How Do the Biggest Sneaker Brands Rate?

Puma has taken some steps in the right direction by using more responsible materials, including recycled materials. It also supports industry organisations that work to address the impacts of microplastics and has set a science-based target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions generated from its own operations and supply chain, which it is on track to meet. But the lack of diversity and inclusion policies, and more importantly, the lack of evidence the brand pays its workers a living wage in its entire supply chain and not just in the final production stage, is worrying.

See the rating.

Though Nike has a few promising environmental measures in place, it’s clear that the company should be doing more and needs to make serious changes in most areas.

For example, Nike claims to have a program to improve wages but there’s no evidence it ensures its workers are paid living wages in most of its supply chain. And while it’s set a science-based target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in both its direct operations and supply chain, we found no evidence it is on track.

See the rating.

Jordan is owned by Nike so it doesn’t come as a surprise that it’s also received an “It’s a Start” rating.

Like Nike, Jordan still has a long way to go to reduce its impact on people, the planet, and animals. In particular, it should incorporate more lower-impact materials in its designs and take actions to protect the biodiversity in its supply chain. And while it has a social auditing program certified by Fair Labor Association (FLA) and claims to have a program to improve wages, there’s no evidence Jordan ensures its workers are paid living wages in most of its supply chain.

See the rating.

While Converse has made a start in each category, it has a way to go before achieving a higher score. For such a profitable company, there really is no excuse not to implement a living wage or pay more attention to the treatment of animals in the supply chain.

See the rating.

Vans needs to strengthen its environmental practices by setting targets and using more lower-impact materials. It also needs to improve its labour conditions by implementing worker empowerment initiatives, but more importantly, by making sure workers are paid a living wage.

See the rating.

While Adidas has shown that it is making progress in terms of sustainability and labour rights, at the end of the day the brand is still very much a part of the fast fashion industry. Producing huge quantities of garments and shoes (most of which are not made from lower-impact materials) has disastrous effects not only on the environment, but also on workers who often have to work long hours for very little pay in order to reach production targets.

See the rating.

We rate ASICS “Not Good Enough” overall. The brand uses too few lower-impact materials and while it has set a greenhouse gas emissions reduction target, we found no evidence it’s on track to meet its target. There’s also no evidence it’s taking actions to minimise microplastic impacts or to protect biodiversity in its supply chain.

There’s no evidence that ASICS has programs or policies to empower women in its supply chain, which can lead to promotions and higher wages, that it supports diversity and inclusion in its supply chain. Like other big sportswear brands, the brand isn’t paying workers a living wage.

See the rating.

Overall, we rate New Balance “Not Good Enough”. While the brand has taken some steps towards improving its impact on people and the planet, it still has a long way to go, especially when it comes to using more responsible materials and ensuring living wages for workers in most of its supply chain.

See the rating.

We rate FILA “Not Good Enough”. The brand uses few lower-impact materials, and there’s no evidence it reduces its climate impacts, textile waste, and hazardous chemicals in manufacturing.

What’s really worrying is that none of FILA’s supply chain is certified by labour standards and that there is no evidence the brand ensures payment of a living wage in its supply chain. What’s more, FILA has been linked with sourcing cotton from the Xinjiang region in China at risk of using Uyghur forced labour and has taken insufficient steps to remediate.

See the rating.

Unfortunately, since the acquisition of Reebok by Authentic Brands Group in 2022 (from Adidas), a lack of transparency and action by the parent company and through the supply chain has left Reebok in a nosedive to the bottom with a final overall score of “We Avoid”. The most worrying part is Reebok’s lack of transparency when it comes to its labour practices and efforts to protect the people in its supply chain. Unless Authentic Brands Group takes some major steps for people, the planet, and animals in the near future, we can’t see Reebok’s score improving any time soon.

See the rating.