Adidas stands today as a towering giant in the global sportswear landscape. Alongside its primary competitor, Nike, the Bavarian brand has spent decades outfitting the world’s elite athletes, casual gym-goers, and streetwear enthusiasts alike. From its iconic three-stripe logo and legendary Stan Smith sneakers to high-profile ongoing collaborations with designers like Stella McCartney, the brand commands massive cultural and commercial influence. Yet, with that immense power comes a profound responsibility to address pressing environmental and social challenges.
According to the latest comprehensive assessment published in January 2026 by sustainability ratings platform Good On You, Adidas currently holds an “It’s a Start” rating. This middling grade indicates that while the company is taking some positive steps, it is simply not moving fast enough or doing enough to tackle critical sustainability issues across its vast global supply chain. To understand where the sportswear titan stands today, it is necessary to unpack the publicly available evidence regarding its environmental impact, labor practices, and animal welfare standards.
Is Adidas Ethical?
The roots of Adidas stretch back to 1949 in Bavaria, Germany, where the company was founded by Adolf Dassler—the brother of Rudolf Dassler, who famously went on to found rival sportswear firm Puma. In the decades since, Adidas has scaled into one of the most recognizable and ubiquitous commercial enterprises on the planet. Its products are worn in stadiums, schools, and streets across every continent.
However, when evaluated against rigorous, independent sustainability methodologies, public evidence reveals a troubling gap between the company’s massive cultural footprint and its actual ecological and ethical commitments. The brand’s “It’s a Start” rating highlights this shortfall. Notably, industry competitor Puma has managed to achieve a “Good” rating in recent reviews, demonstrating that corporations of a similar size, scale, and historical background are entirely capable of implementing more robust sustainability practices.
While Adidas has shown incremental progress—having edged upward from a previous rating of “Not Good Enough”—analysts stress that the brand must accelerate its transformation. Examining the specific pillars of its operations reveals distinct areas where urgent improvements are needed.
Environmental Impact
In the realm of environmental stewardship, Adidas maintains an “It’s a Start” rating, an evaluation that remains unchanged from previous review cycles. The brand utilizes a medium proportion of lower-impact materials and publishes an aggregate breakdown of the materials it consumes. Given that activewear relies heavily on synthetic fibers and intensive chemical treatments—the very core of Adidas’s product specialism—industry watchdogs expect the company to aggressively adopt a much wider range of lower-impact alternatives to combat the systemic unsustainability of traditional virgin polyester.
This tension between corporate marketing and environmental reality was brought into sharp focus earlier in 2026, when a prominent Adidas advertisement promoting “recycled running shoes” was officially banned in the UK. The Advertising Standards Agency intervened after determining that the brand’s claims were excessively vague. Subsequent reports confirmed that Adidas did not actually feature a dedicated, standalone range of 100% recycled running shoes; rather, certain individual products across various broader collections merely incorporated recycled elements. While the company maintained that it held internal product documentation to substantiate its claims, the lack of public transparency left consumers in the dark about the precise nature of what they were purchasing. Critics argued that the brand capitalized heavily on the marketing value of lower-impact materials without providing adequate, transparent assurances to the buying public.
Furthermore, glaring gaps remain in the brand’s broader ecological strategy. Independent reviews indicate a persistent lack of evidence showing that Adidas has established comprehensive policies to protect biodiversity within its supply chain—a critical benchmark in modern environmental assessment methodologies.
On a more positive note, Adidas has implemented a science-based target designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions across both its direct operations and its extended supply chain. The company has actively published progress reports indicating that it remains on track to meet these climate goals. Such transparency regarding emission reduction targets represents an essential component of corporate accountability, proving that the brand can execute meaningful environmental strategies when it chooses to prioritize them.
Labour Conditions
Human rights and labor conditions remain a persistent challenge for the sportswear giant, with Adidas continuing to hold a “Not Good Enough” rating in this category. Because people form the foundational backbone of the global fashion and apparel industry, sustainable business models demand tangible, proactive actions to protect workers rather than relying solely on superficial supplier audits. Independent evaluation methodologies consistently reward brands that guarantee fair, safe, and empowering working conditions over those that merely check compliance boxes.
While Adidas has initiated projects aimed at improving wages within its supply chain and does pay a living wage to a limited number of workers in the final stages of production, this progress falls well short of what is expected from a multinational corporation of its magnitude. In fact, the brand emerged as one of the lowest-scoring entities in the latest monitoring project conducted by the Clean Clothes Campaign, known as Fashion Checker, a result that has drawn widespread disappointment from labor advocates.
Transparency is another area requiring substantial reform. While Adidas has published limited details regarding its suppliers in the second and final stages of production, industry experts emphasize that true accountability requires deep-tier disclosure. The earliest, most hazardous stages of the supply chain—where raw materials are harvested and processed—are notoriously difficult to track, making comprehensive oversight vital.
Moreover, research highlights significant shortcomings regarding worker representation. Less than half of Adidas’s suppliers feature democratically elected unions or effective collective bargaining agreements. Given the sobering history of labor rights violations tied to the brand’s supply chain—including historical wage theft incidents in Cambodia—safeguarding and actively strengthening worker agency ought to be an absolute focal point for corporate leadership. On a minor positive note, the brand does maintain a confidential complaints mechanism, allowing workers within its supply chain to report suspected modern slavery and related grievances.
Animal Welfare
Adidas fares somewhat better in the realm of animal welfare, earning an “It’s a Start” rating supported by a formal, albeit imperfect, animal welfare policy that sits outside full alignment with the established Five Freedoms framework.
The brand completely avoids the use of fur, exotic animal hair, and angora. Demonstrating its capacity for decisive change, Adidas formally halted the use of kangaroo leather in its sneaker lines, marking a significant ethical milestone. However, the company continues to utilize down, wool, cashmere, and conventional leather, though some of these materials incorporate recycled or certified alternative inputs. Notably, at the time of the most recent rating review, the brand had yet to establish public commitments to fully certifying its leather production—a vital step for ensuring humane practices.
At the same time, Adidas has proven that it can execute effective animal welfare policies when motivated. The company strictly avoids sourcing wool from mulesed sheep and has formalized its commitments by signing the Four Paws Letter of Intent, explicitly rejecting the practice of mulesing.
Overall Rating and Moving Forward
The trajectory of Adidas over recent review cycles demonstrates that the brand is capable of incremental progress, yet it continues to fall significantly short of its potential. Observers and ethical fashion analysts alike emphasize the need for the company to dramatically strengthen workers’ rights, increase supply chain transparency, and eliminate harmful materials in favor of certified or cruelty-free alternatives.
For consumers who already own products from the brand, experts stress that discarding functional garments is counterproductive. Cherishing existing items and maximizing their lifecycle remains one of the single most impactful sustainability actions an individual can take. For those looking to align future purchases more closely with their personal values, exploring independent alternatives that embrace slow fashion principles offers a viable path forward.
