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 work we do. Learn more.
Adidas stands shoulder-to-shoulder with Nike as one of the twin colossi of the global activewear and sportswear market. Yet, despite commanding immense economic power, global influence, and cultural prestige, both corporations currently hold a middling “It’s a Start” rating from Good On You. This evaluation signals a stark reality: neither company is taking aggressive, comprehensive action on critical sustainability issues commensurate with their colossal footprints.
What does the publicly available evidence reveal about Adidas’s actual environmental impact, labor rights record, and animal welfare policies? Let’s unpack the data behind the brand’s January 2026 sustainability audit to see where the German sportswear giant falls short—and where it shows glimmers of progress.
Executive Overview: The State of Adidas Sustainability
Founded in 1949 in Bavaria, Germany, by Adolf Dassler (brother of Puma founder Rudolf Dassler), Adidas has evolved from a humble shoemaking workshop into an international symbol of athletic achievement. From the timeless Stan Smith sneaker to high-profile creative collaborations with designers like Stella McCartney, the brand’s iconic three-stripe logo is woven into the fabric of modern pop culture and elite sports.
However, modern consumers are increasingly looking past the marketing campaigns to examine corporate accountability. When measured against Good On You’s stringent methodology, Adidas achieves an overall score of “It’s a Start.”
To put this into perspective, its historical rival, Puma, currently commands a “Good” rating in our most recent reviews. This demonstrates categorically that brands of equivalent size, scale, and heritage can successfully implement higher ethical standards. While Adidas has clawed its way up from its previous ranking of “Not Good Enough,” it remains pedestrian in its execution of true supply chain sustainability.
Note: This article is based on the official Adidas brand rating published in January 2026 and updated in October 2026. It reflects publicly available evidence at the time of review and may not capture subsequent corporate claims.
Detailed Chronology: Key Milestones and Regulatory Pressures
The path to corporate sustainability is rarely linear, and Adidas’s recent history is marked by a mixture of forward-thinking commitments and high-profile regulatory reprimands.
2025: Stepping Away from Kangaroo Leather
Following mounting pressure from conservation groups and ethical fashion advocates, Adidas took a major step forward in animal welfare by officially phasing out the use of kangaroo leather in its elite soccer cleats and lifestyle sneakers. This marked a significant cultural shift for a brand deeply entrenched in traditional athletic manufacturing materials.
Early 2026: The Banning of Vague Marketing Claims
The limits of corporate transparency were tested in the first half of 2026 when a prominent Adidas advertising campaign promoting “recycled running shoes” was formally banned in the UK by the Advertising Standards Agency (ASA).
As reported by The Guardian, inquiries revealed that Adidas did not maintain a dedicated, fully verified “recycled running shoe” product line. Instead, the marketing relied on the fact that certain products across various collections might incorporate unspecified percentages of recycled materials. While Adidas defended its stance by claiming it held internal documentation to verify these assertions, the lack of public accessibility meant consumers were left in the dark. The incident underscored a broader industry problem: capitalizing on eco-friendly buzzwords without providing the rigorous, verifiable transparency that modern shoppers deserve.
January 2026: The Good On You Rating Review
Good On You’s comprehensive audit of Adidas highlighted persistent systemic issues. While the brand demonstrated modest improvements in climate target disclosures, it flatlined in critical areas such as worker remuneration, biodiversity protection, and supply chain transparency beyond primary production tiers.
Supporting Context & Metrics: Breaking Down the Pillars
To understand how Adidas earns its “It’s a Start” rating, we must examine its performance across three core pillars: Environmental Impact, Labour Conditions, and Animal Welfare.
1. Environmental Impact: Green Claims vs. Hard Data
- Rating: It’s a Start
Adidas utilizes a medium proportion of lower-impact materials and publishes an aggregate breakdown of its material inputs. Given that the activewear industry relies heavily on synthetics and resource-intensive chemical treatments, experts expect global leaders to aggressively scale alternatives to virgin polyester. While Adidas has made strides, its reliance on conventional synthetics remains high.
Furthermore, the brand has set a science-based target (SBT) to reduce greenhouse gas emissions across both its direct operations (Scope 1 and 2) and its sprawling supply chain (Scope 3). Publicly disclosing progress toward these climate goals is commendable, and current reports suggest the brand is tracking on target.
However, critical gaps remain. Most notably, there is still zero public evidence that Adidas enforces policies to protect biodiversity within its supply chain—a foundational criterion in Good On You’s assessment methodology that was explicitly flagged in previous review cycles.
2. Labour Conditions: Falling Behind on Living Wages
- Rating: Not Good Enough
People are the true backbone of the global fashion industry, yet Adidas continues to lag behind on critical social metrics. Good On You’s methodology heavily favors brands that guarantee fair, safe working conditions and robust worker empowerment over those that merely rely on superficial supplier audits.
While Adidas has initiated pilot projects to improve wage structures and does pay some workers in final-stage assembly plants a living wage, this progress is entirely inadequate for a multi-billion-dollar enterprise. In fact, Adidas emerged as one of the lowest-scoring entities in the Clean Clothes Campaign’s 2026 Fashion Checker monitoring project.
Supply chain visibility is another vulnerability. Although Adidas discloses details regarding suppliers in its second and final production stages, it fails to trace and publish data further upstream, where the risks of exploitation are often highest.
Worker representation is also alarmingly low: fewer than 50% of Adidas’s suppliers feature democratically elected unions or effective collective bargaining agreements. Given historical human rights violations linked to the brand’s supply chain—such as systemic wage theft incidents in Cambodia—ensuring fundamental labor rights must become an urgent priority. On a positive note, the brand does maintain a confidential grievance mechanism enabling supply chain workers to report suspected modern slavery.
3. Animal Welfare: Gradual Improvements, But Gaps Persist
- Rating: It’s a Start
Adidas operates under a formal animal welfare policy, though it falls short of full alignment with the globally recognized "Five Freedoms."
The brand has successfully eliminated fur, exotic animal hair, and angora from its catalogs. The 2025 decision to cease using kangaroo leather was a major victory for animal advocates. Additionally, Adidas has signed Four Paws’ Letter of Intent, explicitly prohibiting the sourcing of wool from mulesed sheep—proving that the corporation can enforce strict ethical guidelines when pressured.
However, Adidas continues to source conventional down, wool, cashmere, and leather. While some of these materials utilize certified or recycled alternatives, the brand has yet to mandate widespread public commitments for certified leather production across its entire footwear and apparel lines.
Official Statements and Industry Response
Corporate sustainability reports from Adidas frequently emphasize the brand’s dedication to "innovation through sustainability," pointing to long-term partnerships with environmental collectives and ambitious carbon-neutral roadmaps. Executives have routinely argued that transforming a global supply chain servicing hundreds of millions of customers requires methodical, phased transitions rather than abrupt overhauls.
Independent watchdogs and consumer protection agencies, however, argue that these gradual timelines are no longer acceptable in the face of escalating climate and social crises. Regulatory bodies, such as the UK’s ASA, have signaled zero tolerance for ambiguous marketing terminology, demanding that brands match their glossy public relations campaigns with verifiable, publicly accessible data.
Future Outlook: What Must Adidas Do Next?
To elevate its standing from a middling “It’s a Start” to a definitive “Good” or “Great” rating, Adidas must take decisive, transparent action across multiple fronts:
- Deep Supply Chain Traceability: Publish comprehensive tier-one through tier-four supplier lists to ensure accountability at every stage of production, long before materials reach the assembly floor.
- Commitment to Living Wages: Move beyond trial projects to guarantee that 100% of workers across the supply chain receive a genuine living wage, backed by independent verification from labor rights organizations.
- Empower Workers: Actively facilitate and protect the establishment of democratically elected unions and collective bargaining agreements across all supplier facilities.
- Transparent Material Innovation: Replace vague marketing claims with certified, verifiable data regarding recycled content, and aggressively scale non-animal, lower-impact material alternatives.
- Biodiversity Action Plans: Implement formal, enforceable corporate policies designed to protect and restore biodiversity across agricultural and manufacturing sourcing regions.
A Note for Consumers
If you already own Adidas gear, do not throw it away. Keeping your clothes in active rotation for as long as possible remains one of the single most sustainable actions an individual can take. An “It’s a Start” rating indicates that the brand is taking some steps forward—it is not an indictment of your past purchases.
However, if you wish to align your future purchasing power more closely with your personal values, consider supporting slow-fashion pioneers and brands that lead the industry in radical transparency.
Sustainable Alternatives: Brand "Good Swaps"
If you are looking to invest in activewear and footwear from companies demonstrating genuine leadership in sustainability, consider these "Good" and "Great" rated alternatives:
1. Purusha People
- The Vibe: Dainty, plant-based yoga wear infused with organic materials designed to wick sweat while keeping your practice grounded.
- Size Range: XS–4XL.
- See the rating on Good On You | Shop Purusha People
2. Happy Earth
- The Vibe: Nature-inspired organic apparel dedicated to preservation. Through strategic non-profit partnerships, Happy Earth actively funds tree-planting initiatives, climate action projects, and large-scale trash cleanups.
- Size Range: XS–3XL.
- See the rating on Good On You | Shop Happy Earth
3. Flamingos’ Life
- The Vibe: 100% vegan, cruelty-free sneakers crafted for everyone. This brand utilizes innovative lower-impact, PETA-approved vegan materials, including upcycled components.
- Size Range: EU 36–46.
- See the rating on Good On You | Shop Flamingos’ Life
4. ID.EIGHT
- The Vibe: Refined Italian footwear born from a commitment to a circular economy. ID.EIGHT creates sophisticated sneakers using innovative bio-materials derived from food industry waste—including apple peels, grape stalks and seeds, and pineapple leaves—alongside recycled cotton and polyester.
- Size Range: EU 36–46.
- See the rating on Good On You | Shop ID.EIGHT
Feature image via Unsplash; all other imagery courtesy of the respective brands. For more information on how we evaluate fashion brands, visit Good On You’s How We Rate page.
