Editors’ Note: Our editorial team curates and highlights high-rated brands that have been rigorously evaluated through our comprehensive assessment system. Purchases made via our embedded links may generate a commission, directly supporting our ongoing independent research and journalism. Learn more about our editorial mission.
As one of the world’s most dominant activewear giants, Adidas commands immense global influence. Alongside its fierce, long-standing competitor Nike, the German multinational shapes athletic culture, streetwear trends, and the standard of sportswear manufacturing worldwide. Yet, despite their massive market capitalization, cultural gravity, and resources, both industry titans currently hold a middling “It’s a Start” rating from Good On You.
This evaluation indicates a sobering reality: neither corporation is taking sufficient, decisive action on critical sustainability issues commensurate with their unprecedented corporate power.
To understand where the brand stands today, this investigative report unpacks the publicly available evidence regarding Adidas’s environmental impact, labor practices, and animal welfare standards, based on the brand’s official rating update published in January 2026. (Note: Because our ratings analysts continuously re-evaluate thousands of brands listed on our directory, this article reflects the data available as of early 2026 and may not account for subsequent public relations claims.)
Executive Overview
Founded in 1949 in Herzogenaurach, Bavaria, by Adolf "Adi" Dassler—whose brother Rudolf famously went on to establish rival brand Puma—Adidas has evolved into a cultural colossus. From its iconic Stan Smith tennis sneakers and unmistakable three-stripe motif to high-profile creative collaborations with designers like Stella McCartney, Adidas gear is worn by elite athletes and everyday consumers across the globe.
However, corporate prestige does not automatically equate to ethical accountability. When measured against Good On You’s rigorous scoring methodology, Adidas demonstrates a troubling gap between its progressive marketing narratives and its actual supply chain operations.
While Adidas has marginally improved its standing since previous evaluations—climbing out of the dreaded “Not Good Enough” tier into the “It’s a Start” category—it still lags significantly behind peers of a similar scale and heritage. Notably, competitor Puma holds a “Good” rating in our most recent assessments, proving that global sportswear brands can indeed implement more robust, transparent practices.
Why hasn’t Adidas bridged this gap? To answer that, we must dissect the empirical evidence across three foundational pillars: the environment, labor conditions, and animal welfare.
Detailed Chronology & Environmental Impact: Greenwashing, Bans, and Blended Materials
Adidas maintains an “It’s a Start” rating for its environmental performance—a score that has remained stagnant over multiple review cycles.
The Material Paradox
As an activewear specialist, Adidas relies heavily on synthetic fibers and intensive chemical treatments. While the brand utilizes a medium proportion of lower-impact materials and publishes an aggregate breakdown of its material portfolio, the scale of its production demands much more. Given the industry-wide crisis surrounding microplastic shedding and the environmental toll of virgin polyester, consumers and watchdogs alike expect a far more aggressive pivot toward certified recycled inputs and scalable, next-generation alternatives.
The 2026 UK Advertising Ban
The scrutiny surrounding Adidas’s environmental claims intensified in mid-2026. In June, a prominent Adidas advertising campaign promoting "recycled running shoes" was officially banned in the United Kingdom by the Advertising Standards Agency (ASA).
As reported by The Guardian, Adidas was forced to concede under regulatory pressure that it did not, in fact, feature a dedicated "recycled running shoe range." Instead, the brand admitted that only certain products scattered across broader collections incorporated fractional amounts of recycled content.
While Adidas defended its marketing by asserting it held internal product documentation to substantiate its claims, this reveals a systemic transparency failure. If supporting evidence remains locked behind corporate doors rather than being publicly verifiable, how can conscious consumers make genuinely informed purchasing decisions? By leaning into vague sustainability buzzwords, Adidas capitalized on consumer eco-consciousness without providing the rigorous, verifiable assurances required for true accountability.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Biodiversity Blind Spots
On a more positive note, Adidas has established formal science-based targets aimed at systematically reducing greenhouse gas emissions across both its direct operations (Scope 1 and 2) and its complex supply chain (Scope 3). The brand regularly publishes progress reports indicating it is currently on track to meet these climate benchmarks. Transparency in carbon disclosure is a vital baseline metric for corporate accountability.
However, a glaring omission persists in the brand’s ecological strategy. To date, there is still no verifiable evidence that Adidas has implemented concrete policies to protect biodiversity within its supply chain—a core evaluation criterion within our scoring methodology, and a deficiency explicitly flagged during the brand’s previous reviews.
Labour Conditions: The Living Wage Deficit and Supply Chain Transparency
Human capital is the beating heart of the global fashion and sportswear economy. Yet, Adidas’s labor rating languishes at “Not Good Enough,” signaling that the multinational is falling dangerously behind on critical human rights metrics.
Our assessment methodology intentionally prioritizes brands that guarantee fair, safe, and democratic working conditions over those that merely rely on superficial supplier audits. While auditing identifies violations, active empowerment prevents them.
Falling Short on Living Wages
Adidas has implemented isolated projects designed to improve wage structures within its manufacturing network, and it does pay some workers in the final stage of garment and shoe production a living wage. However, this progress is localized and superficial compared to what is expected of a multi-billion-dollar enterprise.
In the latest iteration of the Clean Clothes Campaign’s living wage monitoring project, Fashion Checker, Adidas scored among the lowest of all evaluated brands—a deeply disappointing result for a company that frequently touts its social responsibility.
Supplier Transparency and Worker Rights
While Adidas has published some mapping details regarding its tier-2 and final-stage production suppliers, true accountability requires radical transparency further down the supply chain—specifically at the raw material and primary processing tiers, where worker exploitation is often most acute.
Furthermore, empirical research reveals that fewer than 50% of Adidas’s supplier factories feature democratically elected trade unions or effective collective bargaining agreements. Given the historical severity of labor violations documented in the brand’s manufacturing footprint—such as high-profile wage theft scandals in Cambodia—protecting and actively championing freedom of association should be an immediate corporate priority. On a minor positive note, the brand does provide a confidential, third-party grievance mechanism allowing supply chain workers to report suspected modern slavery or rights abuses anonymously.
Animal Welfare: Gradual Progress Amid Persistent Use of Animal Materials
Adidas currently holds an “It’s a Start” rating for animal welfare. While the brand operates under a formal animal welfare policy, it is worth noting that this policy is not fully aligned with the internationally recognized Five Freedoms framework of animal welfare.
Positive Steps: Banning Kangaroo Leather and Mulesed Wool
Over the years, Adidas has taken commendable, targeted steps to eliminate certain cruel inputs from its supply chain. The brand does not use fur, exotic animal hair, or angora. In a major victory for animal rights advocates, Adidas officially halted the use of kangaroo leather in its sneaker lines in 2025.
Additionally, Adidas has proven it can execute effective animal welfare policies when pressured: the brand refuses to source wool from mulesed sheep and has signed the Four Paws Letter of Intent, committing to eradicate this painful practice from its supply chain entirely.
Remaining Areas of Concern
Despite these progressive strides, Adidas continues to utilize conventional animal-derived materials, including down feathers, conventional wool, cashmere, and bovine leather. While some of these materials utilize certified or recycled alternatives, the brand has lagged in making sweeping public commitments to mandate third-party animal welfare certifications (such as the Responsible Down Standard or traceable leather audits) across its entire product ecosystem.
Supporting Context & Metrics
To contextualize Adidas’s position in the global market, it is helpful to review key structural metrics:
- Founding Year: 1949 (Bavaria, Germany)
- Good On You Overall Rating: It’s a Start (Updated January 2026)
- Environmental Score: It’s a Start (Stagnant; praised for emissions targets, penalized for greenwashing and biodiversity gaps)
- Labour Score: Not Good Enough (Penalized for low living wage compliance and weak union representation)
- Animal Welfare Score: It’s a Start (Praised for kangaroo leather and mulesed wool bans; penalized for ongoing down and leather usage)
- Key Competitor Benchmark: Puma (Good)
Future Outlook: What Must Adidas Do Next?
Adidas has demonstrated that it possesses the corporate machinery required to implement positive change—evidenced by its bans on kangaroo leather and progressive greenhouse gas reduction targets. However, incremental adjustments are no longer sufficient to address the compounding ecological and social crises of our era.
For Adidas to graduate from an “It’s a Start” rating to a “Good” or “Great” standing, our ratings analysts recommend the following roadmap:
- Eliminate Vague Marketing Claims: Ensure that all environmental advertising is backed by fully transparent, publicly accessible supply chain data to eradicate greenwashing risks.
- Integrate Biodiversity Policies: Establish clear, binding corporate frameworks to protect and restore biodiversity across its extensive agricultural and material supply chains.
- Mandate Living Wages: Pivot from pilot projects to systemic wage reform, ensuring every worker in its supply chain receives a verified living wage, backed by strengthened collective bargaining rights and independent union access.
- Transition Away From Virgin Animal Materials: Accelerate the phasing out of conventional leather, down, and wool in favor of certified organic, recycled, or cruelty-free plant-based alternatives.
A Note for Consumers
If you already own Adidas apparel or footwear, do not throw them away. One of the most sustainable actions a consumer can take is to cherish, repair, and maximize the lifespan of the items already residing in their closet.
However, when you are ready to invest in new activewear or footwear that aligns more closely with your personal ethics, consider supporting independent brands operating under a slower, more transparent business model.
Ethical Alternatives: Brand Swaps for Conscious Consumers
If you want to transition your activewear and footwear purchases away from industry giants like Adidas and toward brands actively prioritizing people, the planet, and animals, consider these “Good”– and “Great”-rated alternatives:
1. Purusha People
- The Vibe: Dainty, aesthetic yoga wear and activewear crafted from organic, plant-based materials designed to wick sweat while keeping your practice completely sustainable.
- Size Range: XS to 4XL.
- See the Purusha People rating | Shop Purusha People
2. Happy Earth
- The Vibe: A US-based organic apparel brand deeply inspired by nature. Through strategic partnerships with environmental non-profits, Happy Earth actively funds tree-planting initiatives, climate action, and ocean clean-ups.
- Size Range: XS to 3XL.
- See the Happy Earth rating | Shop Happy Earth
3. Flamingos’ Life
- The Vibe: Premium, animal-free sneakers designed for everyone. This brand specializes in lower-impact, PETA-approved vegan materials, heavily incorporating upcycled inputs into its timeless sneaker silhouettes.
- Size Range: EU 36 to 46.
- See the Flamingos’ Life rating | Shop Flamingos’ Life
4. ID.EIGHT
- The Vibe: Founded by footwear veterans in Italy, ID.EIGHT creates refined, sustainable sneakers manufactured in Italy. Their shoes are crafted from innovative, lower-impact 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 to 46.
- See the ID.EIGHT rating | Shop ID.EIGHT
This article was last updated on October 6, 2026, to reflect Adidas’s January 2026 rating review and to refresh our curated brand alternatives.
