As consumers navigate an increasingly complex marketplace, understanding the true ethical footprint of the products they purchase has become a formidable challenge. At the forefront of this movement is Good On You, widely recognized as the world’s leading platform for rating fashion and beauty brands based on their performance across human rights, environmental impact, and animal welfare. Behind the platform’s comprehensive directory and mobile application lies a strict methodology: expert analysts rely exclusively on publicly available information.
This deliberate constraint is not merely a procedural preference; it is a foundational stance rooted in the principles of accountability and transparency. In an era where corporate messaging often outpaces verifiable action, requiring brands to make their data public ensures that consumers, watchdogs, and regulators can independently verify claims. Without open access to behind-the-scenes practices, tracking genuine progress toward a more sustainable future remains an elusive goal for both the industry and the public.
There Is No Way to Track Progress Without Transparency
Transparency serves as the essential bedrock for securing a better, more sustainable future across the fashion and beauty sectors. When companies are as open as possible about their internal operations—including the extent to which they address critical ecological and social challenges—stakeholders gain the ability to comprehend corporate actions and hold businesses accountable. Modern consumers increasingly believe they have a fundamental right to understand how a given brand impacts the specific causes they care about, whether that involves carbon emissions, labor rights, or animal protection.
This consumer expectation is precisely why Good On You anchors its rating system in publicly available information, evaluating companies across three core pillars: people, the planet, and animals. By examining up to 1,000 publicly accessible data points for a single brand, analysts can identify the companies that cause active harm or fail to take sufficient corrective action, as well as those charting a path toward industry-wide improvement.
When the platform assigns its lowest ratings—categories designated as "We Avoid" and "Not Good Enough"—the goal extends beyond mere criticism. These ratings serve as a catalyst for reform, motivating companies to abandon harmful practices while empowering shoppers with the most current data available. Gordon Renouf, Chief Executive Officer of Good On You, emphasizes the simplicity of this consumer right, noting that it should be just as easy to understand a product’s sustainability impact as it is to know its price or technical features.
Holding Brands Accountable for Their Impact
Many everyday shoppers remain genuinely shocked when uncovering the realities behind the items they purchase. Historical and ongoing controversies—such as the exposure of workers to toxic chemicals during viscose production, the reliance on forced monkey labor to harvest coconuts for beauty ingredients, or the deadly structural failures that led to the tragic collapse of the Rana Plaza garment factory—highlight the severe human and environmental costs hidden within global supply chains.
If external watchdogs and consumers fail to demand transparency regarding chemical usage, supply chain safety, and fair wages, holding corporations accountable for damages becomes virtually impossible. Conversely, celebrating brands that take genuine, positive steps requires verifiable public evidence. Good On You expects companies to report fully, accurately, and consistently on their operational practices. Such transparency not only transforms fashion and beauty for the better but also helps shape meaningful regulations around critical issues by bringing codes of conduct, industry accords, and verified certifications into the light.
Despite these imperatives, the fashion and beauty industries still have a long way to go before public disclosure becomes standard practice. An analysis of the market reveals striking shortcomings among industry leaders. Notably, none of the 40 most profitable fashion brands evaluated by the platform received a "Great" rating, exposing a profound lack of transparency and leadership among the sector’s largest economic players.
Further examination of the more than 6,000 fashion brands cataloged in the Good On You directory reveals widespread data silence. Among large brands, 61% fail to disclose any information regarding their water management practices, while 54% remain entirely silent on chemical usage. Environmental reporting fares only slightly better, though substantial gaps persist: 18% of large brands and 24% of small brands fail to publish basic details regarding their environmental policies.
Climate accountability presents an even deeper concern. Research indicates that 81% of large fashion brands with established greenhouse gas emissions targets fail to state whether they are actually on track to meet those goals. True accountability requires regular reporting on proximity to targets, ensuring that published goals do not simply function as distant, empty promises.
Publishing sustainability data is not without its internal hurdles, however. Jessica Ouano, a ratings analyst at Good On You, notes that some large corporations cite internal bureaucracy as a barrier to full disclosure. According to Ouano, representatives from major brands often explain that releasing comprehensive information on all sustainability initiatives requires multi-tiered internal approvals. While acknowledging that corporate size can complicate communication, Ouano maintains that transparency remains non-negotiable because it fosters accountability, allowing stakeholders to challenge misleading or inaccurate claims.
Small Brands Can Rarely Share the Same Information as Large Ones
Navigating the complexities of sustainability reporting is undeniably more difficult for small brands than for multinational corporations. Large enterprises typically possess greater financial resources, extensive networks, and dedicated compliance teams to manage data collection and reporting. Good On You accounts for these disparities within its ratings methodology by distinguishing between large and small businesses using the European Commission’s definition, which relies on annual turnover figures.
By rating large and small brands through tailored frameworks, the methodology acknowledges the unique limitations faced by independent labels while maintaining the expectation that major corporations publish in-depth data on policies and targets. For smaller businesses concerned about their public ratings, Good On You provides targeted guidance on effective sustainability communication. This advice generally centers on remaining current, specific, and honest while prioritizing the mitigation of issues with the largest environmental and social footprints.
What If a Brand Isn’t Doing Enough, or Isn’t Publishing Any Data?
When a brand falls short of ethical standards, experts advise that admitting shortcomings is far more constructive than glossing over them with vague assurances. Concealing negative impacts risks misleading consumers into believing robust actions are taking place behind closed doors.
If analysts discover that a brand publishes no data regarding its practices, that lack of disclosure is explicitly highlighted within the Good On You directory and mobile application. This transparency regarding missing information alerts shoppers when a brand fails to be forthcoming about its operations.
To encourage broader industry reform, Good On You actively works to notify brands before rating them, providing generalized guidance on the types of disclosures and practices evaluated across the people, planet, and animal pillars. Additionally, the platform offers an enterprise sustainability hub known as Good Measures. This resource assists businesses of all sizes in understanding their disclosures across the core ratings pillars, helping them pinpoint material areas for improvement and update their standing.
We Need Greater Transparency to Tackle Greenwashing
The critical need for openness is further amplified by the persistent threat of greenwashing—a deceptive practice where brands obscure the truth by offering vague generalities or sweeping statements about their commitment to sustainability while providing no specific evidence. Without rigorous scrutiny and public challenge, industry practices remain stagnant, preventing the transition toward genuine environmental stewardship.
Compounding this issue is a newer phenomenon known as "greenhushing," wherein brands choose to remain entirely silent about their environmental impacts. Companies often adopt this approach out of fear of being criticized for inadequate progress, accused of greenwashing, or penalized by increasingly stringent global regulations.
Yet, removing public-facing sustainability data represents a significant step backward for the entire industry. Sandra Capponi, co-founder of Good On You, notes that while achieving full transparency in complex global supply chains is challenging, it remains the absolute minimum expectation for modern business. Data consistency and open disclosure are critical if consumers are to make genuinely informed purchasing decisions.
Consequently, Good On You remains firm in its policy of relying exclusively on publicly accessible data for its evaluations, continuously pushing companies to adopt comprehensive, transparent reporting standards.
