Editorial 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 journalism and research we do. Learn more.
Executive Overview
As one of the twin titans of the global activewear industry, operating alongside its fiercest competitor Nike, Adidas commands immense cultural cachet, economic sway, and infrastructural power. Yet, despite commanding billions in annual revenue and dictating trends across international athletic and streetwear markets, both mega-brands currently hold a middling “It’s a Start” rating from Good On You.
This evaluation indicates a stark reality: neither company is taking sufficient, systemic action on key sustainability, ecological, and ethical issues commensurate with their profound market influence.
Founded in Bavaria, Germany, in 1949 by Adolf Dassler, Adidas has spent over three-quarters of a century evolving from a local shoemaker into a global sportswear empire. Today, the brand is globally synonymous with iconic silhouettes like the Stan Smith sneaker, its ubiquitous three-stripe motif, high-profile designer collaborations such as its long-standing partnership with Stella McCartney, and performance gear worn by elite athletes worldwide.
However, prestige and performance metrics no longer tell the whole story. As consumers increasingly demand radical transparency, environmental stewardship, and equitable labour standards, public scrutiny has turned toward how these massive supply chains operate in practice. Based on the Good On You brand evaluation framework published in January 2026, this report unpacks the publicly available evidence concerning Adidas’s environmental footprint, labour rights record, and animal welfare commitments.
While Adidas has shown incremental movement—climbing out of the “Not Good Enough” bracket in previous assessments—the brand’s overall performance reveals a patchwork of progress offset by glaring structural gaps.
Detailed Chronology and Historical Context
To understand Adidas’s current standing, it is helpful to trace its historical trajectory alongside the evolution of modern corporate sustainability expectations.
From Post-War Bavaria to Global Dominance
The roots of Adidas trace back to the aftermath of the Second World War in Herzogenaurach, Bavaria, where brothers Adolf (“Adi”) and Rudolf Dassler dissolved their joint shoe manufacturing business. Adi went on to establish Adidas (derived from his nickname and surname), while Rudolf founded rival brand Puma—triggering a legendary corporate rivalry that forever shaped the athletic footwear industry.
For decades, competition was defined by performance innovation, athlete sponsorships, and marketing dominance. Environmental and social considerations were largely secondary to production volume and cost efficiency.
The Shift Toward Sustainability and Public Accountability
As the fashion and sportswear industries faced mounting pressure over carbon emissions, toxic chemical use in synthetic dye houses, and labour exploitation in the Global South, brands like Adidas were forced to respond. Throughout the 2000s and 2010s, Adidas introduced various corporate responsibility initiatives, targeting waste reduction, exploring recycled polyester blends, and pledging allegiance to multi-stakeholder compliance frameworks.
However, these commitments have frequently clashed with the realities of a hyper-fast, high-volume production model. The brand’s January 2026 rating reflects this ongoing tension. Although Adidas has improved its baseline scores over time, it remains trapped in the "It’s a Start" category because its policy implementations often lack the depth, speed, and mandatory transparency required to address systemic industry harms.
Supporting Context and Metrics: The Three Pillars
1. Environmental Impact: Synthetics, Scrutiny, and Regulatory Backlash
Adidas earns an “It’s a Start” rating for its environmental performance, a status that has remained static across recent review cycles.
As a specialized activewear manufacturer, Adidas relies heavily on synthetic materials—predominantly virgin and recycled polyesters, nylon, and elastane—alongside intensive chemical treatments required for moisture-wicking, waterproofing, and dyeing. While the brand utilizes a medium proportion of lower-impact materials and publishes an aggregate breakdown of its material inputs, experts argue this is not enough. Given the dominance of synthetics in its catalog, analysts expect a more aggressive, scaled adoption of genuine lower-impact alternatives to reduce reliance on conventional petroleum-based fibres.
This tension between marketing messaging and operational reality came to a head in early 2026. An Adidas advertising campaign promoting "recycled running shoes" was banned in the UK by the Advertising Standards Agency (ASA) after being judged too vague and potentially misleading.
As reported by The Guardian, Adidas subsequently confirmed that it did not, in fact, maintain a dedicated "recycled running shoe range." Instead, certain products across various collections merely incorporated a percentage of recycled materials. While the company maintained that it held internal product documentation to substantiate its claims, the lack of accessible public proof left consumers unable to verify what they were actually buying. This incident highlighted a troubling industry trend: capitalizing on the halo effect of lower-impact materials without providing the rigorous, verifiable assurances that conscientious consumers deserve.
The Blind Spots: Biodiversity and Targets
On the positive side, Adidas has established science-based targets (SBTs) to curtail greenhouse gas emissions across both its direct operations (Scope 1 and 2) and its extensive supply chain (Scope 3), publicly disclosing its progress and claiming to be on track. Transparent reporting on emissions is a critical mechanism for accountability.
Nevertheless, significant gaps remain. Notably, there is still no public evidence that Adidas has implemented concrete policies to protect biodiversity within its supply chain—a glaring omission and a core criterion within Good On You’s assessment methodology, and one that was explicitly flagged during previous reviews.
2. Labour Conditions: Falling Short on Living Wages and Worker Rights
Adidas’s labour rating currently languishes at “Not Good Enough,” signaling that the brand lags significantly behind critical industry benchmarks. Human beings form the backbone of the fashion and activewear ecosystem, yet systemic vulnerabilities persist throughout the manufacturing tier.
Good On You’s methodology fundamentally rewards brands that guarantee fair, safe working conditions and robust worker empowerment over those that merely rely on top-down supplier audits. While Adidas has initiated projects aimed at improving wages and does pay a living wage to some workers in the final stage of garment and shoe assembly, this progress falls woefully short of what is expected from a multi-billion-dollar global enterprise.
In the latest edition of the Clean Clothes Campaign’s living wage monitoring project, Fashion Checker, Adidas emerged as one of the lowest-scoring brands, a deeply disappointing result given its immense resources.
Transparency and Freedom of Association
While Adidas has published some details concerning its suppliers in the second and final stages of production, industry best practice demands full supply chain transparency down to the raw material and primary processing stages (such as cotton farming, spinning, and fabric mills), where human rights abuses are frequently most acute.
Furthermore, research indicates that less than 50% of Adidas’s suppliers have democratically elected trade unions or effective collective bargaining agreements in place. Given historical labour rights violations documented within the brand’s supply chain—such as wage theft incidents in Cambodia—securing and expanding workers’ rights should be an urgent priority. On a positive note, the brand does provide a confidential, secure complaints mechanism allowing supply chain workers to report suspected modern slavery or labour abuses.
3. Animal Welfare: Gradual Improvements and Persistent Gaps
Adidas performs somewhat better in the realm of animal welfare, holding an “It’s a Start” rating. The brand maintains a formal animal welfare policy, though it is not fully aligned with the internationally recognized "Five Freedoms" framework.
On the credit side, Adidas completely avoids the use of fur, exotic animal hair, and angora. In a major milestone in 2025, the brand officially halted the use of kangaroo leather in its sneakers—a progressive step that was widely praised by animal rights advocates. Furthermore, the brand has demonstrated that it can execute effective animal welfare policies when motivated: it does not source wool from mulesed sheep and has signed Four Paws’ Letter of Intent committing to avoid mulesed wool entirely.
However, the brand continues to source down, conventional wool, cashmere, and bovine leather. While some of these materials utilize recycled or certified alternatives, the brand had not, at the time of the latest rating review, made public commitments to comprehensively certify its broader leather production—a vital step to guarantee humane treatment throughout its agricultural supply chain.
Official Statements and Comparative Industry Context
To contextualize Adidas’s performance, it is instructive to look at how its direct competitors fare under the same evaluative microscope. Puma, Adidas’s historical Bavarian rival, currently earns a “Good” rating in Good On You’s reviews. This stark contrast demonstrates unequivocally that brands of similar size, scale, and industrial heritage can achieve significantly higher standards of sustainability and ethics.
When questioned about its sustainability metrics, corporate leadership at Adidas frequently points to its expansive sustainability reports, its integration of recycled polyester, and its adherence to international corporate governance frameworks. Yet, watchdogs and independent rating agencies argue that corporate reporting often masks the slow pace of systemic reform.
As Good On You analysts note, while Adidas has shown iterative progress since its previous evaluations, its refusal to accelerate systemic changes—particularly regarding living wages, supply chain transparency, and biodiversity—keeps it anchored in the mid-tier.
Future Outlook and Guidance for Conscious Consumers
Adidas occupies a complex position in the modern retail landscape. Its “It’s a Start” rating indicates that the brand is taking some meaningful steps, but it falls frustratingly short of utilizing its immense market power to drive industry-wide transformation.
What Needs to Change?
For Adidas to elevate its standing in future rating cycles, analysts recommend a clear roadmap of action:
- Environmental Integrity: Shift from vague marketing terminology to fully verifiable, public documentation of lower-impact materials, while aggressively scaling zero-waste circularity and adopting comprehensive biodiversity policies across the supply chain.
- Labour Justice: Transition past basic auditing models to guarantee that 100% of workers in its supply chain receive a genuine living wage. Furthermore, the company must actively facilitate freedom of association by supporting democratically elected unions across all supplier factories.
- Animal Welfare: Expand upon its bans on kangaroo leather and mulesed wool by committing to 100% certified or recycled animal-derived inputs, while continuing to invest in cruelty-free, bio-based material innovations.
A Note for Current Owners
If you already own Adidas products, there is no need for guilt or immediate disposal. In fact, cherishing and keeping the clothing and footwear you already own is one of the single most sustainable actions you can take. Extending the lifecycle of garments directly combats the throwaway culture of fast fashion and activewear.
Better Alternatives: "Good" and "Great" Rated Swaps
For consumers wishing to align their purchasing decisions more closely with their ethical and environmental values, the slow fashion movement offers robust alternatives. Below are several activewear and footwear brands evaluated as “Good” or “Great” by Good On You:
1. Purusha People
- Overview: Purusha People infuses activewear with dainty, artistic details while maintaining a firm commitment to ecological responsibility. The brand specializes in organic, plant-based pieces that wick away sweat while maintaining a low environmental impact.
- Size Range: XS–4XL.
- See the Purusha People rating | Shop Purusha People
2. Happy Earth Apparel
- Overview: A US-based organic clothing brand deeply inspired by nature and dedicated to its preservation. Through strategic partnerships with environmental non-profits and ambassadors, Happy Earth actively funds tree-planting initiatives, climate action, and community clean-ups.
- Size Range: XS–3XL.
- See the Happy Earth rating | Shop Happy Earth
3. Flamingos’ Life
- Overview: Flamingos’ Life crafts stylish, high-performance sneakers entirely free from animal-derived materials. Utilizing PETA-approved vegan components, bio-based textiles, and upcycled materials, the brand proves that classic footwear design does not require animal cruelty.
- Size Range: EU 36–46.
- See the Flamingos’ Life rating | Shop Flamingos’ Life
4. ID.EIGHT
- Overview: Founded in Italy by footwear industry veterans Dong Seon Lee and Giuliana Borzillo, ID.EIGHT creates refined, sustainable sneakers. Their shoes are proudly manufactured in Italy using innovative, lower-impact materials derived from food industry waste—including apple peels, grape stalks, seeds, and pineapple leaves—alongside recycled cotton and polyester.
- Size Range: EU 36–46.
- See the ID.EIGHT rating | Shop ID.EIGHT
Note: Good On You ratings consider hundreds of distinct data points and criteria; it is not possible to list every relevant issue in a single summary. For a deeper dive into methodology, consult the How We Rate page and FAQs.
This article was last updated on October 6, 2026, to reflect Adidas’s January 2026 rating review and to refresh our curated selection of ethical alternatives.
