Is Golden Goose Actually Sustainable?
A closer look at the 2024 Sustainability Report behind the brand's pre-worn sneakers.
You probably know Golden Goose for its pre-worn aesthetic and Italian leather sneakers. What you may not know is that the brand says it is rooted in sustainability.
Its 2024 Sustainability Report, built on a strategy it calls the "Forward Agenda," lays out commitments to sustainability and transparency across its operations. That raises a fair question: is Golden Goose genuinely sustainable, or is sustainability part of the marketing?
In this post, I dig into the report's biggest claims and ask a simple question of each one: is there evidence behind it, or just a well-written statement?
What Golden Goose is doing well
I have real doubts about parts of this report, but some of its progress is genuine, and more verifiable than what I see from many other brands. Three initiatives stand out.
100% renewable electricity at company-owned sites
Golden Goose set a target in 2022 to run all of its company-owned sites worldwide on renewable electricity by the end of 2024. It says it hit that goal a year early:
"Sourcing 100% renewable electricity at our Company-owned facilities worldwide by year-end 2024 (achieved in 2023, ahead of schedule)." (We Care Statement)
This is one of the most credible claims in the report. It is stated consistently, repeated across documents, and clearly limited to company-owned sites. It does not cover the external manufacturers that make most of the product.
There is a catch, though. The report says the electricity is renewable but never says how. If Golden Goose had installed solar panels across its sites, that would be worth highlighting. Because the report is silent on this, I wonder whether the company generates or contracts green power directly, or simply buys renewable energy certificates (RECs) that let it claim green electricity on paper. Those are very different things, and without the details we can't tell how clean its energy really is.
Yatay Model 1B: bio-based innovation
In 2022, Golden Goose launched the Yatay Model 1B, a sneaker made from bio-based and recycled materials. The company says it cuts CO2 emissions by 90% and water use by 65% compared with the traditional leather used in its other shoes.
"Made with Yatay™ B, biodegradable rubber, recycled polyester…" (Yatay Innovation PDF)
Golden Goose deserves credit for experimenting with alternative materials, and it is open about what goes into the shoe. But the headline savings aren't backed by any published independent life cycle assessment or emissions study.
Without third-party verification, those numbers read more like marketing than measurable impact. "Bio-based" also sounds greener than it is. It describes where a material comes from, not whether it is biodegradable or low-impact. If brands want real, lasting progress, transparency isn't optional. Without it, even well-meaning initiatives can look performative and erode consumer trust.
Repair and Remake services
In my opinion, Repair and Remake is Golden Goose's most interesting and potentially impactful initiative. Unlike vague promises of "eco-conscious" design, it tackles overconsumption head-on by keeping shoes in use longer.
The problem is the missing numbers. The report doesn't say how many pairs have been repaired or how much carbon the service has avoided. Without a sense of scale, it's hard to rule out that the service is mainly a way to reach a new group of customers. If a brand sells exclusivity, it should be able to show the math behind its impact.
Where the claims get weaker
The initiatives above are at least partly backed by real progress. Other parts of the report slide into classic greenwashing territory: vague terms, no third-party verification, and little to no data.
"Responsible" materials
One headline commitment is about materials in the ready-to-wear collections:
"Use 50% of responsible materials in our ready-to-wear collections vs. 2021." (Sustainability Report)
The word doing all the work here is "responsible," and the report never pins it down. It could mean recycled, certified organic, or lower-impact by some other measure, and consumers are left to guess. The phrasing is also slippery. It reads like a target, not a confirmed result, and there's no year-by-year data showing how the company is tracking toward it.
Claims like this assume readers won't ask follow-up questions. But consumers are paying closer attention than ever, and a single undefined word isn't enough to earn their trust.
The ESG rating
The report repeatedly points to Golden Goose's "A" ESG rating, which it describes as average compared with companies worldwide. Average is a fair description, and that is exactly the point. An A is a middle-of-the-pack score, not a mark of sustainability leadership.
It suggests Golden Goose is on the right track. It also makes clear the brand has a long way to go before it can present itself as a sustainability leader.
The verdict: is Golden Goose sustainable?
As much as I wanted to believe Golden Goose was a truly sustainable brand, I wouldn't rank it among the most sustainable brands out there. Not yet.
That isn't to dismiss the genuinely good work it has done. Renewable electricity at its own sites, a serious experiment in alternative materials, and a repair service that fights overconsumption are all real steps.
But to prove it to consumers, Golden Goose needs to show its work. It should:
explain how its electricity is sourced,
publish independent life cycle data for products like the Yatay Model 1B,
share numbers for Repair and Remake,
define what "responsible" materials actually are, and
report its progress year over year.
Until then, its sustainability story is promising but unproven.
Comments