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 as one of the most recognizable activewear empires on the global stage, competing fiercely with industry titan Nike for market dominance. Yet, despite their immense scale, global influence, and multi-billion-dollar footprints, both corporate giants currently hold an "It’s a Start" rating from Good On You. This middling score highlights a growing consensus among sustainability watchdogs: neither brand is taking sufficient, comprehensive action on critical environmental and ethical issues relative to their vast resources.
To understand where the German sportswear pioneer truly stands today, it is necessary to examine the publicly available evidence concerning its environmental impact, labor rights record, and animal welfare policies. This assessment is drawn directly from the official Adidas brand rating published in January 2026, reflecting the corporate landscape up to that point. Because sustainability metrics are dynamic, Good On You’s ratings analysts continually re-evaluate thousands of brands featured in their public directory to track ongoing changes in corporate behavior.
Is Adidas Ethical?
The roots of Adidas stretch back to 1949 in Bavaria, Germany, where the company was established by Adolf Dassler. In a famous piece of industry history, Adolf’s brother, Rudolf Dassler, went on to found rival sportswear brand Puma. Over the decades, Adidas evolved from a modest shoe workshop into a powerhouse of global fashion and sport. Today, the brand is globally celebrated for its iconic three-stripe logo, timeless footwear lines like the Stan Smith sneaker, high-profile designer collaborations such as its long-standing partnership with Stella McCartney, and performance activewear worn by elite athletes and everyday fitness enthusiasts alike.
Despite this storied heritage and cultural ubiquity, independent expert reviews reveal a disconnect between the company’s marketing and its supply chain realities. When measured against Good On You’s comprehensive evaluation methodology, Adidas secures a middling "It’s a Start" rating. This grade indicates that while the company has implemented certain baseline policies, it is failing to adequately address deep-seated sustainability challenges throughout its sprawling global supply chain.
Interestingly, industry peers demonstrate that higher standards are entirely achievable for legacy brands of this magnitude. Puma, for instance, holds a "Good" rating in the most recent reviews, proving that companies sharing a similar historical background and market scale can successfully implement more robust ethical practices. While Adidas has managed to climb upward from a previous rating of "Not Good Enough," the lingering question remains: why has the brand plateaued at a baseline score, and what specific operational areas demand urgent reform?
Environmental Impact
In the realm of environmental stewardship, Adidas maintains an "It’s a Start" rating, a score that remains unchanged from previous evaluations. On the positive side of the ledger, the brand utilizes a medium proportion of lower-impact materials and publicly releases an aggregate breakdown of the various textiles integrated into its production cycles. However, given that synthetic fibers and complex chemical treatments form the bedrock of the activewear industry—which happens to be Adidas’s primary specialty—observers expect a much more aggressive transition away from virgin polyester toward a wider, more innovative array of sustainable alternatives.
The complexities surrounding the brand’s environmental claims were brought into sharp relief when a prominent advertising campaign promoting "recycled running shoes" was officially banned in the UK. The Advertising Standards Agency (ASA) intervened after determining that the promotional claims were excessively vague. According to reports from The Guardian, Adidas subsequently acknowledged that it did not actually maintain a dedicated, standalone range of recycled running shoes. Instead, the company clarified that certain products dispersed across broader collections might incorporate recycled elements.
While Adidas defended its marketing by pointing to internal product documentation meant to substantiate these claims, the lack of public transparency leaves everyday consumers in the dark about the precise composition of what they are purchasing. Critics argue that such practices allow major corporations to capitalize on consumer desire for lower-impact products without doing the necessary groundwork to provide clear, verifiable assurances to buyers.
Furthermore, a significant gap remains in the brand’s ecological policy framework. Despite thorough reviews of its publicly available corporate disclosures, there is still no evidence that Adidas has implemented concrete policies to safeguard biodiversity within its agricultural and manufacturing supply chains—a core benchmark within Good On You’s evaluation methodology.
On the climate front, however, Adidas shows stronger alignment with modern accountability standards. The company has established a formal science-based target aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions across both its direct corporate operations and its extended supply chain. Furthermore, the brand regularly publishes detailed progress reports and maintains that it remains on track to meet these climate goals. Transparently disclosing progress toward established environmental targets is an essential component of corporate accountability, offering a baseline of trust for consumers navigating the complex market of sustainable sportswear.
Labour Conditions
When evaluating labor rights and workplace safety, Adidas currently holds a "Not Good Enough" rating, signaling that the corporation lags behind on critical social issues within the fashion sector. Because human beings form the foundational backbone of the global textile industry, ethical watchdogs maintain that brands must take proactive, tangible actions to safeguard workers, moving well beyond superficial supplier auditing practices. High ratings are reserved for brands that guarantee fair wages, secure employment, and safe working conditions rather than simply monitoring compliance from a distance.
Adidas has initiated specialized projects intended to improve wage structures within its supply chain and currently pays a living wage to a portion of the workers employed during the final stage of manufacturing. Nevertheless, this localized progress falls drastically short of what is expected from a multinational enterprise of this scale. In the latest edition of the Clean Clothes Campaign’s living wage monitoring project, known as Fashion Checker, Adidas emerged as one of the lower-scoring brands, a result that underscores ongoing systemic shortcomings.
While the company has published partial details regarding its suppliers in the second and final stages of production, industry experts argue that true transparency requires mapping and disclosing facilities much deeper within the supply chain, particularly given that the primary stages of material extraction and processing are notoriously difficult to track. Additionally, independent research indicates that Adidas could significantly strengthen the rights of workers employed by its supplier network. Data shows that fewer than half of its supplier facilities feature democratically elected unions or effective collective bargaining agreements.
Given historical labor rights violations linked to the brand’s extended supply chain—such as notable instances of wage theft in Cambodia—ensuring robust protections for labor organizations ought to be a primary corporate focus. On a positive note, Adidas does provide a confidential, secure complaints mechanism enabling supply chain workers to report suspected instances of modern slavery or workplace abuse.
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 framework does not fully align with the internationally recognized Five Freedoms framework for animal protection.
The brand’s portfolio is entirely free of traditional animal fur, exotic animal hair, and angora wool. A notable milestone occurred when Adidas officially ceased the use of kangaroo leather in its sneaker lines, representing a progressive step forward in corporate material sourcing. Despite these exclusions, the brand continues to utilize down feathers, conventional wool, cashmere, and bovine leather, though some of these materials are sourced as recycled or certified alternatives to virgin animal products. Notably, however, at the time of the most recent rating review, the brand had not yet instituted public commitments requiring certification for all leather production, leaving room for further refinement in supply chain traceability.
At the same time, Adidas has proven that it is entirely capable of executing effective animal welfare policies when motivated. The company does not source wool from mulesed sheep—a cruel agricultural practice common in parts of the global wool trade—and has formalized this stance by making public commitments, including signing the Four Paws Letter of Intent rejecting mulesed wool.
Overall Rating and Market Alternatives
Adidas has demonstrated measurable, if incremental, progress since its previous corporate evaluation, yet analysts emphasize that the sportswear giant possesses the resources to go much further.
Observers would like to see Adidas dramatically strengthen workers’ rights, elevate transparency standards across all tiers of manufacturing, and provide deeper disclosures regarding supplier factories. In terms of animal welfare, the brand must ensure that all animal-derived materials are fully certified or recycled, while accelerating the transition toward cruelty-free, non-animal alternatives that eliminate the ethical concerns inherent to down and leather production. Because Adidas has previously shown the capacity to ban kangaroo leather and take a firm stand against mulesed wool, it is evident that the company has the operational capacity to enact positive change when it chooses to do so.
At the same time, experts note that an "It’s a Start" rating signals that a brand is indeed taking baseline steps toward sustainability. Consumers who already own Adidas apparel should not feel discouraged, nor should they discard usable garments. On the contrary, preserving and cherishing existing clothing items for as long as possible remains one of the most effective sustainability practices available to any individual.
For shoppers wishing to align their purchasing habits more closely with their ethical values, Good On You recommends supporting independent labels that embrace a slow fashion model. Several "Good" and "Great"-rated alternatives offer compelling options for conscious consumers seeking activewear and footwear.
Purusha People crafts organic, plant-based activewear featuring delicate aesthetic details designed to wick away sweat during physical practice. The brand’s collections are widely available in inclusive sizing ranging from XS to 4XL.
Happy Earth Apparel operates as a US-based organic clothing brand inspired by nature and dedicated to ecological preservation. Through strategic partnerships with environmental non-profit organizations and brand ambassadors, the company actively participates in tree-planting initiatives, climate action campaigns, and community clean-up efforts, with most items stocked in sizes XS to 3XL.
Flamingos’ Life produces animal-free sneakers designed for conscious consumers, utilizing lower-impact, PETA-approved vegan materials, including innovative upcycled textiles. The footwear range is available in EU sizes 36 through 46.
ID.EIGHT is an Italian footwear label founded by industry veterans Dong Seon Lee and Giuliana Borzillo. The brand creates refined, sustainable sneakers manufactured in Italy using innovative, lower-impact materials derived from food industry waste—including apple peels, grape stalks and seeds, and pineapple leaves—alongside recycled cotton and polyester. Their footwear collections are offered in EU sizes 36 through 46.
