Global athletic footwear and apparel company founded in 1958 and acquired by Adidas in 2005.
| adidas AG
owns 100% of Reebok
This company appeared sixth on RepRisk's top ten "most environmentally and socially controversial companies of 2012". Companies on the list were severely criticised during 2012 by the world's media, governments and NGOs. Criticisms of Reebok include workers rights abuse in Asia, a fraud scandal in India, tax evasion, and river pollution in China. [Listed under Information due to age of report]
Source: RepRisk (2013)
In 2011 Reebok's EasyTone line was caught out for false advertising and fined US$25 million by the Federal Trade Commission in the USA. Reebok claimed that the "sole technology featuring pockets of moving air creates 'micro instability' that tones and strengthens muscles as you walk or run".
Source: news article (2011)
This 2011 investigative report into the Ocean Sky Apparel Factory in El Salvador reveals how workers are: paid well below living wage, illegally forced to work overtime, given unsafe drinking water, fired for attempting to unionise, and cursed at and humiliated. Their customers include Reebok, Puma, Columbia and GAP. (Listed under information due to age of report)
Source: Institute for Global Labour & Human Rights (2011)
This company received a score of 70.2/100 (retrieved 10-Oct-2020) in the Corporate Information Transparency Index (CITI), a system for evaluating supply chain practices in China, particularly in regards to environmental management and water pollution. Scores are calculated using government compliance data, online monitoring data, and third-party environmental audits, as well as trends in the environmental performance of factories in the company's supply chains.
Source: IPE (2020)
The 2019 Corporate Human Rights Benchmark assessed 200 of the largest publicly traded companies in the world from the Agricultural Products, Apparel, Extractives and ICT Manufacturing sectors on 100 human rights indicators. This company's score was in the 80-90 band range. The overall average score was a disappointing 24%.
Source: CHRB (2019)
A grade in the Baptist World Aid Australia's 'Ethical Fashion Report 2019', which grades companies, from A to F, on the strength of their systems to mitigate against the risks of forced labour, child labour and worker exploitation in their supply chains, as well as protect the environment from the harmful impacts of the fashion industry. Assessment criteria fall into five main categories: policies, transparency and traceability, auditing and supplier relationships, worker empowerment and environmental management.
Source: Baptist World Aid Australia (2019)
In 2018 KnowTheChain benchmarked 120 large global companies in the ICT, Food & Beverage, and Apparel & Footwear sectors on their efforts to address forced labour and human trafficking in their supply chains. This company received a score of 92/100.
Source: KnowTheChain (2018)
The 2020 Fashion Transparency Index reviewed 250 of the world's largest fashion brands and retailers and ranked them according to how much they disclose about their social and environmental policies, practices and impacts. Brands owned by this company scored 69%, signifying that it is publishing detailed supplier lists and the vast majority of policies, procedures and future goals. The average score was 23% and the highest score was 73%.
Source: Fashion Revolution (2020)
This company received a score of 79.6/100 in the Newsweek Green Ranking 2017, which ranks the world's largest publicly traded companies on eight indicators covering energy, greenhouse gases, water, waste, fines and penalties, linking executive pay to sustainability targets, board-level committee oversight of environmental issues and third-party audits. Ranking methodology by Corporate Knights and HIP Investor.
Source: Newsweek (2017)
This company received an S&P Global ESG Score of 82/100 in the Textiles, Apparel & Luxury Goods category of the S&P Global Corporate Sustainability Assessment, an annual evaluation of companies' sustainability practices (last updated 7 Feb 2021). The rankings are based on an analysis of corporate economic, environmental and social performance, assessing issues such as corporate governance, risk management, environmental reporting, climate strategy, human rights and labour practices.
Source: S&P Global (2021)
In 2020, the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) asked companies to provide data about their efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and mitigate climate change risk. Responding companies are scored across four key areas: disclosure; awareness; management; and leadership. This company received a CDP Climate Change Score of B.
Source: CDP (2020)
This company has signed the Cotton Pledge with the Responsible Sourcing Network, signifying a public commitment to not knowingly source Uzbek cotton for the manufacturing of any of their products until the Government of Uzbekistan ends the practice of forced labor in its cotton sector. The Uzbek government uses local government officials, hospital directors, and school presidents to mobilize workers; and detains and tortures human rights defenders seeking to monitor the harvests. This company has also signed the Turkmenistan Cotton Pledge, where systemic use of forced labour in cotton production also occurs.
Source: As You Sow (2019)
This company has signed the 'Accord on Fire and Building Safety in Bangladesh', a program endorsed by Bangladeshi and international unions and labor rights organizations. The ground-breaking program includes independent safety inspections with public reports, mandatory factory building renovations, the obligation by brands and retailers to underwrite the cost of repairs, and a vital role for workers and their unions all in a legally-binding, enforceable agreement.
Source: Bangladesh Accord (2018)
In 2016 Rank a Brand assessed 37 major cotton-using companies on their commitment and performance with regard to sustainable cotton by looking at each company's cotton sourcing policies, use of sustainable cotton, and traceability. This company scored 7.75/19.5, making it one of the one of best performing companies.
Source: Rank a Brand (2016)
In 2020, the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) asked companies to provide data about their efforts to manage and govern freshwater resources. Responding companies are scored on six key metrics: transparency; governance & strategy; measuring & monitoring; risk assessment; targets & goals; and value chain engagement. This company received a CDP Water Security Score of B.
Source: CDP (2020)
In 2020 Baptist World Aid Australia released The COVID Fashion Report, a special edition of their Ethical Fashion Report. The report is framed around six COVID Fashion Commitments that ask companies to demonstrate the steps and measures they are taking to protect and support the most vulnerable workers in their supply chains. This company showed evidence of actions that cover ALL areas of the COVID Fashion Commitments.
Source: Baptist World Aid Australia (2020)
The 2021 Global 100 Most Sustainable Corporations in the World list is an extensive data-driven corporate sustainability assessment. The ranked companies are leaders in the field of a sustainable business approach. The efficiency of a company's energy, water, CO2 and waste management is measured in relation to its total sales volume. The disclosure of that information is a pre-condition for the assessment. Of the 19 companies in its peer group, this company ranked #1.
Source: Corporate Knights (2021)
The Apparel and Footwear Supply Chain Transparency Pledge (Transparency Pledge) helps demonstrate apparel and footwear companies' commitment towards greater transparency in their manufacturing supply chain. Transparency of a company's manufacturing supply chain better enables a company to collaborate with civil society in identifying, assessing, and avoiding actual or potential adverse human rights impacts. This is a critical step that strengthens a company's human rights due diligence. This company is fully aligned with the Transparency Pledge, thereby committing to regularly publish on its website a list naming all sites that manufacture its products.
Source: Transparency Pledge (2019)
This company sourced at least 90% of their cotton as Better Cotton in 2018. The Better Cotton Initiative, a voluntary program which encourages the adoption of better management practices in cotton cultivation to achieve measurable reductions in key environmental impacts, while improving social and economic benefits for cotton farmers, small and large, worldwide.
Source: Better Cotton Initiative (2018)
The Chinese government has facilitated the mass transfer of Uyghur and other ethnic minority citizens from the far west region of Xinjiang to factories across the country. Under conditions that strongly suggest forced labour, Uyghurs are working in factories that are in the supply chains of at least 83 well-known global brands in the technology, clothing and automotive sectors, including brands owned by this company. The Australian Strategic Policy Institute's 2020 report estimates (somewhat conservatively) that more than 80,000 Uyghurs were transferred out of Xinjiang to work in factories across China between 2017 and 2019, and some of them were sent directly from detention camps.
Source: ASPI (2020)
While conditions for garment workers in Cambodia have improved since 2014, rights violations are still rampant in the garment industry and the country as a whole. Despite this Nike, Adidas, H&M, Gap Inc, and other international brands continue to rely on Cambodia for the manufacture of a significant portion of their products.
Source: ASEAN (2019)
The Clean Clothes Campaign report, Tailored Wages 2019 analyses responses from 32 top clothing brands about their progress in implementing a living wage for the workers who produce their clothes. This company received the lowest possible grade in the report, meaning they produced no evidence that any worker making their clothes was paid a living wage anywhere in the world.
Source: Clean Clothes Campaign (2019)
The Forest 500 identifies, ranks, and tracks the governments, companies and financial institutions worldwide that together could virtually eradicate tropical deforestation. Rankings are based on their public policies and commitments and potential impacts on tropical forests in the context of forest risk commodities (palm oil, soy, beef, leather, timber and paper). This company received a score of 24%.
Source: Forest 500 (2020)
According to Greenpeace's 2013 report "Toxic Threads: a story of big brands and water pollution in Indonesia", this company had a business relationship in the recent past with PT Gistex Group, the company responsible for discharging a wide range of hazardous substances directly into the Citarum River in Indonesia.
Source: Greenpeace (2013)
This 2011 report by the International Textile Garment and Leather Workers' Federation (ITGLWF) examined working conditions in 83 factories in Indonesia, Sri Lanka and the Philippines. Investigations found that widespread violations and abuses of workers' rights continue to be the norm, such as underpaying workers, long hours, forced overtime, and repression of the freedom of association. This company's brands were found to be made in one or more of the 83 factories covered in the research. [Listed under Information due to age of report]
Source: ITGLWF (2011)
New research (2010) into soccer ball stitching for sports giants Adidas, Umbro, and Nike has found alarming reports of illegally low pay, child labour, and temporary contracts leaving workers vulnerable. [Listed under Information due to age of report]
Source: Labour Behind the Label (2010)
Playfair 2012, a coalition of trade unions and campaigning organisations, says this company is not doing enough to: ensure all workers are paid a living wage; allow workers to bargain collectively; eliminate short term contracts; and build long-term relationships with supplier factories. [Listed under Information due to age of report]
Source: Playfair 2012 (2012)
A 2012 investigation by The Independent reveals workers at nine Indonesian factories contracted to produce Olympic shoes and clothing for Adidas are working up to 65-hour weeks and earning as little as 53 cents an hour. None of the nine factories pays its employees a living wage. [Listed under Information due to age of report]
Source: The Independent (2012)
This 2012 report by War on Want presents a detailed picture of the conditions faced by workers in Bangladesh, mostly women, who produce the sportswear sold by leading brands Adidas, Nike and Puma. Abuses include paying workers below the legal minimum wage in Bangladesh, excessive hours, sexual harassment and beatings. On average workers were paid just 16p an hour, with two thirds of the workers working over 60 hours a week, in clear breach of Bangladeshi law. [Listed under Information due to age of report]
Source: War on Want (2012)
This 2014 report by the Workers Rights Consortium investigates workers' rights violations at Yue Yuen, the manufacturing arm of the largest producer of branded athletic shoes in the world, and supplier to many major footwear brands, including brands owned by this company. Violations include illegal underpayment, unpaid overtime, restricting freedom to organise, and failure to provide valid employment contracts. [Listed under Information due to age of report]
Source: Workers Rights Consortium (2014)
Adidas is working with Parley to turn ocean plastic pollution into sportswear such as Ultraboost running shoes and football jerseys. Adidas has committed to creating 1 million pairs of Ultraboost shoes by the end of 2017.
Source: company website (2016)
In 2011, a group of major apparel and footwear brands and retailers, including this company, made a shared commitment to help lead the industry towards zero discharge of hazardous chemicals by 2020. It includes specific commitments and timelines to realize this shared goal.
Source: ZDHC (2019)
Greenpeace launched its "Detox My Fashion" campaign in 2011 to expose the direct links between global clothing brands, their suppliers and toxic water pollution around the world. As a result, many companies, including this one, committed to Greenpeace's Detox Program. The 2016 Detox Catwalk report focused on implementation, assessing the steps taken by fashion brands to fulfil their commitments using three criteria: Detox 2020 plan, PFC elimination and Transparency. This company is "committed to Detox and has made progress implementing its plans, but its actions need to evolve faster to achieve the 2020 Detox goal".
Source: Greenpeace (2016)
Identified in 'The Big Chill: Too Scared to Speak' report which identified Chinese Olympic Sponsors response to Darfur crisis in Sudan. Received a B+ for writing the UN and allowing those letters to be made public, among other actions.
Source: Dream for Dafur (2008)
When joining the Fair Labor Association (FLA) this company committed to promoting and complying with international labor standards throughout their supply chain. The FLA does not accredit the company itself; rather, they accredit the company's labor compliance program. Being granted accreditation implies that their workplace standards program is substantially in compliance with the FLA Code.
Source: Fair Labor Association (2016)
This company has taken angora items off the shelves and promised not to use angora again, following a PETA campaign launched in Dec 2013 which revealed the cruelty inflicted on angora rabbits in Chinese factory farms, where 90% of the world's angora is produced.
Source: PETA (2018)
Adidas fully discloses its global factory lists and publishes detailed information including name and location of suppliers by country about its primary suppliers, subcontractors and licensees.
Source: company website (2018)
This company is a partner of I:Collect (aka I:CO), a global collection network to keep discarded clothing and shoes out of landfills. Customers deposit used textiles into recycling dropoff boxes at this company's stores, and I:CO arranges their environmentally-friendly removal, sorting and reuse.
Source: I:Collect (2014)
This company is a member of the Better Cotton Initiative, a voluntary initiative which encourages the adoption of better management practices in cotton cultivation to achieve measurable reductions in key environmental impacts, while improving social and economic benefits for cotton farmers, small and large, worldwide.
Source: Better Cotton Initiative (2019)
The bluesign Standard sets "best practices" for the use of chemicals and resources - including water and energy - in the textile industry. Textile manufacturers who are bluesign system partners agree to establish management systems to improve environmental performance in five key areas of the production process: resource productivity, consumer safety, water emissions, air emissions, and occupational health and safety. They regularly report their progress, are subject to on-site audits, and must meet improvement goals to maintain their status.
Source: bluesign (2021)
This company is a participant of Make Fashion Circular, a multi-stakeholder platform run by the Ellen MacArthur Foundation, which drives collaboration between industry leaders and other key stakeholders to create a textiles economy fit for the 21st century. Its ambition is to ensure clothes are made from safe and renewable materials, new business models increase their use, and old clothes are turned into new. This new textiles economy would benefit business, society, and the environment.
Source: Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2019)
This company is a member of the Leather Working Group, a multi-stakeholder group who's objective is to develop and maintain a protocol that assesses the compliance and environmental performance of tanners and promotes sustainable and appropriate environmental business practices within the leather industry.
Source: Leather Working Group (2019)
This company is a member of the Textile Exchange, a global non-profit that works closely with its members to drive textile industry transformation in preferred fibres, integrity and standards and responsible supply networks. They identify and share best practices regarding farming, materials, processing, traceability and product end-of-life in order to reduce the textile industry's impact on the world's water, soil and air, and the human population.
Source: Textile Exchange (2019)
This company is a signatory to the Fashion Industry Charter for Climate Action, a United Nations initiative which contains the vision to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050.
Source: UNFCCC (2020)
The Material Change Index (MCI) is a voluntary benchmark that tracks the apparel and textiles sector's progress toward more sustainable materials sourcing (cotton, polyester, nylon, manmade cellulosics, wool, down and leather), as well as alignment with global efforts like the Sustainable Development Goals and the transition to a circular economy. This company was rated "Maturing", the second highest performance band.
Source: Textile Exchange (2019)
California, the UK and Australia have all enacted legislation requiring companies operating within their borders to disclose their efforts to eradicate modern slavery from their operations and supply chains. Follow the link to see this company's disclosure statement.
Source: Modern Slavery Registry (2016)
This 2010 investigative report by China Labour Watch reveals that conditions in factories supplying Adidas improved considerably in 2009. In one factory 26 out of the 28 issues CLW pointed out in 2008 saw improvement. The remaining issues are illegally long working hours and the problem of worker suicides. CLW says that while these improvements are satisfactory, it must be noted that the problems had existed for more than ten years. It is also noted that working conditions in factories not under NGO or media scrutiny are likely to still be poor.
Source: China Labor Watch (2010)
Adidas was the target of a long running boycott call from animal rights campaigners Viva! for its use of kangaroo skin to make some types of football boots. However in September 2012 Adidas announced it would phase out the use of kangaroo leather by 98% over the following 12 months.
Source: Viva (2012)
Call to boycott by BDS due to involvement in Israel. [This assessment has not been used in calculation of ratings].
Source: BDS (2012)
This company is listed on the Facing Finance website as a company that manufactures weapons or profits from violations of human rights, pollution, corruption, or international law. Follow link for further details.
Source: Facing Finance (2014)
|Address||Canton, Massachusetts, USA|