Editors’ 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 world’s biggest activewear giants, holding a dominant position alongside its primary competitor, Nike. Yet, according to comprehensive evaluations by ethical fashion platform Good On You, both corporate heavyweights currently sit at a middling “It’s a Start” rating. This designation signals that despite their immense global power, influence, and financial resources, neither company is taking sufficient, aggressive action on the critical sustainability and ethical challenges defining the modern textile industry.
To understand why a titan like Adidas has failed to secure a higher tier, it is necessary to examine the publicly available evidence across its environmental footprint, labor rights record, and animal welfare policies. This assessment is drawn directly from the official Adidas rating published in January 2026, meaning it may not reflect subsequent corporate announcements or claims made by the brand since that review. As thousands of brands are continuously reassessed by analysts on the Good On You directory, evaluating historical benchmarks provides crucial clarity on how corporate giants measure up against their ethical obligations.
Is Adidas Ethical?
The origins of Adidas trace back to 1949 in Bavaria, Germany, where the brand was established by Adolf Dassler—the brother of Rudolf Dassler, who founded rival athletic brand Puma. Over the decades, Adidas evolved from a regional footwear workshop into one of the most recognizable sportswear powerhouses on earth, second only to Nike. Today, the brand is globally famous for its iconic three-stripe logo, timeless footwear staples 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 casual consumers alike.
Despite this storied heritage and cultural ubiquity, independent expert reviews reveal that Adidas is falling short of addressing the systemic sustainability issues embedded within its massive, global supply chain. Scoring a middling “It’s a Start” under the Good On You methodology places Adidas behind key competitors. Notably, rival brand Puma holds a “Good” rating in the most recent reviews, demonstrating that companies of a similar scale and historical background can successfully implement more robust ethical practices.
While Adidas has shown marginal improvement, climbing up from a previous “Not Good Enough” score in earlier evaluations, it still has a long way to go. A deeper look at individual impact areas highlights precisely where the activewear giant must overhaul its operations to meet contemporary ethical standards.
Environmental Impact
In the realm of environmental stewardship, Adidas maintains an “It’s a Start” rating, showing no significant upward shift since the platform’s previous evaluation. While the brand utilizes a medium proportion of lower-impact materials and transparently publishes an aggregate breakdown of the total materials it consumes, its product portfolio remains heavily reliant on synthetic fabrics and chemical treatments. Given that high-performance activewear is the brand’s primary specialty, industry observers expect a much wider, aggressive adoption of genuinely lower-impact alternatives to conventional virgin polyester to combat the well-documented ecological crisis driven by plastic-based textiles.
The company’s marketing practices have also drawn intense regulatory scrutiny. Earlier in 2026, an advertising campaign by Adidas promoting a line of “recycled running shoes” was officially banned in the United Kingdom by the Advertising Standards Agency. The regulatory body determined that the brand’s broad claims were overly vague and lacked sufficient substantiation. Reports from major media outlets revealed that Adidas ultimately confirmed it did not actually possess a dedicated, standalone recycled running shoe collection; rather, certain products dispersed across its broader collections simply incorporated recycled elements.
Although Adidas insisted it maintained internal product documentation to verify such claims, the lack of public transparency left consumers in the dark. By leaning heavily into eco-friendly marketing without providing accessible, verifiable proof to back up its advertising, the brand capitalized on consumer demand for lower-impact goods without doing the rigorous foundational work required to build genuine trust.
On the climate front, Adidas has established a science-based target aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions across both its direct corporate operations and its sprawling supply chain. The company routinely publishes progress reports indicating that it remains on track to meet these goals. Such public disclosure of progress is a vital component of corporate transparency and accountability. However, a glaring omission remains: there is still no evidence indicating that Adidas has established formal policies to protect biodiversity within its supply chain. This biodiversity metric remains a core pillar of the Good On You rating methodology, and the persistent lack of policy safeguards is a shortcoming that analysts have flagged repeatedly.
Labour Conditions
Labor practices represent one of the most troubled areas for the sportswear giant, with Adidas continuing to hold a “Not Good Enough” rating in this category. Because people form the beating heart of the global fashion industry, ethical rating frameworks demand that brands take concrete, measurable actions to protect workers rather than relying solely on superficial supplier audits. The methodology heavily rewards companies that guarantee fair wages and safe working environments.
While Adidas has initiated pilot projects aimed at improving wages within its supply chain—and currently pays a living wage to a select group of workers involved in the final stage of garment production—this progress falls woefully short of what should be expected from a multinational corporation of its size. In fact, Adidas emerged as one of the lowest-scoring participants in the latest iteration of the Clean Clothes Campaign’s living wage monitoring project, known as Fashion Checker, delivering a discouraging result for labor advocates.
Transparency further down the production line remains limited. Although Adidas has published some details regarding its suppliers in the second and final stages of production, industry best practice requires full disclosure of facilities deep within the supply chain, particularly given that the primary agricultural and raw material stages are notoriously difficult to monitor for labor abuses. Furthermore, independent research indicates that the brand could significantly strengthen worker empowerment; records show that less than half of its supplier facilities feature democratically elected unions or effective collective bargaining agreements.
Given past labor rights violations linked to its supply chain—such as wage theft incidents reported in Cambodia—prioritizing workers’ rights is an urgent necessity. On a positive note, Adidas does provide a confidential complaints mechanism allowing supply chain workers to report suspected instances of modern slavery, offering at least one functional channel for grievance reporting.
Animal Welfare
Adidas fares slightly better in animal welfare, maintaining an “It’s a Start” rating backed by a formal corporate animal welfare policy, though that policy falls short of full alignment with the internationally recognized Five Freedoms framework.
The brand avoids the use of fur, exotic animal hair, and angora wool. In a notable step forward, Adidas officially phased out the use of kangaroo leather in its sneaker lines, eliminating a controversial material that had drawn heavy criticism from conservationists and animal rights groups. Nevertheless, the company continues to utilize conventional down feathers, wool, cashmere, and bovine leather, although some of these materials are sourced as recycled or certified alternatives. At the time of the most recent rating review, however, the brand had yet to implement public commitments requiring comprehensive certification for its leather production—a crucial next step for elevating its animal welfare standards.
The brand’s history proves it is fully capable of enacting meaningful changes when pressured. Adidas has successfully committed to avoiding wool sourced from mulesed sheep, formalizing this stance by signing the Four Paws Letter of Intent. This demonstrates that the corporate machinery can pivot toward ethical sourcing when leadership chooses to act.
Overall Rating and Moving Forward
Ultimately, Adidas retains an “It’s a Start” rating because it has demonstrated incremental progress across several fronts since its last review, yet it consistently stops short of systemic transformation. Analysts emphasize the need for Adidas to drastically strengthen workers’ rights, increase transparency surrounding its deeper supply chain factories, and ensure that all animal-derived materials are either certified or replaced entirely with cruelty-free alternatives.
For consumers who already own items from the brand, experts emphasize that there is no need for guilt or immediate disposal. In fact, keeping existing garments in rotation for as long as possible remains one of the single most sustainable actions an individual can take. While Adidas has the capacity to implement positive reforms—as evidenced by its bans on kangaroo leather and mulesed wool—its current pace of change does not match its immense market influence.
Shoppers seeking to align their purchases with their values are encouraged by ethical organizations to look toward brands embracing a slow fashion model or alternatives explicitly rated as "Good" or "Great" within the activewear and footwear sectors.
