Editor’s Note: Our editors curate highly rated brands that are first assessed by our rigorous ratings system. Buying through our links may earn us a commission—supporting the independent work we do. Learn more.
Executive Overview
As one of the twin titans of the global activewear industry alongside its fierce long-standing rival Nike, Adidas holds immense sway over consumer culture, supply chain standards, and material innovation. Founded in Bavaria, Germany, in 1949 by Adolf Dassler—brother of Puma founder Rudolf Dassler—the brand has evolved from a regional shoemaker into a multi-billion-dollar athletic powerhouse. Yet, with massive corporate influence comes profound responsibility.
According to the latest January 2026 evaluation by sustainability ratings platform Good On You, Adidas currently holds a middling "It’s a Start" rating. While this score marks a marginal improvement from its historical "Not Good Enough" standing, it underscores a disappointing reality: despite commanding global resources, market dominance, and cultural reverence for icons like the Stan Smith sneaker and its high-profile collaborations with Stella McCartney, Adidas is simply not taking sufficient action on critical environmental, labour, and animal welfare issues.
This investigative breakdown examines the publicly available evidence behind the January 2026 Adidas rating. By analyzing corporate transparency, supply chain accountability, and regulatory scrutiny—such as the recent UK advertising ban over recycled claims—we unpack where the sportswear giant is falling short, where it shows signs of progress, and why conscious consumers are increasingly looking toward ethical alternatives.
Detailed Chronology: The Evolution of Adidas’s Sustainability Journey
To understand where Adidas stands today, it is essential to trace the historical milestones, corporate milestones, and regulatory flashpoints that have defined its modern operational track record.
1949–1990s: The Foundation and Early Manufacturing Era
Adidas emerged from the ashes of post-war Germany, building its reputation on athletic performance footwear and equipment. For decades, the brand’s primary focus was technical innovation, athlete endorsements, and global market expansion. Like much of the apparel industry during the late 20th century, considerations regarding the carbon footprint of synthetic activewear fabrics, factory worker wages in the Global South, and supply chain transparency were virtually non-existent in corporate strategy.
2000s–2010s: Rising Scrutiny and Initial CSR Policies
As globalization accelerated production, athletic brands faced intense public scrutiny regarding labour conditions, particularly concerning sweatshops, child labour, and wage suppression in developing manufacturing hubs. In response, Adidas began publishing Code of Conduct policies and engaging in baseline corporate social responsibility (CSR) auditing. During this era, the brand also started experimenting with environmental frameworks, joining various multi-stakeholder initiatives aimed at reducing hazardous chemical usage. However, these efforts were largely voluntary and lacked standardized, verifiable enforcement mechanisms.
2020–2025: Material Shifts and Animal Welfare Commitments
Entering the new decade, consumer demand for sustainable activewear surged. Adidas leaned heavily into marketing narratives centered around eco-friendly materials, promoting initiatives involving recycled ocean plastic and polyester alternatives.
- The Kangaroo Leather Ban: In a major victory for animal welfare advocates, Adidas announced in 2025 that it would completely phase out the use of kangaroo leather in its soccer boots and sneakers.
- Wool Standards: The brand also adopted commitments aligning with animal welfare groups, signing the Four Paws Letter of Intent to ban wool sourced from mulesed sheep.
Despite these victories, independent analysts noted that core systemic issues—such as inadequate living wages across the full supply chain and a reliance on virgin synthetics—remained largely unaddressed.
January–June 2026: Ratings Reviews and Advertising Crackdowns
The current evaluation period is defined by heightened regulatory and investigative accountability:
- January 2026: Good On You published its updated brand rating for Adidas, cementing its "It’s a Start" score. While competitors like Puma achieved a "Good" rating, proving that heritage brands of similar scale can elevate their performance, Adidas lagged behind.
- June 2026: A major reputational blow struck the brand in the United Kingdom. The UK’s Advertising Standards Agency (ASA) officially banned an Adidas marketing campaign promoting "recycled running shoes" after ruling the claims to be overly vague and misleading. Investigative reports by The Guardian revealed that Adidas did not maintain a dedicated recycled running shoe line; rather, certain dispersed products merely incorporated unspecified proportions of recycled materials.
- Late 2026: Adidas faced heavy criticism in the Clean Clothes Campaign’s Fashion Checker report, highlighting its failure to deliver meaningful progress on living wage promises for garment workers.
Supporting Context & Metrics: Environmental Impact, Labour, and Animal Welfare
A comprehensive sustainability assessment requires examining performance across three distinct pillars: environmental footprint, worker rights, and animal ethics.
Environmental Impact: The Synthetic Dilemma and Greenwashing Claims
Adidas scores an "It’s a Start" for the environment, a rating that has remained static across consecutive reviews.
- Materials Breakdown: The brand utilizes a medium proportion of lower-impact materials and publishes an aggregate breakdown of its material consumption. However, because activewear inherently relies on high-performance synthetics (such as polyester and elastane) and chemical treatments, industry critics expect a much more aggressive transition away from virgin fossil-fuel-based fabrics.
- The Advertising Backlash: The June 2026 ASA ruling against Adidas exposed a dangerous chasm between corporate marketing and verifiable reality. By capitalizing on consumer eco-consciousness without providing clear, publicly accessible product-level documentation, Adidas exposed itself to accusations of greenwashing. If internal documentation exists to verify recycled components, failing to make that data transparent leaves everyday shoppers in the dark.
- Carbon vs. Biodiversity: On a positive note, Adidas has established science-based targets to systematically reduce greenhouse gas emissions across both its direct operations and its complex supply chain, reporting steady progress. Conversely, the brand demonstrates an absolute void regarding biodiversity protection policies within its supply chain—a critical oversight in modern environmental auditing frameworks.
Labour Conditions: Falling Short on Living Wages and Worker Rights
Adidas’s labour rating languishes at "Not Good Enough," highlighting a deep structural lag behind critical industry benchmarks.
- The Living Wage Gap: While Adidas has initiated localized projects aimed at improving wages and reportedly pays some final-stage production workers a living wage, this falls woefully short of global expectations for an enterprise of its magnitude. According to the Clean Clothes Campaign’s 2026 Fashion Checker monitoring project, Adidas scored among the lowest tiers for living wage implementation.
- Supply Chain Transparency: While the brand discloses supplier details for its second and final stages of production, deeper tier-one and raw material supply chains remain opaque. Tracking subcontractor facilities where fair treatment is most difficult to guarantee is essential for preventing human rights abuses.
- Freedom of Association: Independent research indicates that fewer than 50% of Adidas supplier facilities feature democratically elected unions or effective collective bargaining agreements. Given historical labour violations tied to its manufacturing network—such as widespread wage theft scandals in Cambodia—ensuring unhindered worker representation must be paramount. On the positive side, the brand does maintain a confidential grievance and whistleblowing mechanism for reporting modern slavery.
Animal Welfare: Progress on Specific Materials, Policy Shortfalls Overall
Adidas holds an "It’s a Start" rating for animal welfare, anchored by a formal policy that unfortunately still lacks complete alignment with the internationally recognized "Five Freedoms."
- Prohibited Materials: Adidas completely avoids real fur, exotic animal hair, and angora. Furthermore, its landmark 2025 decision to eliminate kangaroo leather from its footwear portfolio removed a major point of ethical contention.
- Ongoing Material Usage: The brand continues to source down feathers, wool, cashmere, and bovine leather. While some of these inputs utilize recycled or certified alternatives, the brand lacked public commitments to comprehensive leather certification frameworks during the latest review cycle.
- Exemplary Actions: Proving it is capable of meaningful animal welfare reform, Adidas successfully banned wool sourced from mulesed sheep and formalized its commitment via the Four Paws Letter of Intent.
Official Statements and Industry Insights
The divergence between corporate public relations and independent auditing highlights a fundamental tension in modern retail.
Industry analysts point out that brands like Adidas often rely on incrementalism—making high-profile announcements regarding singular victories (such as banning kangaroo leather or setting carbon reduction targets)—while leaving systemic, structural issues untouched.
When confronted with the UK advertising ban regarding its "recycled running shoes," Adidas representatives defended the brand by asserting that internal product documentation verified the presence of recycled materials in specific items. Yet, consumer advocacy groups and regulatory bodies increasingly reject internal opacity. In an era where conscious consumerism dictates market loyalty, accountability requires radical, publicly verifiable data rather than broad marketing generalizations.
Similarly, labour rights advocates emphasize that supplier auditing is no longer an acceptable substitute for worker empowerment. Without legally binding agreements, living wages, and unhindered union representation, top-down factory audits frequently fail to protect vulnerable workers from exploitation, harassment, and wage suppression.
Future Outlook: What Must Adidas Do Next?
To transition from a middling "It’s a Start" rating to an industry-leading standard of ethical excellence, Adidas must enact comprehensive structural reforms across its business model:
- Radical Supply Chain Transparency: Adidas must expand its disclosure metrics beyond final-stage assembly plants, mapping and publishing data for deep-tier suppliers, raw material processors, and fabric mills.
- Guaranteed Living Wages: Moving beyond pilot projects, the brand must commit to ensuring that every worker across its entire manufacturing footprint receives a verified living wage, backed by independent monitoring agencies like the Clean Clothes Campaign.
- Democratization of the Workplace: Adidas must actively mandate and protect freedom of association, ensuring that all supplier facilities respect workers’ rights to form independent, democratically elected trade unions.
- Verifiable Environmental Claims: To rebuild consumer trust following regulatory advertising bans, all sustainability and recycling claims must be backed by transparent, consumer-accessible product-level documentation. Furthermore, the brand must accelerate its adoption of next-generation low-impact materials while establishing robust biodiversity protection policies.
- Comprehensive Animal Welfare: Adidas should phase out remaining conventional animal-derived inputs in favor of certified cruelty-free alternatives or innovative, plant-based materials.
Good Swaps: Ethical Alternatives to Adidas
While Adidas demonstrates that it is capable of taking some positive steps—meaning consumers who already own Adidas products should cherish and wear them for as long as possible, as garment longevity remains the ultimate sustainable act—those looking to shop in alignment with their values can support brands embracing slow fashion and ethical manufacturing.
1. Purusha People
For yogis and activewear enthusiasts seeking organic, plant-based pieces infused with aesthetic details, Purusha People offers sweat-wicking activewear designed for mindful movement. Their collections are responsibly manufactured and widely inclusive, stocked in sizes XS to 4XL. (Rated "Good" / Explore Purusha People)
2. Happy Earth
Dedicated to environmental preservation, this US-based organic clothing brand channels its proceeds directly into non-profit partnerships focused on tree planting, climate action, and trash cleanups. Most items are available in sizes XS to 3XL. (Rated "Great" / Explore Happy Earth)
3. Flamingos’ Life
For those searching for a direct sneaker alternative to Adidas classics, Flamingos’ Life produces 100% vegan, PETA-approved footwear. The brand utilizes innovative lower-impact and upcycled materials to craft timeless athletic shoes in EU sizes 36 to 46. (Rated "Great" / Explore Flamingos’ Life)
4. ID.EIGHT
Born from the Italian footwear industry, ID.EIGHT creates refined, sustainable sneakers manufactured in Italy. Their innovative designs incorporate lower-impact materials derived from food industry waste—including apple peels, grape stalks, seeds, and pineapple leaves—alongside recycled cotton and polyester. Available in EU sizes 36 to 46. (Rated "Good" / Explore ID.EIGHT)
Good On You publishes the world’s most comprehensive ratings of fashion brands’ impact on people, the planet, and animals. Use the Good On You Directory to search thousands of rated brands and align your wardrobe with your values.
