Saucony
| Category | Score | % | Callout |
|---|---|---|---|
| Carbon & Emissions | 4 / 20 | 20% | ⚠ Gap |
| Nature, Biodiversity & Materials | 3 / 20 | 15% | ⚠ Gap |
| People & Supply Chain | 7 / 20 | 35% | — |
| Business Ethos & Governance | 2 / 15 | 13% | ⚠ Gap |
| Transparency & Accountability | 5 / 10 | 50% | — |
| Footwear | 5 / 15 | 33% | — |
What Saucony does well
Where Wolverine World Wide (Saucony's parent) does report, it is honest about the gaps: Saucony's own shoebox packaging sits at 80% recycled content against a 100% group target, stated plainly rather than rounded up. Leather across the portfolio is Leather Working Group7-certified.
Where the gaps are
The biggest problem is environmental: Wolverine World Wide is still actively remediating PFAS8 contamination at a former Michigan tannery, under a 2020 federal consent decree with construction confirmed ongoing as of May 2025, and that unresolved liability weighs heavily on Saucony's materials record. Its climate reporting is a genuine first step rather than a finished picture - a first-year, unassured emissions baseline with no reduction target and no genuine offset; Wolverine's renewable-energy-certificate purchase doesn't amount to a real plan for the emissions it can't yet cut. No repair, resale or take-back scheme exists for Saucony specifically, even though the same parent company runs one for its Chaco brand, and no explicit kangaroo-leather10-free statement was found.
Verdict: A shoe with little to actively criticise but almost nothing published to verify - the ethics story here belongs to Saucony's parent, and it hasn't been told at brand level yet.
See how Saucony 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.