New Balance
| Category | Score | % | Callout |
|---|---|---|---|
| Carbon & Emissions | 15 / 20 | 75% | ★ Standout |
| Nature, Biodiversity & Materials | 15 / 20 | 75% | ★ Standout |
| People & Supply Chain | 17 / 20 | 85% | ★ Standout |
| Business Ethos & Governance | 4 / 15 | 27% | ⚠ Gap |
| Transparency & Accountability | 5 / 10 | 50% | — |
| Footwear | 11 / 15 | 73% | — |
What New Balance does well
New Balance's evidence is unusually well independently checked rather than self-reported. Its Scope 1 and 2 emissions2 data now carries limited third-party assurance for the first time, and its SBTi-approved1 targets cover the full emissions picture, not just its own operations. Materials sourcing is heavily certified too - 93% preferred leather, 91% preferred cotton - alongside a genuinely multi-channel approach to keeping shoes in use for longer: a resale platform (Reconsidered, over 26,500 items resold in 2024), a dedicated Japanese repair service, and closed-loop rubber and EVA recycling.
Supply chain disclosure is a real strength: full supplier lists published on Open Supply Hub4, Fair Labor Association5 accreditation, and wage-gap data now collected from 38 factories covering over 90% of footwear volume.
Where the gaps are
New Balance has no B Corp3 certification - the kind of independent oversight that would put its commitments beyond the reach of a change in leadership. Its own "Made in USA" marketing has also drawn scrutiny for outpacing the FTC's own standard for an unqualified claim, a gap that weighs on how much its self-reporting can be trusted more broadly.
Verdict: A running shoe brand whose supply chain transparency and materials certification go further than most privately held companies choose to publish - but independent governance certification hasn't caught up yet.
See how New Balance 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.