As one of the absolute titans of the global activewear industry, Adidas commands immense cultural influence, economic power, and manufacturing scale. Alongside its fierce, long-standing competitor Nike, the German sportswear giant shapes the wardrobe of athletes, casual wearers, and trendsetters across every corner of the globe. Yet, with that immense footprint comes profound responsibility. According to the January 2026 evaluation by the trusted ethical fashion ratings platform Good On You, Adidas currently holds a middling “It’s a Start” rating. This score signals that while the brand is taking some notable steps in the right direction, it is still failing to take sufficient, comprehensive action on critical sustainability issues given its massive market power.
To understand where the brand stands today, it is necessary to examine the publicly available evidence concerning its environmental impact, labor rights record, and animal welfare policies. Based on the independent analysis published by Good On You in January 2026, the brand has certainly evolved over the years, but critical gaps remain that prevent it from achieving top-tier ethical status.
Is Adidas Ethical? A Look Back and Forward
The origins of Adidas trace back to 1949 in Bavaria, Germany, where it was founded by Adolf Dassler—the brother of Rudolf Dassler, who famously went on to found rival sportswear label Puma. Over the subsequent decades, Adidas burgeoned into a household name, defined by its iconic three-stripe logo, timeless Stan Smith sneakers, high-profile designer collaborations such as its enduring partnership with Stella McCartney, and high-performance activewear worn by world-class athletes.
Despite its storied history and global commercial dominance, the public evidence reviewed by ethical fashion experts indicates that Adidas is simply not doing enough across its extensive supply chain to address overarching sustainability challenges. Scoring a middling “It’s a Start” against rigorous rating methodologies, the brand leaves much to be desired when compared to industry peers of similar scale and heritage. For context, its chief rival, Puma, earned a higher “Good” rating in the most recent review cycle, demonstrating that brands of equivalent size can indeed achieve stronger performance across environmental and social metrics.
While Adidas has managed to climb out of the dreaded “Not Good Enough” tier in recent assessments, the stagnation at a baseline rating highlights a pressing need for accelerated reform. To fully understand why the brand continues to hover in middle-tier territory, it is helpful to break down its performance across the core pillars of environmental stewardship, labor rights, and animal welfare.
Environmental Impact: Progress Countered by Vague Claims
In the realm of environmental impact, Adidas maintains an “It’s a Start” rating, showing no movement from its previous evaluation. On one hand, the brand utilizes a medium proportion of lower-impact materials and publicly shares an aggregate breakdown of the materials it consumes. Given that activewear inherently relies heavily on synthetic fibers and chemical treatments—areas in which Adidas specializes—observers and consumers naturally expect the company to aggressively champion a wider array of lower-impact alternatives to conventional, virgin polyester.
However, the brand’s environmental messaging has recently faced severe regulatory scrutiny. Earlier in 2026, an advertisement promoting Adidas’s “recycled running shoes” was officially banned in the United Kingdom. The ruling came down from the Advertising Standards Agency (ASA), which determined that the promotional claims were excessively vague. According to reporting by The Guardian, Adidas subsequently confirmed that it did not, in fact, maintain a dedicated standalone recycled running shoe range. Instead, the company clarified that certain individual products scattered across its broader collections might incorporate recycled materials.
While Adidas defended its position by stating it held internal product documentation to substantiate these claims, the lack of public transparency raises fundamental questions for conscious consumers. When crucial evidence remains hidden behind corporate doors, shoppers are left unable to truly verify the ecological integrity of what they are purchasing. Consequently, critics argue that Adidas has occasionally capitalized on the market appeal of lower-impact materials without doing the necessary groundwork to provide clear, reliable assurances to the public.
Furthermore, glaring omissions persist within the brand’s ecological framework. Notably, there remains a complete absence of evidence showing that Adidas has enacted formal policies to protect biodiversity within its supply chain. Biodiversity preservation represents a cornerstone of modern sustainability methodologies, and the failure to address it—despite being flagged in prior evaluations—remains a significant shortcoming for a corporation of this magnitude.
On a more positive note, Adidas has successfully established science-based targets aimed at curbing greenhouse gas emissions across both its direct operations and its sprawling supply chain. The company routinely publishes detailed progress reports and maintains that it remains on track to meet these climate goals. Transparent disclosure of target tracking is a vital component of corporate accountability, offering a framework through which the brand can measure its ongoing carbon mitigation efforts.
Labor Conditions: Falling Short on Workers’ Rights
Labor conditions within the Adidas supply chain continue to receive a rating of “Not Good Enough,” indicating that the multinational corporation lags behind on critical social and human rights issues. Because people form the foundational backbone of the global fashion industry, ethical rating systems place heavy emphasis on tangible actions that actively protect and empower workers rather than relying solely on superficial supplier auditing processes.
Adidas has instituted localized projects intended to improve wages within its supply chain, and it does successfully pay a living wage to some workers stationed at the final stage of production. Yet, this progress is remarkably modest compared to what should reasonably be expected from a global leader with vast financial resources. In fact, Adidas emerged as one of the lowest-scoring corporations in the latest edition of the Clean Clothes Campaign’s living wage monitoring project, known as Fashion Checker—a deeply disappointing result for a brand of its stature.
While the company has published partial transparency details regarding suppliers operating in the second and final stages of production, industry best practices dictate that brands should disclose supply chain actors much deeper down the line. The primary stages of manufacturing are notoriously difficult to track, making deep supply chain transparency essential for ensuring fair treatment.
Compounding these transparency issues, independent research reveals that Adidas could significantly strengthen protections for workers employed by its supplier network. Data indicates that fewer than half of its 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—most notably historical wage theft incidents in Cambodia—securing and protecting workers’ rights should arguably be the corporation’s highest priority. On the positive side, Adidas does maintain a confidential grievance and complaints mechanism, enabling supply chain workers to report suspected modern slavery safely.
Animal Welfare: Selective Action Amid Ongoing Use
When it comes to animal welfare, Adidas holds an “It’s a Start” rating, backed by a formal animal welfare policy that nonetheless falls short of full alignment with the internationally recognized Five Freedoms framework.
The brand commendably avoids the use of fur, exotic animal hair, and angora. In a major progressive move in 2025, Adidas officially halted the use of kangaroo leather in the production of its sneakers, marking a notable victory for ethical wildlife advocacy. Despite these strides, the company continues to utilize down feathers, conventional wool, cashmere, and leather. While some of these animal-derived materials are sourced as recycled or certified alternatives, the brand had not, at the time of the latest rating review, established public commitments to certifying its broader leather production pipeline—a crucial step for ensuring traceable animal welfare standards.
At the same time, Adidas has proven that it is entirely capable of enacting decisive, effective changes when pressured. The brand strictly avoids sourcing wool from mulesed sheep and has formalized public commitments to this stance, including signing the Four Paws Letter of Intent rejecting mulesed wool entirely.
The Path Forward: Cherishing What You Own
Ultimately, Adidas retains an overall rating of “It’s a Start,” reflecting incremental progress since its previous evaluation while highlighting substantial room for improvement. Independent evaluators stress that the brand must bolster workers’ rights, increase supply chain transparency, and deepen accountability within its manufacturing facilities. In terms of animal welfare, Adidas is urged to ensure that all animal-derived inputs are either strictly certified or replaced entirely with cruelty-free, non-animal alternatives that eliminate the suffering inherent in traditional down and leather sourcing. Given its successful bans on kangaroo leather and mulesed wool, the brand has repeatedly demonstrated that it possesses the capacity to implement positive, humane transformations.
For consumers, holding a balanced perspective is essential. The “It’s a Start” designation signifies that Adidas is taking tangible steps, meaning that individuals who already own items from the brand should not feel discouraged. In fact, discarding functional garments contradicts the ethos of sustainability; keeping existing clothes in circulation for as long as possible remains one of the most effective ways to reduce environmental impact.
For shoppers seeking to align future purchases more closely with their personal values, ethical directories recommend embracing a slow fashion model and supporting brands that prioritize comprehensive sustainability. Alternative activewear and footwear labels such as Purusha People, Happy Earth Apparel, Flamingos’ Life, and ID.EIGHT offer consumers values-driven options that center organic materials, ethical labor practices, and cruelty-free production.
