3% of brands.

Collina Strada designer Hillary Taymour — who ranked seventh for size inclusivity in New York — designs up to an XXL (equivalent to a US 16-20) and has slowly built a customer base for this woman, with pants becoming increasingly popular in larger sizes. Still, she acknowledges there’s work to be done on her side. “To be honest, I have a lot of growing to do in the sizing department to offer even more inclusive sizing,” she says. “Representation matters, but so does making clothes that people genuinely want to wear and can feel good in.” As she sees it, inclusivity must exist beyond the casting, extending to the very design and development of a collection.

Zoe Gustavia Anna Whalen, which featured three mid-size and two plus-size looks in its collection, does not offer sizing beyond an XL (US 16), explaining that because her label is still “a very small operation”, her samples tend to be made to her size (US 4-6). “So much of my design process is in sewing and trying on the clothing myself,” she explains, adding that her customer base is diverse in size range, but ultimately, she cannot invest in grading past an XL.

In London, US 14 was the biggest size offered by almost a third of the brands, while a concerning 8.3% counted US 8 as their sizing limit. No brand offered higher than a US 20 on their websites. In Milan, 2.5% of brands offered US 6 — the entry point to mid-size — as their upper band, while a quarter had US 12 as their largest size. In Paris, a more promising 25.8% of brands counted size 16 as their highest band, although for US 18 and 22, it was 4.5% and 3%, respectively.

According to Milan-based designer Rambaldi — who topped our leaderboard for curve representation in Milan — approximately 10% of his direct-to-consumer sales come from plus-size customers. While this is a clear indication of the appetite for fashion among different body shapes, this alone does not incentivize his stance. For Rambaldi, fashion should reflect real bodies, and that’s an ethical position he’s unwilling to compromise on, even when there are professional and commercial challenges.

“Standing by our beliefs isn’t always easy, and we often face real consequences,” Rambaldi explains. To his point, expanding size ranges does involve investment in pattern-making, grading, sampling, production, and inventory planning. “We’ll continue on our own path, trying to show through our work that another world is possible.”

On the ground, the scant curve representation has had a substantial impact on models’ livelihoods. Anna Shillinglaw, founder and managing director of Milk Model Management, estimates that her business has lost 40% of curve work in the past few years. “It feels like curves are not fashionable anymore, and that door has been closed,” she says. “The demand for super skinny is rife at the moment. Even the straight-size models are under so much pressure to be as thin as they are.” Shillinglaw points to a growing industry standard that girls have hips no wider than 87cm in Milan and Paris.

For most insiders, the issue comes from the top, but this unspoken mandate for skinny seems almost unshakeable. “I know if a designer feels that their clothes only look good on a slim person, we can’t force people to be inclusive, but at least make the samples a little bit bigger so the [straight-size] model hasn’t got so much pressure on their body,” says Shilinglaw.

The recently updated model charter released by LVMH and Kering has been well-received among industry figures. The pledge outlines clear guidance on minimum model sizing, enforcing minimum sizes of EU 34 (US 2) for women, as well as access to healthy food and beverages in line with models’ dietary needs on shoots and at shows. It also stated that brands must provide information for models around healthy eating. But the impact of such measures remains to be seen.

Concern around the lack of size inclusivity and the boom in ultra-thin models has been growing, and industry figures are increasingly speaking out against what they see from the front row. During the FW26 shows in March, fashion director and chief fashion critic Vanessa Friedman of The New York Times penned a feature pointing to the increasingly skinny models on the runway. During the recent Paris Fashion Week, journalist and creator Sophie Fontanel also addressed the issue with an Instagram post that reads: “Listen, fashion people, stop with the too skinny models...”

Will growing industry pressure on designers turn the tide? “I discuss representation with other industry professionals in London a lot,” says casting director McLeod. “The very fact that people find it interesting and want to challenge these standards gives me hope.”