Asics
| Category | Score | % | Callout |
|---|---|---|---|
| Carbon & Emissions | 15 / 20 | 75% | ★ Standout |
| Nature, Biodiversity & Materials | 12 / 20 | 60% | — |
| People & Supply Chain | 7 / 20 | 35% | ⚠ Gap |
| Business Ethos & Governance | 3 / 15 | 20% | ⚠ Gap |
| Transparency & Accountability | 8 / 10 | 80% | ★ Standout |
| Footwear | 8 / 15 | 53% | — |
What Asics does well
Asics' Sustainability Report names its own negative trends rather than smoothing them over - a declining Scope 3 emissions2 reduction rate, a missed disability-employment target - and its voluntarily published tax policy, including country-by-country data across 37 jurisdictions, exceeds Japan's own disclosure requirements. Its climate targets stand up too: a 63% absolute reduction target validated by the Science Based Targets initiative1 and Deloitte Tohmatsu assurance over the 2025 Scope 1 & 2 total. Kangaroo leather10 use ended on 1 January 2026.
Where the gaps are
Supply chain disclosure is where the picture weakens: the most recent public factory list Ethical Endurance could locate is from 2020, no living wage commitment referencing a recognised benchmark exists, and Asics' Modern Slavery Statement still doesn't state a position on sourcing from regions under state-imposed forced-labour findings, five years after a 2021 episode in which a regional office said the opposite before being disavowed by headquarters.
Verdict: A brand that will tell you honestly when a climate target has slipped, but hasn't yet closed the gap between its transparency ambitions and its supply chain disclosure.
See how Asics 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.