Overview
The core criteria section represents the baseline expectations for each sustainability pillar: people, planet, and animals. It is designed to assess whether a brand has the foundational policies, disclosures, and practices expected for responsible business conduct before progressing to more advanced sustainability assessment areas.
Rather than assessing every brand against the full methodology immediately, Good On You uses a staged assessment approach. Brands are first assessed against a more focused core criteria question set covering the key risks and expectations within each pillar.
This approach helps ensure that:
Brands are assessed proportionately to the information available and their level of sustainability maturity
Assessment effort is focused on the areas most relevant to a brand’s current practices
Brands cannot score highly overall without first demonstrating competence in the basic foundations of sustainability
Verticals: Fashion
Threshold for unlocking full assessments
Brands must achieve a minimum score threshold within the core criteria section before unlocking the full methodology for a pillar.
Brands scoring below the threshold will be assessed only on the core criteria questions for that pillar and will not progress to further questions
Brands scoring above the threshold unlock additional sections assessing more advanced practices, implementation, leadership, and citizenship
The current threshold to unlock the full methodology is 35 points within the relevant sustainability pillar
What is assessed?
The core criteria section assesses whether a brand has the core building blocks expected for responsible sustainability management across the people, planet, and animals pillars. The assessment focuses on practical, foundational actions rather than advanced leadership initiatives.
The assessment is a high-level evaluation of a brand's policies and initiatives across a range of sustainability topics. It does not ask for granular data, instead focusing on the presence of initiatives rather than leadership.
Examples of areas assessed within core criteria include:
Planet
Uses lower impact materials in its products
Avoids a fast fashion business model
Adopts slow, circular principles and initiatives
Addresses climate impacts
Sets science-based targets for emissions reduction (large brands)
Avoids or minimises hazardous chemicals in production
Minimises the environmental impact of packaging
Adopts relevant certifications
People
Has a supplier Code of Conduct
Audits suppliers
Publishes a supplier list
Commits to improving wages in the supply chain
Produces in lower- or medium-risk countries
Has a diversity and inclusion policy
Supports workers’ livelihoods
Has a grievance mechanism
Adopts relevant certifications
Animals
Has an animal welfare policy
Avoids use of wild or high-risk animal-derived materials
Avoids mulesing in wool supply
Adopts relevant certifications
These initiatives are intended to represent the types of foundational actions assessed within the core criteria. Brands are not expected to implement all initiatives listed in order to achieve the 35-point threshold and unlock the full methodology for a sustainability pillar.
Relevance for different brands
The core criteria approach acknowledges the different sustainability maturity, resources, and influence of different brands.
Large brands: Are expected to have a higher number of initiatives to meet the 35-point threshold. There are additional questions on diversity and inclusion, climate change measurement and targets, and grievance mechanisms in their supply chain.
Small brands: Are not expected to have the same level of reporting sophistication or complex management systems. Instead, they may still score well through targeted practical initiatives, certifications, lower-impact products or materials, and clear foundational policies.
Best practice and common pitfalls
The following are some best practices and common issues with businesses’ conduct and disclosure relating to sustainability and the core criteria.
Best practice principles
Demonstrating a broad range of foundational sustainability initiatives across people, planet, and animals
Having clear public policies supported by evidence of implementation
Providing transparent disclosure on key sustainability risks, materials, ingredients, suppliers, and targets
Showing that sustainability considerations are integrated into core business operations rather than isolated initiatives
Using credible certifications, measurable targets, or supplier standards to support claims
Common pitfalls and greenwashing
Relying heavily on vague sustainability language without supporting evidence or implementation details
Having policies in place but no evidence of how they are monitored or applied
Focusing on one isolated sustainability initiative while neglecting other major material risks