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 work we do. Learn more.
As one of the twin titans of the global activewear industry alongside its fierce rival Nike, Adidas holds a massive share of the athletic apparel and footwear market. Yet, with immense corporate power comes systemic responsibility. According to the updated January 2026 brand evaluation by Good On You, both Adidas and Nike currently hold a middling “It’s a Start” rating.
This classification signals a hard truth: despite commanding billions in revenue and shaping cultural trends worldwide, neither giant is moving fast enough or going deep enough to address the compounding crises of climate change, worker exploitation, and animal welfare.
To understand where the German sportswear giant is succeeding—and where it is falling dangerously short—we must look closely at the publicly available evidence governing its environmental footprint, labor rights record, and animal welfare policies.
(Note: This article is based on the Adidas rating published in January 2026. It may not reflect subsequent marketing claims or policy adjustments made by the brand since that time. Ratings analysts continuously update assessments across thousands of brands featured in the Good On You directory.)
Executive Overview: The State of the Adidas Brand
Founded in 1949 in Bavaria, Germany, by Adolf “Adi” Dassler—brother of Puma founder Rudolf Dassler—Adidas has evolved from a small shoemaker into a global cultural behemoth. From the timeless appeal of the Stan Smith sneaker to its instantly recognizable three-stripe logo and high-profile creative collaborations with designers like Stella McCartney, Adidas products are ubiquitous fixtures in locker rooms, runways, and city streets alike.
However, cultural capital no longer shields a brand from ethical scrutiny. When evaluated against holistic sustainability metrics, Adidas secures only an “It’s a Start” score. While this represents a modest historical improvement from previous years when the brand lingered in the “Not Good Enough” bracket, it remains mediocre. For context, its historic competitor, Puma, has achieved a “Good” rating in recent reviews, proving that legacy brands of equivalent scale and heritage can achieve superior performance if they choose to prioritize systemic transformation.
Adidas’s overall standing is broken down across three core pillars:
- Environment: Rated “It’s a Start” due to inconsistent material sourcing and a lack of biodiversity safeguards.
- Labor: Rated “Not Good Enough” owing to systemic failures in guaranteeing living wages and robust union representation throughout the supply chain.
- Animals: Rated “It’s a Start” following notable phase-outs of specific materials like kangaroo leather, though reliance on conventional leather, down, and wool persists.
Detailed Chronology: Regulatory Scrutiny and the Illusion of "Recycled" Footwear
The journey of corporate accountability is often marked by friction between marketing narratives and operational realities. For Adidas, the first half of 2026 brought this tension into sharp public focus.
The Banning of Misleading Green Claims
In mid-2026, Adidas found itself at the center of a major greenwashing controversy in the United Kingdom. The UK’s Advertising Standards Agency (ASA) officially banned an Adidas marketing campaign promoting “recycled running shoes,” ruling that the claims were overly vague and deceptive to consumers.
According to investigations published by The Guardian, Adidas was forced to concede that it did not actually possess a dedicated, standalone range of “recycled running shoes.” Instead, the brand relied on the reality that certain individual products across various broader collections might incorporate recycled material components.
While Adidas defended its position by stating it maintained internal product documentation to substantiate these claims, the evidence was not publicly accessible. This gap highlights a core ethical failing: when corporations capitalize on consumer demand for lower-impact materials without making their underlying data transparent and verifiable, they shift the burden of proof onto well-meaning buyers. Consumers are left paying a premium under the assumption they are supporting circular fashion, while corporations reap the reputational and financial rewards of vague eco-friendly branding.
Supporting Context & Metrics: Environmental Impact & Material Sourcing
When analyzing Adidas’s environmental footprint, analysts look closely at raw material utilization, greenhouse gas emissions, and ecosystem preservation.
The Synthetic Dilemma and Material Breakdown
Adidas earns an “It’s a Start” rating for the environment. The brand utilizes a medium proportion of lower-impact materials and publishes an aggregate breakdown of the fibers it consumes. Given that activewear inherently relies heavily on synthetics and resource-intensive chemical treatments—the very core of Adidas’s product specialism—industry watchdogs expect a far more aggressive pivot away from virgin polyester toward genuinely circular and regenerative alternatives.
Climate Targets Versus Biodiversity Blind Spots
On the emissions front, Adidas performs relatively well. The company has established formal, science-based targets aimed at sharply reducing greenhouse gas emissions across both its direct operations (Scope 1 and 2) and its sprawling supply chain (Scope 3). Crucially, the brand regularly publishes verifiable data regarding its progress, claiming it remains on track to meet these climate benchmarks. Transparency in carbon accounting is an essential baseline of corporate accountability.
However, a glaring omission persists in Adidas’s environmental strategy. There is still zero verifiable evidence that Adidas has implemented comprehensive policies to protect biodiversity within its supply chain. Ecosystem degradation, chemical runoff from textile dyeing, and microplastic shedding are critical vectors of ecological harm. Despite these issues being explicitly flagged in previous sustainability reviews, Adidas has failed to institute meaningful safeguards for the natural habitats impacted by its material sourcing.
Official Statements & Labor Rights: The Living Wage Deficit
People are the true backbone of the global fashion industry, yet corporate commitments to human capital frequently lag behind environmental PR. Adidas currently holds a “Not Good Enough” rating for labor conditions, signaling that it is falling critically behind contemporary industry standards.
The Living Wage Gap
Good On You’s methodology heavily weights tangible, on-the-ground protections—such as fair living wages and safe working conditions—over superficial factory auditing programs. While Adidas has instituted localized projects intended to improve wages within its supply chain, and does pay some workers in the final stage of garment assembly a living wage, this progress is entirely insufficient for a multi-billion-dollar enterprise.
This shortfall was underscored in the 2026 edition of the Clean Clothes Campaign’s living wage monitoring project, Fashion Checker. Adidas emerged as one of the lowest-scoring legacy brands in the evaluation, failing to deliver meaningfully on long-standing promises to ensure that every worker weaving its products can afford basic human necessities.
Supply Chain Traceability and Worker Representation
While Adidas has published partial details concerning its Tier 2 (processing) and final-stage manufacturing suppliers, true transparency requires tracking supply chains back to their most opaque origins—specifically Tier 3 and Tier 4 (raw material extraction and spinning mills), where labor abuses are most frequently hidden.
Furthermore, systemic labor protections remain deeply compromised:
- Union Representation: Independent research indicates that fewer than 50% of Adidas’s supplier factories feature democratically elected trade unions or effective collective bargaining agreements.
- Historical Precedents: Given past well-documented human rights violations within the brand’s network—including high-profile instances of wage theft in Cambodian supplier facilities—proactive protection of worker agency must be non-negotiable.
- Grievance Mechanisms: On a positive note, Adidas does maintain a confidential complaints mechanism, allowing workers in its supply chain to flag suspected modern slavery or severe rights abuses safely. However, grievance channels are reactive tools; they cannot replace proactive structural protections like union rights and living wages.
Animal Welfare: Incremental Progress Amid Persistent Reliance
Adidas maintains an “It’s a Start” rating for animal welfare. The brand operates under a formal animal welfare policy, though independent analysts note that it falls short of aligning with the internationally recognized Five Freedoms of animal welfare.
Positive Steps: Banning Kangaroo Leather and Mulesed Wool
The brand has successfully eliminated fur, exotic animal hair, and angora from its collections. In a significant victory for animal advocates in 2025, Adidas officially halted the use of kangaroo leather in its football boots and sneakers. Additionally, the brand has demonstrated that it can enforce strict sourcing standards by committing to avoid wool sourced from mulesed sheep—formalized through its signature to the Four Paws Letter of Intent.
Ongoing Exploitation
Despite these targeted victories, Adidas continues to source conventional and certified variations of down, feathers, cashmere, and bovine leather. At the time of the latest rating review, the brand had failed to introduce public commitments to fully certify its leather supply chain—an essential step to guarantee ethical treatment before animal-derived inputs enter the manufacturing cycle.
Future Outlook: What Must Adidas Do Next?
Adidas has proven capable of enacting positive change when pressured. The total removal of kangaroo leather and the proactive adoption of science-based carbon reduction targets demonstrate that the corporate machinery can pivot when mobilized.
However, closing the gap between its current “It’s a Start” status and true industry leadership requires a radical overhaul in three distinct areas:
- Labor Reform: Shift away from auditing theater and commit to binding agreements that guarantee living wages across 100% of the supply chain, alongside the active promotion of independent trade unions.
- Radical Transparency: Clean up marketing practices, eradicate vague green claims, and make comprehensive supply chain traceability data fully public to empower conscious consumers.
- Ecosystem Protection: Establish enforceable policies to defend biodiversity and eliminate microplastic and chemical pollution throughout textile production.
A Note for Current Owners
If you already own Adidas gear, do not feel compelled to discard it. One of the single most sustainable actions a consumer can take is to cherish, repair, and extend the active lifespan of the garments already hanging in their closet.
Ethical Alternatives: Good Swaps for Conscious Consumers
For shoppers seeking to align their activewear purchases with their personal values, Good On You recommends supporting independent brands that embrace circular, slow-fashion business models. Here are several “Good” and “Great” rated alternatives:
- Purusha People: Specializing in organic, plant-based activewear featuring intricate artisanal details. Purusha pieces wick moisture naturally and are stocked in inclusive sizing ranging from XS to 4XL. (See Rating | Shop Purusha People)
- Happy Earth: A US-based organic clothing brand dedicated to climate action and ecosystem preservation. Through direct partnerships with non-profits, Happy Earth funds tree-planting initiatives and environmental cleanups. Most items are available in sizes XS to 3XL. (See Rating | Shop Happy Earth)
- Flamingos’ Life: A premier animal-free sneaker brand utilizing PETA-approved vegan and upcycled materials to create stylish, lower-impact footwear for all genders in European sizes 36 to 46. (See Rating | Shop Flamingos’ Life)
- ID.EIGHT: An innovative Italian footwear label crafting refined sneakers using agricultural food-industry waste—including apple peels, grape stalks, seeds, and pineapple leaves—alongside recycled cotton and polyester. Available in EU sizes 36 to 46. (See Rating | Shop ID.EIGHT)
This article was updated on October 6, 2026, to reflect Adidas’s January 2026 rating review and to refresh brand recommendations with the most current ethical metrics.
