Universal Store Sustainability Profile

Universal Store says it is working toward a more sustainable fashion business. Its published material focuses on using preferred fibres, improving packaging, and increasing the share of certified materials in its products. It also says it is measuring its carbon footprint and training staff on product sustainability. The brand works with partner labels on fibre choices and product certification, including GOTS (Global Organic Textile Standard, a strict organic textile rule set), OCS (Organic Content Standard), and GRS (Global Recycled Standard). Independent rating data is limited, and Good On You rates Universal Standard, not Universal Store, so there is little third-party evidence here to judge the brand’s wider ESG performance.

Positive Sentiment Found
Public sentiment in the material is limited, but the strongest positive signal comes from the brand’s own sustainability page, which shows a clear set of fibre, packaging, and certification goals. It also gives some measurable progress, including 52% preferred fibres in FY26, more than 60% certified organic cotton, and more than 25% certified recycled polyester. The page names third-party standards such as GOTS, OCS, and GRS, which are independent systems that check material content and traceability. There is also a positive signal from the AS Colour partnership, where the brand says it is using GOTS-certified organic cotton in an exclusive range. However, there is little independent consumer or press evidence in the provided material to confirm how these efforts are viewed outside the brand itself.

Common Criticisms:
Independent third-party evidence is thin, but the available rating data is not strong. Good On You rates Universal Standard, not Universal Store, as “We Avoid,” saying the brand does not communicate enough about its environmental and labour policies. That means the assessor found too little public information to judge its impact well, rather than proving specific harms. For Universal Store itself, there is no clear third-party sustainability rating in the material, and no verified consumer review data about its ESG performance. The lack of independent assessment and the absence of published detail on some targets, such as the 2030 emissions plan, leave gaps in transparency. In practice, that makes it harder for shoppers to check whether the brand’s claims are backed by full public evidence.