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.
Adidas stands shoulder-to-shoulder with Nike as one of the most dominant activewear giants on the global stage. Yet, despite their immense market power, global influence, and deep financial resources, both companies share a middling “It’s a Start” rating from the ethical fashion watchdog Good On You. This designation signals that neither corporate titan is taking sufficient, aggressive action on the critical sustainability and social responsibility challenges defining the modern apparel industry.
To understand where the German sportswear multinational truly stands, it is necessary to examine the publicly available evidence concerning its environmental footprint, supply chain labour rights, and animal welfare policies. This comprehensive assessment is based on the official Adidas brand rating published by Good On You in January 2026, reflecting the corporate data and verifiable practices available at that time. Because ratings analysts continuously monitor and re-evaluate thousands of brands listed on the public directory, these metrics capture a specific snapshot in time.
Is Adidas Ethical?
The story of Adidas began in 1949 in the town of Herzogenaurach, Bavaria, Germany, where Adolf Dassler founded the enterprise following a bitter business split with his brother, Rudolf Dassler—who famously went on to establish rival brand Puma. Over the decades, Adidas expanded from a local shoemaker into one of the most recognizable athletic brands in existence, second only to Nike in total global market share. Known universally for its iconic three-stripe motif, timeless Stan Smith tennis shoes, high-profile designer collaborations with figures like Stella McCartney, and performance gear worn by elite athletes worldwide, the company is a cultural and commercial powerhouse.
However, commercial success does not automatically equate to ethical leadership. Based on a rigorous review of public evidence by expert analysts, Adidas continues to receive a middling “It’s a Start” score. This rating indicates that while the company has introduced certain policies and incremental improvements, it is failing to adequately address the sweeping, systemic sustainability issues embedded throughout its vast global supply chain.
Interestingly, its historical rival Puma achieved a “Good” rating in the most recent comparative reviews. This divergence demonstrates that legacy activewear brands of comparable size, scale, and heritage are entirely capable of implementing more robust ethical frameworks. Adidas has managed to climb out of the lowest “Not Good Enough” tier in recent evaluation cycles, but the data indicates that much more work remains.
Environmental Impact
When evaluated for its overall environmental footprint, Adidas maintains an “It’s a Start” rating, a designation that has remained static across multiple successive reviews. On the positive side, the brand utilizes a medium proportion of lower-impact materials and publicly releases an aggregate breakdown of the various fabrics integrated into its collections. Given that activewear inherently relies heavily on synthetic fibers and complex chemical treatments—areas that represent Adidas’ core manufacturing specialism—industry watchers naturally expect a faster and more aggressive pivot toward certified lower-impact alternatives to conventional virgin polyester.
The complexities surrounding material claims came under intense scrutiny when a major advertising campaign promoting the brand’s purported “recycled running shoes” was formally banned in the UK. The Advertising Standards Agency intervened after determining that the marketing claims were overly broad and insufficiently substantiated. Subsequent media reports highlighted that Adidas acknowledged it did not maintain a dedicated, standalone range exclusively comprising recycled running shoes; rather, certain dispersed products across broader collections merely incorporated recycled elements. While the company maintained that internal product documentation supported its claims, the lack of accessible public transparency left consumers in the dark regarding the true composition of their purchases. Critics argued that the brand capitalized on consumer demand for sustainable options without providing the rigorous, transparent assurances necessary to back up its advertising narrative.
Beyond materials, Adidas has established formal, science-based targets aimed at curbing greenhouse gas emissions across both its direct corporate operations and its sprawling supply chain. The brand regularly publishes progress reports indicating that it remains on track to meet these climate benchmarks. Transparency regarding emissions targets and verifiable progress reports is widely viewed as a vital pillar of corporate accountability.
Yet, glaring gaps remain. Despite repeated calls from environmental researchers and baseline evaluations from rating agencies, there is still no verifiable evidence demonstrating that Adidas enforces comprehensive policies to protect biodiversity within its raw material supply chain. Protecting ecosystems and halting habitat loss are core criteria in modern ethical methodologies, and the absence of such safeguards remains a notable blemish on the company’s environmental record.
Labour Conditions
Labour practices represent one of the most challenging frontiers for multinational sportswear brands, and Adidas currently sits at a disappointing “Not Good Enough” rating in this category. Because human beings form the foundational backbone of the global fashion industry, ethical rating systems place a heavy emphasis on tangible, verifiable actions that protect workers’ safety, dignity, and financial security. Merely auditing supplier factories is no longer considered sufficient; brands must actively champion fair wages and safe working conditions.
Adidas has initiated specific corporate projects aimed at improving wage structures within its supply chain and reportedly pays a living wage to some workers situated strictly in the final, assembly stages of production. Nevertheless, this localized progress falls drastically short of what is expected from a multi-billion-dollar global enterprise. In recent evaluations conducted by the Clean Clothes Campaign’s living wage monitoring project, known as Fashion Checker, Adidas emerged as one of the lower-scoring participants, much to the dismay of labour advocates.
Transparency further down the manufacturing pipeline remains limited. While the brand has published select details concerning suppliers involved in the second and final tiers of production, industry best practices dictate that companies should disclose suppliers much deeper into the supply chain. The earliest tiers—involving raw material processing and textile mills—are notoriously difficult to track, making deep disclosure essential for ensuring fair treatment.
Furthermore, research indicates that less than half of Adidas’ supplier facilities feature democratically elected trade unions or effective collective bargaining agreements. Given historical controversies surrounding the brand’s supply chain—such as high-profile instances of wage theft reported in Cambodia—prioritizing robust worker representation and fundamental rights should be an urgent corporate focus. On a positive note, Adidas does provide a confidential, third-party complaints mechanism, allowing workers within its supply network to report suspected modern slavery or severe grievances safely.
Animal Welfare
In the category of animal welfare, Adidas holds an “It’s a Start” rating, supported by a formal corporate animal welfare policy, though that policy falls short of full alignment with the internationally recognized Five Freedoms framework.
The brand has successfully phased out several controversial materials, including fur, exotic animal hair, and angora. A significant milestone occurred when Adidas officially halted the use of kangaroo leather in the manufacturing of its athletic footwear, a move widely praised by animal protection organizations. Despite these steps forward, the company continues to source down, wool, cashmere, and conventional leather. While some of these animal-derived materials incorporate recycled content or certified alternatives, the brand had not made public commitments to broadly certify its entire leather production pipeline at the time of the latest review.
At the same time, Adidas has proven that it is capable of taking decisive, positive action when pressured. The brand explicitly prohibits the sourcing of wool sourced from mulesed sheep—a deeply painful surgical practice common in the wool industry—and has formalized this commitment by signing the Four Paws Letter of Intent.
Overall Rating: “It’s a Start”
Adidas has demonstrated incremental progress across several sustainability metrics since its previous comprehensive review, yet the evidence clearly shows that the sportswear giant possesses the capacity to go much further.
Industry analysts emphasize the need for Adidas to fundamentally strengthen workers’ rights, increase deep-tier supply chain transparency, and eliminate factory-level abuses. In the realm of animal welfare, the brand must accelerate its transition toward certified or entirely animal-free alternatives, eradicating the cruelty historically linked to conventional leather and down sourcing. Having already successfully banned kangaroo leather and taken a firm ethical stance against mulesed wool, the company has proven it can execute meaningful reform when it chooses to do so.
For consumers, the “It’s a Start” designation serves as a nuanced signal. It indicates that while Adidas falls short of true sustainability leadership, the brand is engaging in some corrective actions. Consequently, consumers who already own Adidas apparel are encouraged to cherish and maintain their existing garments, as keeping clothes in circulation for as long as possible remains one of the single most impactful sustainability choices an individual can make.
Good On You ratings synthesize hundreds of complex data points, meaning summary overviews cannot capture every single operational nuance. For those wishing to align their purchasing decisions more closely with their personal values, ethical experts frequently recommend supporting independent brands that embrace circularity, transparency, and the slow fashion model.
Editor’s note: Feature image via Unsplash, all other images via brands mentioned. Good On You publishes comprehensive independent ratings of fashion brands regarding their impact on people, the planet, and animals.
