Gap’s Sustainability Efforts Receive "It’s a Start" Rating Amidst Fast Fashion Concerns

Denim and clothing giant Gap, a household name since 1969, continues to operate under an unsustainable fast fashion business model, prompting a critical "It’s a Start" rating from sustainability analytics platform Good On You. This assessment, based on data published in July 2025 and reflecting consistent performance since early 2024, indicates that despite some positive initiatives, Gap’s efforts to mitigate its environmental, labor, and animal welfare impacts are not meeting the necessary benchmarks for a company of its global scale and influence. The brand’s middling performance across key sustainability indicators suggests a significant "gap" between its current practices and the leadership required to address the pervasive issues inherent in the fast fashion industry.

The Global Imperative for Sustainable Fashion

The fashion industry, particularly its fast fashion segment, is widely recognized as one of the most polluting and resource-intensive sectors globally. It contributes substantially to climate change through greenhouse gas emissions, relies heavily on non-renewable resources, and generates immense textile waste, with an estimated 92 million tonnes of textile waste created annually. Water consumption is another critical concern, especially in the cultivation of cotton and the dyeing processes. Beyond environmental degradation, the fast fashion model is often underpinned by exploitative labor practices, including low wages, poor working conditions, and a lack of transparency in complex global supply chains. As consumer awareness grows and regulatory pressures mount, major brands like Gap are increasingly expected to demonstrate robust and verifiable commitments to sustainability, moving beyond symbolic gestures towards systemic change. Good On You’s rigorous ratings system, which evaluates brands against hundreds of data points related to their impact on people, the planet, and animals, serves as a crucial independent benchmark in this evolving landscape.

Gap’s Legacy and Current Market Position

Founded in San Francisco in 1969, Gap quickly established itself as a go-to retailer for casual, affordable American clothing, most notably denim. Over the decades, its brand presence expanded globally, with its signature blue logo becoming synonymous with accessible fashion. While its fortunes have fluctuated, Gap has recently experienced a "comeback," marked by increasing profits and high-profile collaborations with designers like Zac Posen, Victoria Beckham, and AWAKE NY. According to Business of Fashion insights, these strategic partnerships have injected new energy into the brand, contributing to its renewed visibility. However, despite these high-fashion affiliations, Gap remains fundamentally characterized as a fast fashion brand. Its business model hinges on a massive volume of product sales, frequent new collections, and aggressive discounting strategies. With over 1,400 company-owned or franchised stores worldwide, Gap’s operational scale necessitates the production of an enormous quantity of garments, placing it squarely within the industry segment most heavily scrutinized for its environmental and social footprint. Given this extensive global reach and purchasing power, Gap holds a significant responsibility to lead the industry towards more sustainable and ethical practices.

Environmental Impact: A Mixed Bag of Initiatives and Shortcomings

Good On You analysts assigned Gap an "It’s a Start" rating for its environmental impact, reflecting a blend of commendable initiatives and critical areas requiring more substantial action. On the positive side, Gap has committed to a science-based target (SBT) to reduce greenhouse gas emissions across both its direct operations and its extensive supply chain. The company reports being on track to meet these targets, which is a vital step in aligning with global climate goals. Furthermore, Gap has implemented the use of recycled packaging and has published a biodiversity policy, albeit one that currently covers only a portion of its supply chain.

However, the assessment highlights significant environmental deficiencies. While Gap does incorporate some lower-impact materials into its products, the brand fails to provide a transparent breakdown of the proportion these materials represent within its overall material usage. This lack of disclosure makes it difficult for consumers and analysts to ascertain the true extent of its sustainable material adoption. A recent controversy surrounding the reissue of Gap’s archival Happy Stripe collection brought this issue into sharp focus. While the original design featured a knitted cotton blend, the "reimagined" version was produced using virgin polyester. This reliance on fossil fuel-derived synthetic materials, which contribute significantly to plastic pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, directly contradicts the principles of a circular economy and climate responsibility. Polyester, a common synthetic, is derived from petroleum, a non-renewable resource, and its production is energy-intensive. Moreover, garments made from polyester shed microplastic fibers during washing, polluting waterways and entering the food chain.

Compounding these material concerns is Gap’s prominent focus on denim, a notoriously water-intensive material. From cotton cultivation to dyeing and finishing processes, denim production can consume thousands of liters of water per single pair of jeans. Given this context, Gap’s CDP Water Disclosure score of "B" is disappointing. The CDP (formerly the Carbon Disclosure Project) is a globally recognized standard for environmental reporting. A "B" score indicates that a company is taking some good actions to manage its water impact but falls short of demonstrating leadership or implementing the best practices advocated by the organization. For a brand with Gap’s massive denim output and market influence, a more ambitious approach to water stewardship, including investments in water-saving technologies and sustainable agricultural practices for cotton, is urgently needed.

Labour Conditions: The Unfinished Business of Worker Dignity

In the realm of labour conditions, Gap again received an "It’s a Start" rating. The brand has established various initiatives and policies aimed at supporting and protecting workers within its supply chain. These include a basic diversity and inclusion policy, a Code of Conduct that incorporates the International Labour Organization (ILO) principles, and specific programs designed to empower vulnerable women and girls in some of its production facilities. The ILO principles cover fundamental rights at work, such as freedom of association, the right to collective bargaining, the elimination of forced labour, child labour, and discrimination.

Despite these foundational elements, a critical shortfall remains: Gap has yet to ensure a living wage for all workers throughout its supply chain. While the company states it has a project underway to improve wages, the absence of a verified living wage across its entire network is a significant concern. A living wage is defined as the income necessary for a worker to afford a decent standard of living for themselves and their family, covering food, housing, healthcare, education, and other essential needs, often exceeding statutory minimum wages. The failure to pay a living wage undermines the dignity and well-being of the individuals who produce Gap’s clothing, perpetuating cycles of poverty in manufacturing regions.

Furthermore, a substantial portion of Gap’s final production stage is located in countries with a higher inherent risk of labour abuse. Many of these facilities lack adequate independent certifications, which are crucial for ensuring adherence to international labour standards and providing transparency. This lack of robust oversight in high-risk areas exposes workers to potential exploitation, including excessive working hours, unsafe environments, and restrictions on fundamental rights. The concentration of production in such regions, combined with a lack of verifiable living wages and certifications, creates a discernible "gap" in Gap’s commitment to comprehensive labour justice.

Animal Welfare Policies Under Review

Gap’s animal welfare policies also garnered an "It’s a Start" rating. The brand has a formal animal welfare policy in place, which is a positive first step. However, this policy is not fully aligned with the widely recognized Five Domains of Animal Welfare. These five domains (nutrition, environment, health, behavioural interactions, and mental state) provide a comprehensive framework for assessing and improving the welfare of animals under human care, moving beyond simply preventing cruelty to actively promoting positive welfare states.

The assessment also notes that while Gap uses some recycled or certified alternatives to conventional animal-derived materials, such as wool, these materials constitute only a small percentage of its overall animal-derived material mix. This limited adoption indicates that greater efforts are needed to transition away from conventional materials that may involve practices inconsistent with high animal welfare standards. For example, conventional wool production can raise concerns about practices like mulesing, while leather production often involves intensive farming practices and chemical-heavy tanning processes. Increasing the proportion of certified, higher-welfare, or plant-based alternatives would demonstrate a stronger commitment to animal protection. This pattern of taking some positive steps but not enough is a recurring theme that ties together much of Gap’s overall sustainability rating.

The "It’s a Start" Verdict: A Call for Accelerated Action

Good On You’s comprehensive research rates Gap "It’s a Start" overall, signaling that while the brand has initiated some positive policies and programs, it falls short of the transformative changes required to operate sustainably in the modern fashion landscape. The areas demanding urgent attention include ensuring a living wage for all supply chain workers, significantly reducing its reliance on unsustainable synthetic materials, and improving its animal welfare practices by aligning with the Five Domains and increasing the use of certified alternatives.

A particularly concerning aspect of Gap’s performance is the stagnation in its scores across people, planet, and animals since its last rating review in early 2024. This lack of significant progress underscores a consistent deficiency in the brand’s commitment to accelerating its impact reduction efforts. For a fast fashion brand, this stagnation is especially problematic. The fast fashion model is a primary driver of overproduction, contributing to immense textile waste and resource depletion. Moreover, its relentless pursuit of low costs often correlates with labour exploitation in global supply chains. As a major player in this sector, Gap has a profound responsibility to not only improve its own practices but also to set a precedent for positive change within the industry. Addressing these systemic issues requires a strategic overhaul that prioritizes long-term sustainability over short-term gains.

Consumer Action and Sustainable Alternatives

For loyal Gap consumers who are increasingly conscious of their purchasing power and seeking more responsible options for affordable casual clothes and jeans, Good On You offers a curated list of highly-rated "Good" and "Great" alternatives. These brands demonstrate stronger commitments to ethical and sustainable practices across environmental, social, and animal welfare dimensions.

• Toad&Co: A US brand known for its socially and environmentally minded women’s and menswear, suitable for both outdoor activities and casual wear.
• Yes Friends: A UK-based brand focused on creating affordable, responsible clothing, utilizing large-scale production and direct-to-consumer models to offer better prices for ethical garments.
• Jyoti – Fair Works: A German brand producing GOTS certified cotton products, dedicated to providing employment opportunities for marginalized communities in India.
• ASKET: This brand, founded in 2015, focuses on timeless wardrobe essentials, revolutionary sizing, and fair pricing by disregarding seasonal collections and selling directly to consumers.
• Elk: An independent Australian design pioneer from Melbourne, Elk creates bi-annual collections with a strong emphasis on simplicity, innovation, and sustainability.
• Dickies: While still on its journey, Dickies has publicly committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and is considered a better option than many other major workwear brands, offering durable protective gear.

These alternatives empower consumers to make informed choices that align with their values, supporting brands actively working towards a more sustainable and equitable fashion future.

Editor’s Note

Good On You publishes the world’s most comprehensive ratings of fashion and beauty brands’ impact on people, the planet, and animals. Our editors curate highly rated brands that are first assessed by our rigorous ratings system. Buying through our links may earn us a commission—supporting the work we do. For more information on our methodology, please visit our How We Rate page and FAQs. This article was updated on 21 July 2026, to reflect the brand’s most recent rating review and ensure all information is current.