Despite recent high-profile collaborations and a reported market resurgence, global apparel powerhouse Gap continues to fall short in its sustainability commitments, maintaining a stagnant "It’s a Start" rating from independent evaluator Good On You. This assessment, last updated in July 2025 and reflecting data since early 2024, highlights critical deficiencies across environmental impact, labor conditions, and animal welfare, underscoring the persistent challenges of transforming a fast fashion business model.
Gap’s Enduring Influence and the Fast Fashion Dilemma
Founded in San Francisco in 1969, Gap Inc. has long been a household name, synonymous with accessible, casual American clothing, particularly denim. With over 1,400 company-owned or franchised stores worldwide, its vast operational scale and significant global footprint position it as a major player in the retail landscape. The brand’s ability to consistently deliver high volumes of products at competitive prices, coupled with frequent discounting, firmly categorizes it within the fast fashion sector. This business model, while driving profitability and consumer accessibility, is inherently linked to rapid production cycles, overconsumption, and a substantial environmental and social toll.
Recently, Gap has sought to reinvigorate its brand image, notably with designer Zac Posen at the creative helm and strategic collaborations with high-profile names like Victoria Beckham and AWAKE NY. Business of Fashion insights point to increasing profits and a "comeback" narrative. However, these commercial successes appear to be largely decoupled from a meaningful acceleration in sustainability efforts, as evidenced by the consistent "It’s a Start" rating. The core critique from Good On You and other sustainability advocates is that a brand of Gap’s size and influence has a profound responsibility to lead in sustainable practices, rather than merely meet baseline expectations.
Understanding the ‘It’s a Start’ Rating: The Good On You Methodology
Good On You, an independent ratings system, evaluates fashion brands based on hundreds of data points across three key areas: Planet, People, and Animals. Their rigorous methodology draws on publicly available information, certifications, and industry standards to provide consumers with transparent and accessible sustainability scores. An "It’s a Start" rating signifies that while a brand has begun to implement some positive policies or initiatives, its efforts are insufficient to genuinely reduce its overall negative impact. It implies a lack of comprehensive, verifiable action and often highlights significant gaps in critical areas. For Gap, this rating across all three pillars – environment, labor, and animal welfare – points to a systemic issue rather than isolated shortcomings. The fact that these scores have "barely changed" since early 2024 further emphasizes a concerning stagnation in progress.
Environmental Impact: A "Start" with Significant Hurdles
Gap’s environmental rating of "It’s a Start" reflects a mixed bag of initiatives overshadowed by fundamental issues inherent to its fast fashion model. On the positive side, the brand has committed to a science-based target for reducing greenhouse gas emissions across its direct operations (Scope 1 and 2) and supply chain (Scope 3), claiming it is on track to meet these goals. The use of recycled packaging and the publication of a biodiversity policy covering portions of its supply chain are also acknowledged as steps in the right direction.
However, the analysis reveals critical areas where Gap’s efforts fall short. A significant concern is the brand’s continued reliance on synthetic materials, predominantly virgin polyester, without transparently disclosing the proportion of these materials in its overall production. The widely publicized reissue of its archival Happy Stripe collection, reimagined in virgin polyester instead of its original cotton blend, served as a stark example of this issue. Virgin polyester is a fossil fuel-derived material, contributing significantly to greenhouse gas emissions during production and exacerbating the microplastic pollution crisis when laundered. For a brand of Gap’s scale, pivoting away from such materials towards recycled, organic, or other lower-impact alternatives is crucial.
Furthermore, given Gap’s strong association with denim—a notoriously water-intensive material—its CDP Water Disclosure score of "B" is particularly disappointing. The Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) rates companies on their environmental transparency and performance, with an "A" signifying leadership and best practices. A "B" indicates that Gap is taking "some good action" to manage its water impact but is not demonstrating leadership or implementing the most robust practices. Producing millions of denim garments annually, Gap’s immense purchasing power should be leveraged to drive significant advancements in water conservation and wastewater treatment throughout its supply chain, particularly in regions facing acute water stress. This lukewarm performance in a core product category highlights a missed opportunity for substantial environmental leadership.
Labor Conditions: The Unmet Promise of a Living Wage
The "It’s a Start" rating for labor conditions underscores persistent challenges in ensuring fair and ethical treatment for workers across Gap’s extensive global supply chain. The brand has implemented a basic diversity and inclusion policy, adopted a Code of Conduct aligned with International Labour Organization (ILO) principles, and initiated programs to empower vulnerable women and girls in some of its manufacturing regions. These measures, while commendable, are deemed insufficient given the pervasive issues within the apparel industry.
A primary criticism is Gap’s failure to guarantee a living wage for all workers in its supply chain. A living wage is defined as the remuneration that allows a worker and their family to afford a decent standard of living, covering basic needs like food, housing, healthcare, education, and transport. This often significantly exceeds statutory minimum wages in many garment-producing countries. While Gap states it has a project aimed at improving wages, the absence of a universal living wage commitment means that countless individuals involved in producing Gap’s clothing may remain trapped in cycles of poverty, unable to meet their fundamental needs. This "gap" in living wage assurance is a critical ethical failing for any major brand.
Compounding this issue, a substantial portion of Gap’s final production stage is concentrated in countries identified as high-risk for labor abuses. These regions are often characterized by weak labor laws, inadequate enforcement, and a heightened vulnerability of workers to exploitation, including excessive working hours, unsafe conditions, and restrictions on freedom of association. The absence of comprehensive, independent certifications covering these facilities further exacerbates concerns, making it difficult to verify adherence to ethical labor practices. For a brand that touts worker empowerment, the fundamental issue of ensuring fair compensation and safe working environments remains largely unaddressed across its entire production network.
Animal Welfare: Policy Without Comprehensive Action
In the realm of animal welfare, Gap again receives an "It’s a Start" rating. The brand has a formal animal welfare policy, which is a positive foundational step. However, this policy is criticized for not being fully aligned with the internationally recognized Five Domains of Animal Welfare. These domains—nutrition, environment, health, behavior, and mental state—provide a holistic framework for assessing and ensuring animal well-being. A policy that does not comprehensively address these aspects leaves room for practices that may cause suffering.
Furthermore, while Gap uses some recycled or certified alternatives to conventional animal-derived materials like wool, these alternatives constitute a "not particularly large percentage" of its overall material mix. Conventional wool production can involve practices such as mulesing (a painful surgical procedure), intensive farming, and land degradation. The slow adoption of certified, higher-welfare alternatives indicates a lack of urgent commitment to sourcing materials that genuinely minimize animal suffering and environmental harm. This pattern of partial effort rather than transformative change consistently characterizes Gap’s approach across all sustainability dimensions.
Broader Implications and the Road Ahead for Gap
The persistent "It’s a Start" rating for Gap carries significant implications for its brand reputation, consumer trust, and long-term viability in an increasingly sustainability-conscious market. In an era where consumers, particularly younger demographics, are increasingly scrutinizing brands’ ethical and environmental credentials, stagnation can be as damaging as outright poor performance. The lack of demonstrable progress since early 2024 suggests that Gap’s sustainability initiatives, while existing, are not scaling or evolving at the pace required to address the urgency of global environmental and social crises.
For a brand operating within the fast fashion paradigm, the pressure to reform is particularly intense. The industry is a major contributor to textile waste, carbon emissions, water pollution, and labor exploitation. Brands of Gap’s stature have the financial resources, supply chain influence, and market power to drive systemic change. Their failure to do so perpetuates unsustainable practices across the entire value chain.
Industry experts and sustainability advocates consistently call for greater transparency, robust supply chain governance, and genuine investment in circular economy principles. For Gap, this means not only setting targets but achieving them with verifiable data, shifting dramatically away from virgin synthetics, committing unequivocally to a living wage across all tiers of its supply chain, and adopting comprehensive, third-party verified animal welfare standards.
Statements from Related Parties (Inferred)
While Gap has not issued a specific public statement directly addressing this updated Good On You rating, major apparel corporations typically respond to such assessments by reiterating their commitment to ongoing sustainability programs. A hypothetical response from Gap might emphasize its long-term science-based targets for emissions reductions, its investments in worker empowerment initiatives, and its efforts to integrate more sustainable materials and practices into its collections. They might highlight the complexity of transforming a global supply chain and the incremental nature of progress.
Conversely, environmental and labor advocacy groups would likely reinforce the need for accelerated action. They would stress that "it’s a start" is no longer sufficient given the climate emergency and pervasive human rights issues. They would call for concrete, time-bound commitments to living wages, full supply chain transparency, and a radical reduction in reliance on fossil fuel-derived materials, urging Gap to leverage its market power for transformative change rather than incremental adjustments.
Consumer Action and Sustainable Alternatives
For consumers who value affordability and casual wear but are concerned about Gap’s sustainability performance, making informed choices is crucial. Opting for brands that demonstrate verifiable commitments to people, planet, and animals can send a powerful market signal. Exploring alternatives that achieve higher sustainability ratings allows consumers to align their purchasing power with their values.
For those seeking more responsible casual clothing and denim options, several brands have earned higher ratings for their commitment to sustainability:
- Toad&Co: A US brand known for its socially and environmentally minded women’s and menswear, suitable for both outdoor adventures and casual settings.
- Yes Friends: A UK-based brand focused on affordable, responsible clothing, utilizing large-scale production and direct-to-consumer models to offer ethical products at accessible prices.
- Jyoti – Fair Works: A Germany-based brand producing GOTS certified cotton products, providing employment for marginalized communities in India.
- ASKET: A Swedish brand creating timeless wardrobe essentials with revolutionary sizing and fair pricing, focusing on a single permanent collection rather than seasonal trends.
- Elk: An Australian pioneer of independent design, creating bi-annual collections informed by a design ethos where simplicity and sustainability meet innovation.
- Dickies: While still having areas for improvement, Dickies has made a public commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and is considered a better option than many other major workwear brands, particularly for protective gear.
These alternatives demonstrate that it is possible to offer stylish, durable, and accessible clothing while upholding stronger ethical and environmental standards.
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. Use our directory to search thousands of rated brands.
We updated this article on 21 July 2026. Our editors frequently make updates to articles to ensure they’re up to date. We updated the information to reflect the brand’s most recent rating review.
