Adidas
| Category | Score | % | Callout |
|---|---|---|---|
| Carbon & Emissions | 15 / 20 | 75% | ★ Standout |
| Nature, Biodiversity & Materials | 14 / 20 | 70% | — |
| People & Supply Chain | 11 / 20 | 55% | — |
| Business Ethos & Governance | 4 / 15 | 27% | ⚠ Gap |
| Transparency & Accountability | 0 / 10 | 0% | ⚠ Gap |
| Footwear | 6 / 15 | 40% | — |
What Adidas does well
Adidas's climate credentials are built on real external checking: SBTi-validated1 targets across its full emissions picture2, and multi-year, PwC-assured reporting. Its fair-wage disclosure is unusually candid for a company this size - a six-country, three-year wage-benchmarking programme that names its own shortfalls in Thailand and part of Vietnam rather than claiming success across the board. On animal welfare, adidas's kangaroo-leather10 phase-out, completed 1 January 2026, holds up against a stale product listing that initially looked contradictory.
Where the gaps are
A German court ruled, in March 2025, that adidas's "climate neutral by 2050" claim was misleading advertising, because it didn't explain how the target would be met beyond 2030 or whether offsets were involved. Adidas withdrew the specific wording but hasn't yet published what replaces it, and it's the weakest part of this assessment by some distance. Its supply chain picture is similarly mixed: a due-diligence gap over Xinjiang cotton exposure holds back what would otherwise be a stronger showing.
Verdict: A brand whose climate targets are independently validated but whose biggest public sustainability claim has already been found misleading in court - read the fine print before this one earns your trust.
See how Adidas compares. This profile is one of several assessments in our Sustainable Running Shoes Buying Guide, or browse the full Brand Directory to search and filter across every brand we've assessed.