Sustainable Sports Nutrition Buying Guide (2026)
Sports nutrition has a long way to go to improve sustainability. This guide identifies which brands are moving in the right direction. Every brand is scored against a published framework, using evidence that's independently verifiable. So you can buy with confidence, not just good intentions.
Some links in this guide may be affiliate links. If you click through and make a purchase, Ethical Endurance may earn a small commission at no extra cost to you which helps us to maintain this platform. This does not influence our scores or editorial judgements. Brands cannot pay to appear in this guide or to improve their rating.
Why sustainable sports nutrition matters
Once the preserve of professional sportspeople, everyday athletes are increasingly consuming tailored sports nutrition products as they chase down new PBs. A single athlete competing in an Ironman can use up to twenty gels. A 200km gravel ride might burn through a dozen sachets. Attend any race or event, and you'll see a tide of discarded packets which litter the side of the course. Across a year of training and racing, the typical endurance athlete will tear open hundreds of single-use foil-lined wrappers and discard them, almost all of which end up in landfill or incineration. The products that fuel our sport are, materially, the most disposable products we own.
The problem runs deeper than packaging. The carbohydrates inside are usually maltodextrin and fructose, often derived from intensively farmed corn and sugar cane with the land use, water, and pesticide burdens that come with monoculture agriculture. Caffeine, cocoa, palm-derived ingredients, and almonds carry significant deforestation and biodiversity risks. The industry's sustainability disclosures lag well behind sports apparel, cycling kit, or even mainstream snack food. "Natural ingredients" gets used a lot. "Carbon footprint per gel" almost never does.
A sector behind the curve
The headline finding from this guide is that no nutrition brand assessed cleared the threshold for the "Developing" band. All nine sit in "Listed" (below 40 out of 100). This is not because the brands assessed here are doing nothing. TORQ holds long-standing organic certification. TRIBE is a B Corp with a substantively evidenced anti-trafficking foundation. Rawvelo has verified 1% for the Planet membership. Veloforte writes more honestly about its own packaging limitations than most. But the category as a whole lags behind sports apparel in the maturity of its sustainability reporting infrastructure.
Three reasons stand out. First, sports nutrition lacks the industry-wide disclosure scaffolding that exists in apparel: no equivalent of the Higg Index, no Sustainable Apparel Coalition, no Open Supply Hub of factory listings. Second, multi-layer foil sachets are a genuinely difficult packaging problem. The moisture and oxygen barriers that keep gels stable for use during racing are difficult to reconcile with current recyclable alternatives. Third, the sector culture is dominated by a performance-first mindset: sustainability is too often treated as a side project rather than a core operating discipline, and that shows in the public reporting.
Not a single brand in this guide currently holds a Science Based Targets initiative-validated emissions reduction target. No brand exceeds a score of 50% in any single category. This is information about where the sports nutrition sector is, not a reason to give up on it. But buying decisions in nutrition today are about choosing carefully between Listed-band options rather than identifying a clear sector leader.
The most sustainable nutrition is often the food in your kitchen
Before anything else: a banana, a flapjack, a jam sandwich and a bottle of squash will fuel most training sessions perfectly well, at a fraction of the financial and environmental cost of a single-use sports nutrition product. Whole-food fuelling has worked for endurance athletes for over a century and continues to work today. The technical advantages of formulated sports nutrition - a precise carbohydrate dose, banned-substance assurance for competitive athletes, no chewing required at high intensity - are real, but they are not always necessary.
For race day, hard interval sessions, and ultra-distance fuelling where carbohydrate density and timing matter, manufactured nutrition has a place. When that place arrives, the brand you choose matters. This guide assesses nine of the most-recognised endurance nutrition brands in the UK.
The nine brands assessed here were selected for their visibility within the UK endurance nutrition market, their use by competitive triathletes, runners, and cyclists, and their public sustainability claims (or absence of them). We recognise that other brands belong in this conversation. We intend to expand this guide as resource allows.
At a glance
Swipe or scroll to browse all nine brands. Click a card to jump to the full assessment.
TORQ
TRIBE
Rawvelo
Science in Sport
Veloforte
HIGH5
Maurten
Precision Fuel & Hydration
OTE Sports
Scroll to browse all nine brands — tap any card to jump to the full assessment.
The brands
Brands are ordered by overall score, highest to lowest. Each brand has been assessed against the Ethical Endurance Framework. If a brand hasn't published data or responded to a request for information on a topic, it scores zero. Not because we assume the worst, but because unverifiable claims are indistinguishable from marketing.
TORQ Listed
Maximum achievable under Small Brand Protocol: 90/100. See methodology section for explanation.
| Category | Score | % | Callout |
|---|---|---|---|
| Carbon & Emissions | 2 / 20 | 10% | ⚠ Gap |
| Nature, Biodiversity & Materials | 7 / 16 | 44% | — |
| People & Supply Chain | 3 / 20 | 15% | ⚠ Gap |
| Business Ethos & Governance | 2 / 15 | 13% | ⚠ Gap |
| Transparency & Accountability | 3 / 10 | 30% | ⚠ Gap |
| Nutrition Category | 8 / 19 | 42% | — |
TORQ is the highest scorer in this guide and the only nutrition brand to score above 40% in any single category. The brand has held Soil Association1 organic certification on its Energy Bars, Energy Chews, and Explore Flapjacks since the early 2000s - an unusually long-standing organic commitment for a performance nutrition company. Fairly traded fruit has been used in the TORQ Bar since its 2003 launch. TORQ Tested products are tested for prohibited substances at LGC, the WADA-accredited laboratory2 that powers the Informed Sport programme3. Manufacturing takes place at the brand's own facility in Welshpool, Powys, with under ten employees and over 25 years of operating history.
The framework gaps are real but largely structural. There is no published carbon data of any kind, no supplier code of conduct, no living wage commitment, no B Corp4 certification, and no formalised charitable giving. The Ethics & Sustainability page is substantive but not a structured report with a stated reporting year. TORQ is assessed under the Small Brand Protocol, which recognises that the formal reporting infrastructure expected of larger brands is disproportionate at this scale.
Verdict: The strongest combination of organic ingredient certification and independent banned-substance testing in this guide. The right choice for athletes who prioritise certified organic ingredients and are willing to accept incomplete environmental reporting from a genuine micro-business.
TRIBE Listed
Maximum achievable under Small Brand Protocol: 90/100. See methodology section for explanation.
| Category | Score | % | Callout |
|---|---|---|---|
| Carbon & Emissions | 1 / 20 | 5% | ⚠ Gap |
| Nature, Biodiversity & Materials | 6 / 16 | 38% | — |
| People & Supply Chain | 5 / 20 | 25% | ⚠ Gap |
| Business Ethos & Governance | 6 / 15 | 40% | — |
| Transparency & Accountability | 3 / 10 | 30% | ⚠ Gap |
| Nutrition Category | 3 / 19 | 16% | ⚠ Gap |
TRIBE is the only B Corp4 in this guide, certified in May 2025 with a verified score of 80.3 - above the certification threshold and well above the 50.9 median for businesses completing the assessment. The brand was founded in 2015 to fund the TRIBE Freedom Foundation, a registered charity that has raised £2.4m+ supporting 862+ survivors of modern slavery since 2013. All TRIBE products are manufactured by UK contract producers across four sites: Leicester, Chester, Rochdale, and Corwen. The TRIBE x Wildfarmed flapjack range uses 100% regeneratively farmed oats with farm-level traceability and published environmental claims covering soil health, biodiversity, and lower carbon.
The category-level evidence is unusually thin given the strength of the brand's mission. No published carbon data, no supplier code of conduct, no Tier 1 supplier list, no Real Living Wage commitment, no Informed Sport3 certification, no organic certification, and no published palm oil policy. The B Corp Workers and Supply Chain Management sub-scores are strong, suggesting internal practice considerably exceeds public evidence. The 2019–2020 compostable packaging programme - a UK first in nutrition - has been quietly deprecated without public explanation.
Verdict: The strongest mission-driven brand in this guide, with B Corp verification and a uniquely well-evidenced anti-trafficking foundation. The right choice for athletes who want their bar money to fund a cause and accept that environmental disclosure is incomplete. Less right for competitive athletes who require Informed Sport certification.
Rawvelo Listed
Maximum achievable under Small Brand Protocol: 90/100. See methodology section for explanation.
| Category | Score | % | Callout |
|---|---|---|---|
| Carbon & Emissions | 2 / 20 | 10% | ⚠ Gap |
| Nature, Biodiversity & Materials | 4 / 16 | 25% | ⚠ Gap |
| People & Supply Chain | 4 / 20 | 20% | ⚠ Gap |
| Business Ethos & Governance | 5 / 15 | 33% | — |
| Transparency & Accountability | 3 / 10 | 30% | ⚠ Gap |
| Nutrition Category | 6 / 19 | 32% | — |
Rawvelo has been a verified member of 1% for the Planet9 since the brand's founding in 2017 - an independently verified percentage-of-revenue commitment to environmental causes that no other nutrition brand in this guide matches. Named recipient organisations include The Bike Project, the National Forest Foundation, and Spitalfields City Farm. The brand's bar and gel ranges use organic-certified ingredients, and a dedicated environmental page covers organic sourcing, packaging, and 1% for the Planet activity with dated journal posts. Packaging is described as fully recyclable as of 2022, with a First Mile FREEPOST scheme for gel wrappers and event recycling bins at partner events. Co-founder Jason Evans has framed UK production as a deliberate choice to reduce transport emissions, and the brand has been an active supporter of the Protect Our Winters climate advocacy campaign.
The picture below the headline is more uneven. No published carbon measurement, no supplier code of conduct, and no third-party labour certifications. The hydration mixes contain non-organic primary inputs (cane sugar, glucose), in tension with the broader "100% organic" positioning. The certifying body for the organic claims has not been confirmed in published materials. No B Corp4. No Informed Sport3 certification.
Verdict: The most credible verified charitable giving commitment in this guide, paired with substantive packaging and ingredient disclosure for a small UK brand. The right choice for athletes who want their nutrition spend to support environmental causes. The organic-certification ambiguity on hydration mixes is worth noting before committing.
Science in Sport Listed
| Category | Score | % | Callout |
|---|---|---|---|
| Carbon & Emissions | 0 / 20 | 0% | ⚠ Gap |
| Nature, Biodiversity & Materials | 0 / 16 | 0% | ⚠ Gap |
| People & Supply Chain | 7 / 20 | 35% | — |
| Business Ethos & Governance | 2 / 15 | 13% | ⚠ Gap |
| Transparency & Accountability | 2 / 10 | 20% | ⚠ Gap |
| Nutrition Category | 6 / 19 | 32% | — |
Until June 2025, Science in Sport was an AIM-listed public limited company5, and that listing required it to publish more environmental data than any other brand in this guide. Three years of carbon data covering direct and energy-related emissions had been reported to UK Streamlined Energy and Carbon Reporting6 standard, and the brand held a "Carbon Neutral Business" designation via Carbon Neutral Britain offsets from 2021 onwards. Real Living Wage Foundation accreditation8 covers the directly-employed workforce. Full-range Informed Sport3 certification across both SiS and PhD product lines is one of the most comprehensive banned-substance programmes in the sector, and is what the consumer-facing brand currently leads with editorially.
A note on “carbon neutral” claims
Carbon offsetting standards are not all equal, and carbon offsetting itself is not a silver bullet to climate impacts. Gold Standard and Verra VCS are currently recognised as the most credible schemes in the voluntary carbon market space, although they each have their own criticisms. The wider expert position has shifted further: every credible framework, from the Science Based Targets initiative to the Oxford Principles, now requires emissions reduction before offsetting, and from 2026 the EU bans generic “climate-neutral” product claims based on offsets alone. A “carbon neutral” badge is increasingly a starting point for questions, not an answer to them.
The historical evidence is the issue. Following the June 2025 acquisition by private equity firm bd-capital and removal from AIM, the corporate domain (sisplc.com) is no longer publicly accessible, and no 2025 ESG Report has appeared in the eleven months since. The current consumer site (scienceinsport.com) carries no environmental content of any kind: no carbon data, no sustainability page, no acknowledgement of the previous reporting programme. The mandatory disclosure obligations that drove the brand's relative transparency went with the AIM listing, and at present the published evidence base looks closer to the cohort average than to where the AIM-era reporting placed it. The score reflects that.
Verdict: Comprehensive Informed Sport certification across the full range and a Real Living Wage commitment, attached to a sustainability disclosure programme that has effectively gone dark since the bd-capital acquisition. Defensible for competitive athletes who prioritise banned-substance assurance. A clear example of what happens when an ESG programme is built on listing obligations rather than embedded conviction.
Veloforte Listed
Maximum achievable under Small Brand Protocol: 90/100. See methodology section for explanation.
| Category | Score | % | Callout |
|---|---|---|---|
| Carbon & Emissions | 0 / 20 | 0% | ⚠ Gap |
| Nature, Biodiversity & Materials | 1 / 16 | 6% | ⚠ Gap |
| People & Supply Chain | 4 / 20 | 20% | ⚠ Gap |
| Business Ethos & Governance | 2 / 15 | 13% | ⚠ Gap |
| Transparency & Accountability | 3 / 10 | 30% | ⚠ Gap |
| Nutrition Category | 5 / 19 | 26% | ⚠ Gap |
Veloforte's strongest evidence sits in two specific areas. The Sustainability page is unusually honest about its own limitations: outer packaging, bars, chews, CollagenPro, and Overnight Oats wrappers are compatible with domestic or supermarket recycling schemes; a FREEPOST take-back scheme captures hard-to-recycle formats; a dated 2027 commitment to full recyclability sits alongside candid explanation of why compostable alternatives have not yet worked. The willingness to publish the limitations of those alternatives in plain language is more valuable than the packaging changes themselves. The product proposition - real food ingredients (fruit, nuts, honey, spices), no maltodextrin, no synthetic sweeteners - is independently tested via Informed Sport3 certification across all energy gels.
Beyond those two areas, the evidence base is thin. No published carbon measurement, no biodiversity policy, no organic ingredient certification, no Supplier Code of Conduct, no Real Living Wage commitment, no B Corp4, and no formalised charitable giving programme. UK manufacturing is positioned as a quality and heritage choice, not a carbon decision. For a 16-person founder-led nutrition business, the gap between current practice and meaningful disclosure is small - several criteria could move on a single web-page update.
Verdict: The most honest packaging communication in this guide and a credible anti-synthetic ingredient proposition with Informed Sport certification on gels. The right choice for athletes who want real-food fuelling from a small UK brand and are comfortable with a narrow but defensible evidence base.
HIGH5 Listed
| Category | Score | % | Callout |
|---|---|---|---|
| Carbon & Emissions | 0 / 20 | 0% | ⚠ Gap |
| Nature, Biodiversity & Materials | 1 / 16 | 6% | ⚠ Gap |
| People & Supply Chain | 2 / 20 | 10% | ⚠ Gap |
| Business Ethos & Governance | 1 / 15 | 7% | ⚠ Gap |
| Transparency & Accountability | 3 / 10 | 30% | ⚠ Gap |
| Nutrition Category | 5 / 19 | 26% | ⚠ Gap |
HIGH5's strongest evidence sits in two specific places. The packaging recycling programme has genuine infrastructure behind it: pre-paid return envelopes included with online gel orders, collection bins at 24 named UK endurance event partners (including Outlaw Triathlon, RideLondon, and Etape Loch Ness), and a named recycling partner processing collected wrappers into new products. A reusable gel flask and refill pouch system is also offered. The Sustainability page is commendably honest that single-use sachets are not widely recyclable through traditional UK infrastructure. Banned-substance certification is comprehensive: the Brighton manufacturing site holds Informed Manufacturer certification, and a dedicated Batch Tested product section offers individually Informed Sport3 certified products.
The complications begin with ownership. HIGH5 was acquired in 2017 by ABF Grain Products Limited, a subsidiary of Associated British Foods plc - the £15.6bn conglomerate that also owns Primark, Twinings, and a substantial sugar business. Ethical Consumer's 2026 assessment gave ABF its worst rating for likely tax avoidance based on documented subsidiaries in Mauritius, the Netherlands, and Ireland. ActionAid's 2013 report alleged approximately $27m in avoided taxes via Zambia Sugar. ABF group reports group-level emissions but provides no disaggregated data for HIGH5 or AB Sports Nutrition. No B Corp4, no Real Living Wage commitment at brand or division level, and no published Supplier Code of Conduct.
Verdict: Substantive packaging recycling infrastructure and full Informed Manufacturer banned-substance coverage, attached to a parent group with documented tax-avoidance concerns. The right choice for athletes whose binding criteria are practical packaging recycling and competition-grade banned-substance assurance, who are willing to accept the parent-company complications.
Maurten Listed
| Category | Score | % | Callout |
|---|---|---|---|
| Carbon & Emissions | 0 / 20 | 0% | ⚠ Gap |
| Nature, Biodiversity & Materials | 0 / 16 | 0% | ⚠ Gap |
| People & Supply Chain | 2 / 20 | 10% | ⚠ Gap |
| Business Ethos & Governance | 1 / 15 | 7% | ⚠ Gap |
| Transparency & Accountability | 2 / 10 | 20% | ⚠ Gap |
| Nutrition Category | 4 / 19 | 21% | ⚠ Gap |
Maurten is a brand that is pushing the technological capabilities of modern carbohydrate gels through the Hydrogel Technology that allows athletes to consume larger carbohydrate doses with reduced gastrointestinal distress. It is the official nutrition partner of Ironman events and the Boston Marathon, and is used by household athlete names like Eliud Kipchoge. The product holds full-range Informed Sport3 certification. The country of manufacture (Denmark) is disclosed.
Beyond those facts, there is almost no published evidence to assess against the framework. There is no published sustainability page on maurten.com or maurten.no as of April 2026. No quantified emissions data of any scope, no reduction target, no annual sustainability report, and no carbon neutral commitment. No biodiversity policy, no organic certification, and no published palm oil position. The brand FAQ explicitly confirms that gel sachets are not recyclable, but there is no packaging policy, no recyclability target, and no take-back programme. No published Supplier Code of Conduct, no factory-level disclosure, no living wage commitment, no B Corp4. For a 124-employee Swedish company that has raised over $23m in venture funding, this is a striking gap between commercial scale and disclosure. The score of 9/100 reflects the absence of published evidence rather than evidence of absence.
Verdict: A category-defining product attached to almost no published sustainability evidence. For competitive athletes, full Informed Sport coverage and the underlying product science are the substantive positives. For everything else, there is currently insufficient information to assess.
Precision Fuel & Hydration Listed
| Category | Score | % | Callout |
|---|---|---|---|
| Carbon & Emissions | 0 / 20 | 0% | ⚠ Gap |
| Nature, Biodiversity & Materials | 0 / 16 | 0% | ⚠ Gap |
| People & Supply Chain | 3 / 20 | 15% | ⚠ Gap |
| Business Ethos & Governance | 2 / 15 | 13% | ⚠ Gap |
| Transparency & Accountability | 1 / 10 | 10% | ⚠ Gap |
| Nutrition Category | 2 / 19 | 11% | ⚠ Gap |
Precision Fuel & Hydration is one of the most scientifically credible brands in endurance nutrition, founded by athletes who built a business around their own physiology. Banned-substance assurance is genuinely comprehensive: a large range of products carries Informed Sport3 certification, US tablets are made at an NSF Certified for Sport-audited facility, and PF Chew products are batch tested at LGC. The brand is independently owned, founder-led, with no external investors and no parent company, which provides a meaningful baseline of mission alignment. The ingredient proposition (vegan, gluten-free, no artificial ingredients) is consistent across the range.
However, sustainability disclosure does not exist in any meaningful form. There are no environmental, sustainability, or impact pages on the website. No carbon measurement of any kind, no supply chain emissions data, no reduction target. No biodiversity or ingredient sourcing policy, no organic certification, and no published palm oil position. No packaging policy, recyclability target, or take-back programme. No Supplier Code of Conduct, no Tier 1 supplier list, no living wage commitment. No B Corp4, no 1% for the Planet9, no formalised charitable giving.
Verdict: Best-in-category sports science communication and consistent banned-substance certification, attached to a complete absence of published sustainability content. Defensible on product quality and competition-grade safety. Not defensible on sustainability grounds in any evidenced way.
OTE Sports Listed
Maximum achievable under Small Brand Protocol: 90/100. See methodology section for explanation.
| Category | Score | % | Callout |
|---|---|---|---|
| Carbon & Emissions | 0 / 20 | 0% | ⚠ Gap |
| Nature, Biodiversity & Materials | 0 / 16 | 0% | ⚠ Gap |
| People & Supply Chain | 3 / 20 | 15% | ⚠ Gap |
| Business Ethos & Governance | 1 / 15 | 7% | ⚠ Gap |
| Transparency & Accountability | 1 / 10 | 10% | ⚠ Gap |
| Nutrition Category | 2 / 19 | 11% | ⚠ Gap |
OTE Sports is a Leeds-based micro-business founded in 2012, holding the Official Nutrition Partnership of British Triathlon through Paris 2024 and beyond, and supplying the Brownlee Brothers, Beth Potter, Georgia Taylor-Brown, and India Lee. The Leeds manufacturing facility holds BRC Global Standards for Food Safety certification and operates a quality management system based on ISO 9001. Some OTE products (Energy Gels, Caffeine Gels, Duo Bars, Whey Protein Recovery, Hydro Tabs) are Informed Sport3 certified, with manufacturing facilities Informed Sport accredited and tested at LGC. Products are described as naturally flavoured with real fruit juice concentrates and no artificial sweeteners.
Beyond those facts, the published evidence base is nearly empty. No quantified emissions data, no reduction target, no sustainability or impact report. The brand is not listed on the SBTi10 Companies Database. A third-party retailer page references an OTE aim to reduce carbon footprint, but this is retailer-generated copy not traceable to any OTE-published position. No biodiversity policy, no organic certification, no published palm oil statement, no PFAS11 policy on food-contact packaging. No published packaging sustainability policy, recyclability target, or take-back programme. No Supplier Code of Conduct, no Tier 1 supplier list, no living wage commitment. No B Corp4, no 1% for the Planet9. The score of 7/100 is the lowest in this guide and reflects the near-total absence of published sustainability evidence at any level.
Verdict: Genuine UK micro-business credentials with substantive elite sport partnerships and partial Informed Sport coverage, but a near-total absence of published sustainability evidence on which to assess broader practice.
What to look for if buying outside this list
This section is for any nutrition brand not covered here. You can read our guide on How to Choose Ethical Sports Brands, but five questions worth asking before you spend.
1. Where is the carbon data?
Not a "commitment to lowering our footprint" or a "carbon neutral" badge, but actual emissions figures with a stated methodology and a reporting year. The Greenhouse Gas Protocol12 is the international standard - if the brand cannot tell you whether its measurement covers Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions, the answer is generally that it has not measured. "Carbon neutral" via offsets sits below SBTi10-validated reduction targets in credibility, especially when the offsetting partner is not Gold Standard or Verra7 certified.
2. Is the Informed Sport claim specific?
Banned-substance certification works at three levels: facility-level (Informed Manufacturer3), per-batch certification of individual products (Informed Sport), and no certification at all. "Manufactured in an Informed Sport facility" is not the same as "this product is individually Informed Sport certified". For competitive athletes racing under WADA2 rules, per-batch certification is the meaningful standard. Check the Informed Sport database, not the brand's own claims.
3. What does the brand say about its packaging?
Multi-layer foil sachets are genuinely difficult to recycle - the moisture barrier requirements are difficult to reconcile with current alternatives. A brand that is serious about packaging acknowledges this constraint, names the materials in use, and either runs a take-back scheme (TerraCycle, FREEPOST, or partnered event collection) or names a dated commitment to alternatives. A brand that calls its sachets "recyclable" without explaining how, or that is silent on the question, is telling you something.
4. Is the ingredient sourcing specific?
"Natural ingredients" is a marketing phrase, not a sourcing standard. Soil Association1, USDA Organic, or Fairtrade13 certifications are the certified standards. For specific ingredients - cocoa, almonds, palm derivatives, honey - look for Rainforest Alliance, RSPO, or named regenerative-agriculture partnerships rather than general claims. A brand that publishes its ingredient origins is doing more work than one that does not.
5. What does the brand say it cannot yet do?
The most revealing question of all. Brands with genuine sustainability programmes acknowledge gaps, missed targets, and areas where the evidence does not yet exist. Read the sustainability page and notice the tense: is it all aspirational future language, or does it include specific data, honest shortfalls, and named areas for improvement? If a brand's environmental messaging contains no acknowledgement of limitation, treat every other claim accordingly.
How we assess brands
Every brand in this guide has been assessed under the Ethical Endurance Framework v1.5, scoring brands out of 100 across six weighted categories: Carbon & Emissions, Nature, Biodiversity & Materials, People & Supply Chain, Business Ethos & Governance, Transparency & Accountability, and a Nutrition-specific module covering organic certification, Informed Sport coverage, packaging, ethical ingredient sourcing, and palm oil policy.
Scores are built from evidence gathering across brand websites, regulatory databases, third-party certifications, press and media, and direct enquiries. If no evidence is provided on a topic, a brand will achieve a score of zero. This is not a judgment - it is the only way to compare brands fairly and maintain the independence of the platform.
Before scoring, every brand passes a baseline assessment covering labour standards, environmental compliance, business conduct, and product safety. A brand failing any baseline criterion would not appear in this guide.
Brands rated Progressive score 60–79. Developing covers 40–59. Listed covers brands that pass the ethical baseline but have limited published evidence, scoring below 40. No brand in this guide reached Pioneering (80–100), Progressive, or Developing bands - all nine sit in Listed.
For very small brands (fewer than 50 employees and under £5m turnover), the Small Brand Protocol applies: four reporting sub-criteria are designated Not Applicable at Current Scale, reflecting the same proportionality principles used by the Science Based Targets initiative10 and B Corp4 for micro-businesses. Scores are still reported out of 100, with the maximum achievable figure noted clearly alongside the overall score. In this guide, TORQ, TRIBE, Rawvelo, Veloforte, and OTE are all assessed under the Small Brand Protocol.
An important note: this guide is research-led, not review-led. We have not physically tested these products, formulations, or banned-substance claims. We are assessing published evidence about how brands operate - not how their products perform on a ride or a run.
- Soil Association: The UK’s leading organic certification body. Soil Association certification covers organic farming standards, traceability, and limits on synthetic pesticides, fertilisers, and additives.
- WADA / LGC: The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) maintains the prohibited substances list used in competitive sport. LGC is a WADA-accredited ISO 17025 sports laboratory that operates the Informed Sport testing programme used across endurance nutrition.
- Informed Sport: An independent quality assurance programme for sports nutrition, owned and operated by LGC. Informed Sport certifies that products are tested for banned substances on every batch. Informed Manufacturer is a related facility-level certification covering process controls.
- B Corp certification: An independent certification awarded by the non-profit B Lab to companies that meet high verified standards of social and environmental performance, accountability, and transparency. The pass threshold is 80 points; the average score for ordinary businesses is around 51.
- AIM: The Alternative Investment Market is the London Stock Exchange’s market for smaller, growing companies. AIM-listed companies are subject to mandatory annual reporting requirements including governance and (since 2019) Streamlined Energy and Carbon Reporting disclosures.
- SECR: Streamlined Energy and Carbon Reporting is the UK regulatory framework requiring large companies and listed companies to disclose energy use and direct (Scope 1) and energy-related (Scope 2) emissions in their annual reports.
- Gold Standard / Verra: The two leading independent certification standards for carbon offset projects. Both are recognised as the credible floor in the voluntary carbon market, though credit quality varies significantly at the project and methodology level and both schemes have faced criticism. Lower-tier offset programmes (such as Carbon Neutral Britain) do not meet this standard.
- Real Living Wage Foundation: An independently calculated wage rate based on the actual cost of living in the UK, higher than the statutory National Living Wage. Accredited employers commit to paying all directly-employed staff (and on-site contractors) at or above the Real Living Wage.
- 1% for the Planet: A global organisation whose members commit to donating 1% of annual revenue to vetted environmental non-profit organisations. Membership is independently verified.
- Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi): An international body that independently validates company emissions reduction targets to ensure they are aligned with limiting global warming to 1.5°C. SBTi validation is considered the gold standard for corporate climate commitments.
- PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances): A class of synthetic chemicals that do not break down in the environment or the human body. In sports nutrition, the PFAS question relates to food-contact packaging materials.
- GHG Protocol: The Greenhouse Gas Protocol is the internationally recognised standard framework for measuring and reporting greenhouse gas emissions. Scope 1 covers direct emissions from company-owned sources. Scope 2 covers indirect emissions from purchased energy. Scope 3 covers all other indirect emissions, including those from a company’s supply chain — typically the largest share for nutrition brands.
- Fairtrade: An independent certification verifying that producers in developing countries receive a guaranteed minimum price plus a Fairtrade Premium reinvested in community projects, alongside compliance with social and environmental standards.
