Rothy’s Inc., a direct-to-consumer footwear brand, is in discussions to raise funding that could value it at more than $1 billion, according to people with knowledge of the matter.

It’s the latest eco-friendly brand looking to capitalise on the interest in clothing and accessories that are better for the environment.

Rothy’s is working with an adviser on the funding round and could also explore other strategic alternatives including a potential sale of a majority stake, the people said, asking not to be identified because the matter is private.

The discussions are early and details of the round including the valuation could still change, they added.

A representatives for Rothy’s didn’t respond to requests for comment.

Co-founded by Roth Martin and former M&A banker Stephen Hawthornthwaite, Rothy’s last raised funding in 2019, when it received $35 million from Goldman Sachs Group Inc.’s asset management unit. The company was valued at $700 million at the time, people familiar with the matter said.

With its start in women’s shoes that were famously worn by Meghan Markle, Rothy’s now sells footwear, bags and accessories for women, men and children.

Apparel makers with direct-to-consumer sales are banking on the return of in-person activities to boost public market investors’ appetite.

Allbirds Inc., another company that makes shoes from sustainable materials is currently on its roadshow for its initial public offering. Fashion start-up, Rent the Runway Inc., which lets customers rent clothing instead of buying it, started trading Wednesday.

Considered a dressier version of Allbirds, Rothy’s shoes are made from recycled plastic and are machine washable.

The company operates seven stores in the US Its products are produced in a factory in Dongguan, China, according to its website.

By Crystal Tse, Katie Roof and Gillian Tan

Learn more:

A Tale of Two DTC Brands: Why Some Soar and Others Crash

Activewear label Vuori picked up $400 million from SoftBank, while Scott Sternberg’s basics line Entireworld announced its shuttering. Why did two brands that thrived on pandemic fashion trends face two different outcomes?