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 tall as one of the undisputed titans of the global activewear industry, sharing its massive market dominance alongside its primary competitor, Nike. Despite their immense global footprints, immense economic power, and considerable cultural influence, both corporate giants currently hold an identical "It’s a Start" rating from Good On You. This middling score signals a growing consensus among sustainability watchdogs that neither enterprise is moving fast enough or taking sufficient action to address the profound environmental and social crises plaguing the modern fashion sector.
To understand where the German sportswear multinational truly stands, it is necessary to examine the publicly available evidence across three critical pillars: environmental impact, labor rights, and animal welfare. This assessment is rooted in the official Adidas brand rating published in January 2026, meaning it may not reflect subsequent marketing claims or policy changes rolled out by the company since that time. As ratings analysts continuously review thousands of international brands, the baseline metrics provide a clear window into corporate accountability.
Is Adidas Ethical?
The origins of Adidas stretch back to 1949 in the Bavarian town of Herzogenaurach, Germany, where the company was established by Adolf Dassler—the brother of Rudolf Dassler, who famously went on to found rival sportswear brand Puma. Over the decades, Adidas evolved from a modest shoe workshop into a powerhouse of international sports culture. Today, the brand is universally recognized for its iconic three-stripe logo, legendary Stan Smith sneakers, long-running collaborative collections with high-fashion designer Stella McCartney, and high-performance activewear worn by elite athletes and casual consumers alike across every corner of the globe.
Yet, public evidence reviewed by industry experts reveals that the corporate giant is falling short of modern expectations when it comes to managing systemic sustainability issues throughout its vast, complex supply chain. Earning a middling "It’s a Start" designation under Good On You’s evaluation methodology places Adidas in a curious position relative to its peers. For instance, its historic rival Puma secures a "Good" rating in the most recent reviews, proving conclusively that companies of a comparable scale, heritage, and market exposure are fully capable of achieving stronger sustainability performance.
While Adidas has managed to claw its way upward from previous ratings of "Not Good Enough," analysts emphasize that the brand still has a long way to go. A closer look at individual performance areas highlights precisely where the sportswear manufacturer continues to lag behind—and where it desperately needs to accelerate its reform efforts.
Environmental Impact
When evaluated for its ecological footprint, Adidas maintains an "It’s a Start" rating, showing no movement from previous assessments. While the brand utilizes a medium proportion of lower-impact materials and publishes an aggregate breakdown of the raw inputs it consumes, its ongoing reliance on conventional synthetics tells a more complicated story. Given that activewear specialization inherently relies on synthetic fibers and chemical treatments, industry watchdogs expect market leaders to aggressively pioneer and scale up a much wider array of alternative materials to combat the environmental degradation associated with virgin polyester and other petroleum-based textiles.
The scrutiny surrounding the brand’s material claims intensified when a prominent advertisement promoting "recycled running shoes" was officially banned in the UK by the Advertising Standards Agency. Regulators determined that the campaign’s marketing language was overly vague and potentially misleading to consumers. Reports revealed that Adidas ultimately acknowledged it did not maintain a dedicated, standalone range exclusively comprised of recycled running shoes; rather, certain dispersed products across broader collections merely incorporated recycled elements.
While the company asserted that internal product documentation verified these claims, the lack of publicly accessible transparency leaves everyday shoppers guessing about the true environmental attributes of what they are purchasing. Critics argue that Adidas has repeatedly capitalized on the consumer demand for lower-impact goods without doing the rigorous, transparent work required to provide absolute consumer assurance.
Furthermore, a significant blind spot persists within the brand’s environmental governance. There remains an absence of concrete evidence demonstrating that Adidas has implemented robust policies to protect biodiversity within its agricultural and manufacturing supply chains—a core component of comprehensive sustainability methodologies. On a more positive note, the brand has successfully established science-based targets aimed at curbing greenhouse gas emissions across both its direct operations and upstream supply chain, publicly reporting on its incremental progress and claiming to remain on track. This disclosure represents a vital step toward transparency and corporate accountability, even as broader ecological challenges remain unaddressed.
Labour Conditions
Worker rights and social equity within the Adidas supply chain continue to earn a rating of "Not Good Enough," illustrating a troubling lag behind crucial industry benchmarks. Because human beings form the lifeblood of the global fashion economy, ethical consumer advocates insist that brands must implement tangible, enforceable protections for workers rather than relying exclusively on routine supplier audits. Comprehensive methodologies heavily reward corporations that guarantee fair, safe working environments over those that simply check administrative compliance boxes.
Although Adidas has initiated internal projects intended to improve wages within specific tiers of its supply chain, enabling a living wage for some workers involved in the final stages of production falls woefully short of what is expected from a trillion-dollar global enterprise. Disappointingly, the brand emerged among the lowest-scoring organizations in the latest iteration of the Clean Clothes Campaign’s living wage monitoring project, known as Fashion Checker.
Transparency regarding supply chain mapping remains similarly incomplete. While Adidas has published limited details regarding suppliers operating in the second and final stages of garment and footwear assembly, it fails to disclose comprehensive data concerning deeper tiers—such as raw material processing and textile mills—where labor abuses are frequently harder to track and rectify. Compounding these concerns, research indicates that fewer than half of the brand’s tracked suppliers feature democratically elected labor unions or functioning collective bargaining agreements. Given historical labor violations tied to the brand’s production network, such as severe wage theft incidents documented in Cambodia, safeguarding worker rights and freedom of association should command top corporate priority. The company does maintain a confidential grievance mechanism enabling supply chain workers to report suspected modern slavery, but systemic labor reforms remain incomplete.
Animal Welfare
In the realm of animal welfare, Adidas holds an "It’s a Start" rating, backed by a formal corporate animal welfare policy that nonetheless falls short of full alignment with the internationally recognized Five Freedoms. On the positive side of the ledger, the brand completely avoids the use of traditional fur, exotic animal hair, and angora. A major milestone was reached when Adidas formally halted the utilization of kangaroo leather in its sneaker lines, a move praised by ethical fashion advocates.
Despite these progressive phase-outs, the company continues to source down feathers, conventional wool, cashmere, and bovine leather, though some components incorporate recycled or certified alternatives. At the time of the most recent evaluation cycle, the brand had yet to establish public commitments ensuring comprehensive certification for its general leather sourcing, representing an obvious area for future improvement.
At the same time, Adidas has proven its capacity to execute meaningful animal welfare policies when pressured. The brand successfully avoids sourcing wool harvested through the cruel practice of mulesing, having formalized its stance by signing a Letter of Intent with animal protection organization Four Paws to permanently ban mulesed wool from its supply lines.
Overall Rating: “It’s a Start”
Adidas has unquestionably demonstrated marginal progress across several operational vectors since its previous evaluation, yet the underlying trajectory proves it is fully capable of going much further. Industry analysts emphasize the urgent need for Adidas to drastically strengthen labor protections, increase transparency regarding deep-tier factory disclosures, and elevate the ethical standards governing animal-derived and synthetic materials alike. By proving its ability to enact decisive bans on kangaroo leather and mulesed wool, the corporation has shown it possesses the institutional mechanisms necessary to drive ethical change.
For consumers who already own products from the brand, experts emphasize that there is no need to discard them prematurely. Keeping existing garments in circulation for as long as possible remains one of the single most impactful sustainability actions an individual can take. While Good On You ratings synthesize hundreds of complex data points into a single tier, an "It’s a Start" grade serves as an indicator that a brand is engaging with baseline accountability—even as conscious shoppers are encouraged to seek out slower, more values-aligned alternatives across the activewear and footwear landscapes.
