Gap’s Sustainability Efforts Fall Short, Retains ‘It’s a Start’ Rating Amidst Fast Fashion Concerns

LONDON, UK – Leading fashion sustainability rating platform Good On You has reaffirmed its "It’s a Start" rating for global denim and clothing giant Gap, citing an unsustainable fast fashion business model and insufficient progress in reducing its environmental and social impact. The latest assessment, based on data published in July 2025 and reviewed on July 21, 2026, indicates that despite some positive initiatives, Gap’s efforts are not meeting the crucial benchmarks required for a truly sustainable operation. This consistent "It’s a Start" rating, which has seen little change since early 2024, highlights a persistent lag in the brand’s commitment to responsible practices across its vast global enterprise.

The Legacy of a Retail Giant and the Shadow of Fast Fashion

Founded in 1969, Gap Inc. rapidly established itself as a quintessential American brand, becoming a global go-to for accessible, casual clothing, particularly renowned for its denim. With over 1,400 company-owned or franchised stores worldwide, Gap’s operational scale is immense, translating into a colossal volume of products sold annually. This sheer output, coupled with regular heavy discounting and rapid trend cycles, firmly places Gap within the problematic category of "fast fashion." The sector is notoriously criticized for its significant contributions to environmental degradation, excessive textile waste, and pervasive labor exploitation throughout complex global supply chains.

Despite recent strategic shifts, including the appointment of designer Zac Posen and high-profile collaborations with figures like Victoria Beckham and AWAKE NY—moves that have reportedly contributed to increasing profits and a perceived brand "comeback" according to Business of Fashion—Gap’s fundamental business model remains rooted in high-volume, quick-turnaround production. This model inherently conflicts with the principles of sustainability, placing immense pressure on the brand to demonstrate leadership in mitigating its vast footprint. Good On You’s detailed evaluation scrutinizes Gap’s performance across three core pillars: environmental impact, labor conditions, and animal welfare, revealing a pattern of partial efforts that fall short of comprehensive change.

Environmental Impact: Acknowledged Issues, Limited Action

Good On You’s analysts awarded Gap an "It’s a Start" for its environmental impact, a rating that reflects a mix of commendable intentions and critical shortcomings. On the positive side, Gap has committed to a science-based target for reducing greenhouse gas emissions across both its direct operations and its extensive supply chain, and it asserts it is on track to meet these goals. The brand has also adopted recycled packaging and published a biodiversity policy that addresses some aspects of its supply chain, indicating an awareness of ecological responsibilities.

However, the depth of these commitments is questioned when examining material choices. While Gap integrates some lower-impact materials into its production, it notably fails to provide transparency regarding the overall proportion these materials represent in its total output. This lack of data makes it challenging for consumers and analysts to gauge the true scale of its sustainable material adoption.

A significant point of contention is Gap’s continued reliance on synthetic materials, predominantly virgin polyester. A recent controversy surrounding the reissue of its archival "Happy Stripe" collection starkly illustrated this issue. While the original design featured a knitted cotton blend, the "reimagined" version under Posen’s creative direction opted for stripes printed on virgin polyester. This choice underscores a broader industry challenge where iconic designs are updated with less sustainable materials, directly contributing to the climate crisis through fossil fuel dependence and microplastic pollution. Good On You advocates for a more genuine "reimagining" of material sourcing, prioritizing alternatives that do not exacerbate environmental damage.

Furthermore, Gap’s heavy focus on denim production, an inherently water-intensive process, raises concerns about its water stewardship. Despite its substantial denim output and considerable purchasing power within the supply chain, Gap’s CDP Water Disclosure score stands at a mere "B." This score, while indicating some positive actions in water management, falls short of demonstrating leadership or implementing best practices as defined by the respected climate reporting organization CDP. For a brand of Gap’s stature and product focus, a more robust and leading approach to water conservation is imperative, especially in regions facing acute water scarcity. The environmental section of the rating clearly illustrates a brand that acknowledges issues and makes initial steps but lacks the comprehensive, impactful action required to shift away from its fast fashion paradigm.

Labor Conditions: The Persistent "Gap" in Worker Dignity

The assessment of Gap’s labor conditions also resulted in an "It’s a Start" rating, signaling that while some protective measures are in place, fundamental aspects of worker welfare, particularly fair compensation, remain unaddressed. Gap has implemented a basic diversity and inclusion policy, adopted a Code of Conduct aligned with International Labour Organization (ILO) principles, and initiated programs aimed at empowering vulnerable women and girls within parts of its supply chain. These efforts demonstrate a recognition of human rights and social responsibility.

However, a critical failing highlighted by Good On You is Gap’s inability to guarantee a living wage for all workers throughout its supply chain. While the brand claims to have a project underway to improve wages, the absence of a universal living wage remains a significant barrier to ensuring the dignity, well-being, and basic economic security of the individuals who manufacture its clothing. A living wage is defined as the minimum income necessary for a worker to meet their basic needs and those of their family, including food, housing, healthcare, education, and transportation, and to save for unexpected events. Its absence perpetuates cycles of poverty and exploitation in garment-producing regions.

Adding to these concerns, a substantial portion of Gap’s final production stage is located in countries with a higher inherent risk of labor abuse. Furthermore, many of the facilities in these regions lack adequate independent certifications that would verify compliance with ethical labor standards. This lack of robust oversight in high-risk areas exposes workers to potential exploitation, including unsafe working conditions, excessive hours, and suppressed wages. The persistent "gap" in Gap’s labor justice efforts underscores a systemic challenge where profit margins often take precedence over the fundamental rights of garment workers. Addressing these deep-seated issues requires more than incremental improvements; it demands a fundamental re-evaluation of its supply chain ethics and a firm commitment to ensuring fair remuneration and safe environments for all its employees and contractors.

Animal Welfare: Policy Without Sufficient Depth

In the realm of animal welfare, Gap again received an "It’s a Start" rating. The brand has a formal animal welfare policy in place, which is a foundational step towards responsible sourcing. However, this policy is not fully aligned with the widely recognized "Five Domains of Animal Welfare." The Five Domains framework provides a comprehensive approach to assessing animal welfare, encompassing nutrition, environment, health, behavior, and mental state. A policy that does not fully integrate these domains may overlook critical aspects of animal well-being.

Additionally, while Gap uses some recycled or certified alternatives to conventional animal-derived materials, such as wool, these alternatives constitute a relatively small percentage of the brand’s overall material mix. This limited adoption indicates that greater efforts are needed to transition away from materials that may involve problematic animal farming practices. For a brand of Gap’s size and influence, there is a clear opportunity and responsibility to drive innovation and demand for more ethically sourced and animal-friendly materials across its entire product range. The consistent theme across all three pillars of sustainability—environmental, labor, and animal welfare—is a pattern of initial positive steps that ultimately fall short of the comprehensive, impactful change expected from a global leader.

Overall Verdict: Stagnant Progress and Urgent Calls for Change

The aggregated "It’s a Start" rating reflects Good On You’s comprehensive research, which considers hundreds of issues beyond those highlighted in this summary. The consistent finding is that while Gap has initiated some positive policies and programs, these are largely insufficient to address the systemic sustainability challenges posed by its fast fashion model. The brand is urged to urgently tackle its failure to ensure a living wage, reduce its reliance on conventional animal-derived materials, and significantly decrease its use of unsustainable synthetic materials.

A particularly concerning observation from Good On You is the stagnation in Gap’s scores across people, planet, and animals since its previous rating at the start of 2024. This lack of meaningful improvement over an extended period indicates a fundamental lack of commitment to accelerating its impact reduction efforts. For a fast fashion brand, this stagnation is particularly critical. The industry itself is a primary driver of overproduction, contributing billions of garments to landfills annually, textile waste that often ends up in developing countries, and the persistent exploitation of garment workers in low-wage economies. Without substantial, rapid changes, Gap risks falling further behind industry leaders who are genuinely embracing more sustainable and ethical practices.

Implications for Gap and the Broader Industry

The continued "It’s a Start" rating carries significant implications for Gap, its stakeholders, and the wider fashion industry. For Gap, it directly impacts its brand reputation, particularly among a growing segment of consumers who are increasingly prioritizing ethical and sustainable choices. In an era where consumer scrutiny and social media activism can swiftly alter brand perception, being identified as a slow mover in sustainability can erode trust and loyalty. Investors, too, are increasingly factoring Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) performance into their decisions, meaning Gap’s stagnant rating could impact its attractiveness to responsible investment funds.

More broadly, Gap’s position underscores the pervasive challenge of transforming legacy fast fashion brands. While newer, smaller brands often build sustainability into their core mission, established giants face the monumental task of retrofitting ethical practices across vast, complex, and often opaque global supply chains. The pressure from rating bodies like Good On You, combined with evolving regulatory landscapes (such as forthcoming EU directives on due diligence and green claims), signals that incremental changes will no longer suffice. The future of fashion demands systemic change, and brands of Gap’s scale are expected to lead, not merely participate at a basic level.

Empowering Consumer Choice: Sustainable Alternatives

For consumers who are fans of Gap’s affordable, casual clothing and denim but are concerned by its sustainability performance, there are numerous highly-rated alternatives available. Good On You champions brands that are demonstrating a more profound commitment to ethical and environmental responsibility. These "Good" and "Great" rated alternatives offer similar styles and price points while adhering to higher standards.

• Toad&Co: A US brand offering socially and environmentally minded women’s and menswear, suitable for both outdoor activities and casual wear. Most items available in sizes XS-2XL.
• Yes Friends: A UK-based brand focused on creating affordable, responsible clothing, utilizing large-scale production and direct-to-consumer models to maintain low prices. Inclusively sized in 2XS-4XL.
• Jyoti – Fair Works: A Germany-based brand producing GOTS certified cotton products and providing employment for marginalized groups in India. Sizes available are S-XL.
• ASKET: Known for creating timeless wardrobe essentials since 2015 with revolutionary sizing and fair pricing, focusing on a single permanent collection. Find the range in sizes 2XS-2XL.
• Elk: An Australian design pioneer, founded in Melbourne in 2004, creating bi-annual collections informed by a design ethos where simplicity and sustainability meet innovation. Most items in AU sizes 6-18.
• Dickies: While still needing to ensure a living wage, Dickies has made public commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and offers a better option than other major workwear brands. Find the range in inclusive sizes 2XS-6XL. Dickies Pre-Owned is also available via eBay.

These alternatives empower consumers to make informed choices that align with their values, demonstrating that style and affordability do not have to come at the expense of people or the planet. Good On You continues to publish the world’s most comprehensive ratings of fashion and beauty brands’ impact, urging consumers to utilize its directory to support brands that are truly making a difference.

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. Learn more about our editorial mission and how we rate brands. This article was last updated on July 21, 2026, to reflect the brand’s most recent rating review and ensure information remains current.