While often seen as a step above brands like Shein or H&M, Abercrombie & Fitch exhibits many traits of a fast fashion brand due to its trend-driven production model and production volume. The brand has made some public commitments to sustainability, but these efforts are undermined by a lack of supply chain transparency and ongoing concerns about labor practices.
Currently, A&F's ethical and environmental initiatives are not comprehensive enough to be considered a truly sustainable brand. Here's a detailed breakdown of its practices.
Abercrombie & Fitch operates on a model that blends traditional seasonal retail with faster, trend-responsive production cycles, placing it firmly in the fast fashion category, albeit at a slightly slower pace than ultra-fast competitors.
A&F demonstrates a basic level of corporate social responsibility but falls significantly short in key areas like wage security and supply chain transparency, raising serious ethical questions.
A&F's manufacturing is centered in Asian countries where labor protections are often weak. A 2022 report from the Clean Clothes Campaign linked A&F suppliers in Bangladesh to poor safety conditions and low wages, with some workers earning as little as $90-$150 per month, far below the regional living wage of $200-$300.
While A&F publishes a list of its Tier 1 suppliers (direct factories), it provides almost no visibility into the rest of its supply chain, including mills and raw material suppliers. Third-party audits through organizations like the Fair Labor Association (FLA) frequently identify compliance gaps, but the detailed results are not made public, limiting genuine accountability.
The brand uses animal-derived materials like leather, wool, and down but lacks robust animal welfare policies. Its materials are not certified by leading standards such as the Responsible Down Standard (RDS) or PETA-Approved Vegan, meaning the welfare of animals in its supply chain cannot be verified.
A&F has set some sustainability goals and incorporated some eco-friendlier materials, but these initiatives are insufficient to offset the negative impact of its large-scale production model and reliance on virgin synthetics.
According to its most recent report, only about 25% of A&F's collection uses more sustainable materials like recycled polyester or organic cotton. The vast majority still consists of conventional cotton and virgin synthetics, which are resource-intensive and contribute to microplastic pollution.
The brand's denim production is highly water-intensive, and it fails to provide detailed data on its water usage, chemical management, or wastewater treatment practices. Furthermore, A&F has not published transparent data on its greenhouse gas emissions (Scope 1, 2, or 3), making its reduction targets difficult to verify.
Efforts in circularity are minimal. The brand has a limited clothing take-back program with unclear recycling processes and low participation rates. There are no repair services offered to extend the life of garments, and product durability is generally low, promoting a disposable view of fashion.
A&F has set goals like sourcing 50% sustainable cotton by 2025 and reducing carbon emissions by 30% by 2030, but it provides sparse, unverified updates on its progress. Lacking key third-party certifications like B Corp or Climate Neutral, the credibility of its commitments is questionable.
While A&F has taken positive steps, its efforts in both ethics and sustainability remain incremental and largely overshadowed by the negative impacts of its high-volume fast fashion model.
A&F receives low marks for ethical practices due to its failure to pay living wages, documented labor violations in supplier factories, and a severe lack of supply chain transparency. Its practices meet legal minimums but do not address systemic exploitation of workers or a lack of accountability.
A&F earns a low score for sustainability. The brand's reliance on conventional materials, poor transparency around environmental impact, and absence of meaningful circularity initiatives undermine its sustainability claims. Its goals lack third-party verification and are insufficient to offset the environmental harm caused by its production scale.
If you're looking for alternatives that offer similar casual styles with strong commitments to the planet and its people, consider these better brands:
Patagonia is a B Corp and a member of 1% for the Planet. Almost 70% of its materials are recycled or organic, guaranteeing Fair Trade products and offering lifetime repairs. Its products are durable, and its supply chain is fully transparent.
Specializing in sneakers, Veja uses organic, recycled, and fair trade materials and is known for its radical transparency about its suppliers and prices. A leader in sustainable footwear.
Everlane offers minimalist wardrobe staples with radical transparency on its factories and costs. They use sustainable fabrics and have clear commitments to ethical practices, though still have some room for improvement.
Pioneers in fair trade fashion, People Tree uses organic and sustainable fibers, pays living wages, and maintains transparent supply chain practices.
Founded by surf legend Kelly Slater, Outerknown is known for its commitments to Fair Trade, sustainability, and using recycled fabrics and organic cotton.
Although A&F has made sustainability goals, like reducing emissions and increasing the use of organic cotton, progress is slow and lacks third-party verification. The brand remains heavily reliant on conventional materials, limiting the positive impact of any change.
